Rain said: If you really want to test strikers and rank them should probably just give all the teams in the league including your own the exact same attributes besides the player you are testing. That way you will have consistent data and confirm your player is always playing in the same circumstances. Expand HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
The reason for the discrepancy between HarvestGreen's data and the rankings in reality, is that he's testing against opposition that is either all 10 or 20. If I put an ST with 12 jump reach in a league where every player has 1 jump reach, guess how many aerial attempts he's going to win. But each Premier League team in reality has players with at least ~15 jump reach.
Nonetheless I'm currently plugging in HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 data into FMST26 as weights to see how it fares compared to the weights I ended up with so far, because the more accurate the starting set of weights, the less likely we get a set of weights that 'functions' properly most of the time but isn't actually using the right weights that will get us to near 100% accuracy. One problem that appears with HarvestGreen's weights is that Maeda and Furuhashi are underrated.
What I'm doing at the moment is using HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 & 6 > 18 data as a baseline, then changing just the minimum of what needs to be changed to make things line up.
One example of a radical change, and what I think is going on:
In my weightings attempt before this, I found stamina ~90 (a bit higher than acc/pace) is necessary. HarvestGreen says stamina 10 > 18 is 21.6% of acc 10 > 18. I'm saying it's ~110%.
From my own testing, I know the following is ideal: 20 acc/pace 13 sta | 18 acc/pace 14 sta | 14 acc/pace 15 sta. Something like that anyway, you get the picture. So we see sta is 1/3 of acc, or it's higher at 1 to 1 or a bit more.
Acc & Pace are 2 attributes it's conserving, so sta @ 1/3 acc is actually 2/3 of acc or pace alone. So we know it's in a range of ~67%-200%. Hence I think why something like 110% sta weighting of acc works and HarvestGreen's 21.6% doesn't.
But why did HarvestGreen get 21.6%? Well in his test his players have 10 in every attribute except the one tested, so he's doing 10 acc/pace 18 sta vs 10 acc/pace/sta. That translates to roughly ~9.7 acc/pace vs. 8.3 acc/pace. That's +17% for the 18 sta team.
tam1236 said: Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game. It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level Expand And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
A 24 yo CB with 160 CA and having 11 acc is completely normal. We got so used to abusing the broken training system that we somehow forgot that. What is actually wrong in this game is that you can engineer a 18+ pace player out of "almost anyone".
Yarema said: And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0. Expand They are, as demonstrated by the Messi vs Furuhashi example I showed you in detail, but you have seemingly chosen to overlook.
I have almost completed another example which is even better (Luis Suarez vs Le Fonde). Suarez has green in almost everything technical/mental, but has similar low physicals to Le Fonde. Suarez is finishing consistently 7th to 10th, making him the worst player tested so far.
I don't know why you want to die on this hill. I was talking about sta, pace, acc which are attributes that matter. A majority of attributes do not matter at all, and should be valued at 0, even when other attributes are identical, due to the CA cost.
Rain said: If you really want to test strikers and rank them should probably just give all the teams in the league including your own the exact same attributes besides the player you are testing. That way you will have consistent data and confirm your player is always playing in the same circumstances.
HarvestGreen did that and got results that don't align with the real rankings. You could say my rankings aren't real because the rest of my team is artificial, but it would be closer to the reality than HarvestGreen's because all of the opposition is real.
The reason for the discrepancy between HarvestGreen's data and the rankings in reality, is that he's testing against opposition that is either all 10 or 20. If I put an ST with 12 jump reach in a league where every player has 1 jump reach, guess how many aerial attempts he's going to win. But each Premier League team in reality has players with at least ~15 jump reach.
Nonetheless I'm currently plugging in HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 data into FMST26 as weights to see how it fares compared to the weights I ended up with so far, because the more accurate the starting set of weights, the less likely we get a set of weights that 'functions' properly most of the time but isn't actually using the right weights that will get us to near 100% accuracy. One problem that appears with HarvestGreen's weights is that Maeda and Furuhashi are underrated.
What I'm doing at the moment is using HarvestGreen's 10 > 18 & 6 > 18 data as a baseline, then changing just the minimum of what needs to be changed to make things line up.
One example of a radical change, and what I think is going on:
In my weightings attempt before this, I found stamina ~90 (a bit higher than acc/pace) is necessary.
HarvestGreen says stamina 10 > 18 is 21.6% of acc 10 > 18. I'm saying it's ~110%.
From my own testing, I know the following is ideal: 20 acc/pace 13 sta | 18 acc/pace 14 sta | 14 acc/pace 15 sta. Something like that anyway, you get the picture. So we see sta is 1/3 of acc, or it's higher at 1 to 1 or a bit more.
Acc & Pace are 2 attributes it's conserving, so sta @ 1/3 acc is actually 2/3 of acc or pace alone. So we know it's in a range of ~67%-200%. Hence I think why something like 110% sta weighting of acc works and HarvestGreen's 21.6% doesn't.
But why did HarvestGreen get 21.6%? Well in his test his players have 10 in every attribute except the one tested, so he's doing 10 acc/pace 18 sta vs 10 acc/pace/sta. That translates to roughly ~9.7 acc/pace vs. 8.3 acc/pace. That's +17% for the 18 sta team.
tam1236 said: Sure, with better concentration, dribbling and finishing they would be much better. But until there is no other team with good, physical players they are getting along. And, maybe that's not my coaches, but default FM schedules that give not enough quickness who sucks? CA points are really badly distributed: leadership (0 importance, unless...) is so expenxive - why? cooperation (0 importance) expensive - why? And physicals, most important, are just cheap - I can have decent player of 45 CA. When I see a CB 24 yo., 160 CA, pa, acc 10-11 I think something is really wrong in this game.
It reminds me, that some time ago a club from my town won a domestic championship with a technically very weak but big, strong and quick team (and doing mainly physical training). So it happens irl, but of course not on a very high level
And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
A 24 yo CB with 160 CA and having 11 acc is completely normal. We got so used to abusing the broken training system that we somehow forgot that. What is actually wrong in this game is that you can engineer a 18+ pace player out of "almost anyone".
Yarema said: And that was my whole point. That other attributes aren't completely useless and shouldn't be valued at 0.
They are, as demonstrated by the Messi vs Furuhashi example I showed you in detail, but you have seemingly chosen to overlook.
I have almost completed another example which is even better (Luis Suarez vs Le Fonde). Suarez has green in almost everything technical/mental, but has similar low physicals to Le Fonde. Suarez is finishing consistently 7th to 10th, making him the worst player tested so far.
I don't know why you want to die on this hill. I was talking about sta, pace, acc which are attributes that matter. A majority of attributes do not matter at all, and should be valued at 0, even when other attributes are identical, due to the CA cost.
Adam Le Fondre vs Luis Suarez
Adam Le Fondre - 8th, 11th (sacked), 5th, 7th (sacked), 6th (sacked), 8th (sacked) = 7.5 position
Luis Suarez - 7th, 9th, 10th, 8th, 8th = 8.4 position
Note that Suarez isn't (significantly) superior in the key mentals of anticipation, concentration, work rate.
The argument that useless technicals/mentals should be counted even a little is in the toilet.