Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps. Expand
@Mark am i right in saying that if I want a players true positional rating, in its simplest form, I need to reduce the GS positional rating by 2.17 for every point under 20?
Middleweight165 said: @Mark am i right in saying that if I want a players true positional rating, in its simplest form, I need to reduce the GS positional rating by 2.17 for every point under 20? Expand
It is by 2.17%. For example you have a player rated 18/20 for a position and GS shows 56.84%. The calculation is 56.84% - (56.84% x (2.17% x 2)) = 54.37%
Hey @Mark Does the positional rating on GS not take into account the position value or is it just inaccurate? Why is your calculation necessary?
I'm looking at a player who has a position value of 1 and a positional rating of 66.9%, so using your calculation, his true positional value is 39.3%. Is that correct?
Middleweight165 said: Hey @Mark Does the positional rating on GS not take into account the position value or is it just inaccurate? Why is your calculation necessary?
I'm looking at a player who has a position value of 1 and a positional rating of 66.9%, so using your calculation, his true positional value is 39.3%. Is that correct? Expand
Your calculation is correct. Of course you can improve your players position value and therefore their positional rating by training them and playing them in the position.
GS have a very minor adjustment for positional value, it is around 0.35% per point. My values are derived from the FM Arena testing over the last 2 years, and I believe they are much closer to the mark.
Mark said: Your calculation is correct. Of course you can improve your players position value and therefore their positional rating by training them and playing them in the position.
GS have a very minor adjustment for positional value, it is around 0.35% per point. My values are derived from the FM Arena testing over the last 2 years, and I believe they are much closer to the mark. Expand
I dont quite understand how you can find value. Why wouldn’t you just use positional rating and buy the highest rated player you can afford? Expand
Sure. I looked at 2 tables, the Cost of Attribute Table by position and the ykykyky positional rating weightings. I only looked at attributes that were 50 or higher in the ykykyky positional rating weightings and then divided this score by the corresponding value on the Cost of Attribute Table. This then gave a value rating, higher the better.
My expectation of this score is that if a player has high values for these value scores their rating will be better value than those that are higher in the high cost attributes. I use these in the filters and it seems to be working, although I haven't done comparisons against those with that are higher in the high cost attributes. And I always include acceleration in my filters, other than for DM or GK.
Mark said: Sure. I looked at 2 tables, the Cost of Attribute Table by position and the ykykyky positional rating weightings. I only looked at attributes that were 50 or higher in the ykykyky positional rating weightings and then divided this score by the corresponding value on the Cost of Attribute Table. This then gave a value rating, higher the better.
My expectation of this score is that if a player has high values for these value scores their rating will be better value than those that are higher in the high cost attributes. I use these in the filters and it seems to be working, although I haven't done comparisons against those with that are higher in the high cost attributes. And I always include acceleration in my filters, other than for DM or GK.
So not really tested but an assumption. Expand
Quick thought for you @Mark (and possibly @ZaZ )... when looking at IWB (i.e ZAZ Blue) Do you look at the ratings for DLR or WBLR? - Im assuming that either way you still look at the Position Rating (x/20) for DLR because that's where they're actually "playing" according to FM.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking.
Evanscam97 said: Quick thought for you @Mark (and possibly @ZaZ ... when looking at IWB (i.e ZAZ Blue) Do you look at the ratings for DLR or WBLR? - Im assuming that either way you still look at the Position Rating (x/20) for DLR because that's where they're actually "playing" according to FM.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking. Expand
To be fair, I just look to the four attributes with the highest impact in that table. It's usually Acceleration, Pace, Stamina and Work Rating, with one or other different attribute for certain roles. Since I usually search using the scout centre, and I always retrain my wingbacks to play in both sides, then I just search both DL and DR positions, and select the best I find (it doesn't matter if I end up using two DR or two DL).
About WBR/L, I don't search for players natural in that position because it's harder to train a player in three positions (DR, DL and the one he was natural before).
@Mark Hey, really nice work and I'm sorry if I'm asking a stupid question but with all the different rating systems I'm still not sure how to actually select attributes for my filters in-game. I have genie scout with ykykyky ratings but I don't want to rely on that while playing.
I see that the attributes are weighted differently, but how many of the top attributes do I filter on? For instance, GK has Agi 100, Reflexes 80, Acc 70, Strength 70, Concentration 65, Aerial 60, Decisions, Pace and Handling 50. I suppose taking all of these is too many, so where should I cut? Above 50? And then for instance filter agi at avg+2, reflexes avg+1, acc avg+1, str avg+1, conc avg, aerial avg? I'm generally playing in top divisions so I'm only looking for the best of the best.
I'd really appreciate some input on the actual process here, like how you would go about building an in-game GK filter, so that I can replicate the process for the other positions myself.
Hello,@Mark I have a question that u have probably already answered in this thread but I'm a little bit lost. Same as others I would like to use excel for the calculations as I don't want to see CA/PA etc.
Mark said: That is an interesting question. I think our Chinese colleagues gave us the answer to this very question. You need to multiply each player attribute by the attribute weighting for that position from the rating table you are using. Then total of all these calculations and divide by the total value of all the weightings for that position to give you the weighted average value of attributes. Multiply the weighted average value of attributes by 20 and subtract 121. This will give you the Tactical True Current Ability for that position for that player and allow you to compare them with other players of the same position.
You do need to remember the analysis done by FM Arena on position ability though. If a player is less than accomplished at the position you shouldn't be using them in that position. Expand
Based on the calculations provided I did some test to see how it works for Lewandowski as FST. After multiplying each player attribute by the atribute weighting for the FST from the ykyky balanced table, then divided the total of it by the total value of all the weightings (which is 1172 cause im not taking weakfoot) and it gave me a number which then I used to multiply by 20 and subtract 121. This resulted in 204,2 Tactical True Cuerrent Ability for Lewandowski. I also did the calculation for the "perfect player" and the maximum number based on the calculation shows 294,3. I divided Lewandowski's score by the "perfect player" score and % value is 72,7.
And here it is where I'm lost. What other calculation needs to be done to get the General Rating for the position I'm looking for. As I have seen some screenshots posted by You it shows that Lewandowski is somewhere around 92% and its way off from the 72,7 I'm getting.
Sorry in advance if something is unclear, but I hope it all makes sense
Pikabo said: Hello,@Mark I have a question that u have probably already answered in this thread but I'm a little bit lost. Same as others I would like to use excel for the calculations as I don't want to see CA/PA etc.
Based on the calculations provided I did some test to see how it works for Lewandowski as FST. After multiplying each player attribute by the atribute weighting for the FST from the ykyky balanced table, then divided the total of it by the total value of all the weightings (which is 1172 cause im not taking weakfoot) and it gave me a number which then I used to multiply by 20 and subtract 121. This resulted in 204,2 Tactical True Cuerrent Ability for Lewandowski. I also did the calculation for the "perfect player" and the maximum number based on the calculation shows 294,3. I divided Lewandowski's score by the "perfect player" score and % value is 72,7.
And here it is where I'm lost. What other calculation needs to be done to get the General Rating for the position I'm looking for. As I have seen some screenshots posted by You it shows that Lewandowski is somewhere around 92% and its way off from the 72,7 I'm getting.
Sorry in advance if something is unclear, but I hope it all makes sense Expand
I am not sure what some of that means. You dont need to divide by the perfect player score as genie scout will do the calculation.
Please tell me what you are trying to achieve and I will see if I can help you
Sure, maybe I can show you some examples for better understanding Let's forget about the part with dividing by the perfect player and only stop at the Tactical True Current Ability. Following only your caluclations quoted in my first post I've made an excel file using ykyky balanced table for FST.
I took 2 players and did the calculations:
Then I looked them up in the Genie scout (don't the have the G version so I downloaded FM22 again and used the older version) and their General Rating shows this: ^I know it says TS for Mavididi but its the exact the same as for the FST
And now like I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of Genie Scout cause it shows too much information (CA/PA, other hidden attributes etc.), but the Tactictal True Ability favors Mavididi by a margin and the General Rating in Genie shows that Abel Ruiz would be a better option by 0,5%. I just want to make sure that the excel file can help me pick up the player who probably should perform better based on the weighted attribute table I'm using.
Pikabo said: Sure, maybe I can show you some examples for better understanding Let's forget about the part with dividing by the perfect player and only stop at the Tactical True Current Ability. Following only your caluclations quoted in my first post I've made an excel file using ykyky balanced table for FST.
I took 2 players and did the calculations:
Then I looked them up in the Genie scout (don't the have the G version so I downloaded FM22 again and used the older version) and their General Rating shows this: ^I know it says TS for Mavididi but its the exact the same as for the FST
And now like I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of Genie Scout cause it shows too much information (CA/PA, other hidden attributes etc.), but the Tactictal True Ability favors Mavididi by a margin and the General Rating in Genie shows that Abel Ruiz would be a better option by 0,5%. I just want to make sure that the excel file can help me pick up the player who probably should perform better based on the weighted attribute table I'm using. Expand
Ok, now I think I understand what you are after. I haven't really played with the Tactical Real CA (TRCA) before. When I do the calculations based on the info you provided I get different scores - 133.17 for Ruiz and 139.55 for Mavididi. When compared with their current CA of 130 (133.17) and 129 (139.55).
The machine learning conclusion would be pick Mavididi, because as they said "if the tactical real CA is higher than the player’s CA, the player is very suitable for ZaZ-Blue DM tactics. The higher the tactical real CA, the more suitable it is for player selection".
Ok, I had a small mistake in my calculations (mixed the multipliers for teamwork and leadership). Thanks for checking it on your side!
The only question thats left is that if it is accurate to use TRCA for other tactics as well? Does it matter what roles were used? Or as long as the tactic uses GK/CD/FB/DM/W/AM/ST and avoids WB/MC/MRL it is fine to use the TRCA to calculate players usefulness for that Position excluding factors like Players Instructions and Roles. I think that in previous converstations you have already touched the topic but I also think it was based on the General Rating from Genie Scout and not the TRCA. Any idea on that or is it something that was not tested so we can't be sure of the outcome?
Pikabo said: Ok, I had a small mistake in my calculations (mixed the multipliers for teamwork and leadership). Thanks for checking it on your side!
The only question thats left is that if it is accurate to use TRCA for other tactics as well? Does it matter what roles were used? Or as long as the tactic uses GK/CD/FB/DM/W/AM/ST and avoids WB/MC/MRL it is fine to use the TRCA to calculate players usefulness for that Position excluding factors like Players Instructions and Roles. I think that in previous converstations you have already touched the topic but I also think it was based on the General Rating from Genie Scout and not the TRCA. Any idea on that or is it something that was not tested so we can't be sure of the outcome? Expand
We definitely cant be as confident using a formation outside of Blue, however I think you can be reasonably confident. I have used the positions around and related to the ones tested to derive the ratings for other positions. I am confident it works.
I will give you my thoughts on the remaining questions. I have not seen anything that indicates roles are important. I have no faith in the general ratings, I only use positional ratings. Given the experience with the the ykykyky ratings I would be surprised if TRCA doesn't work. They claimed to have tested it and their work all stacks up. I will now have a bit of a look at it.
Tactical Real CA. Basically it should calculate player's usefulness on the position based on his attributes using the ykyky balanced table for attribute weighing. Post#113 on page 4 should give you any idea of how to do it and then Mark made it more graphical in post #285 on page 10.
Pikabo said: Tactical Real CA. Basically it should calculate player's usefulness on the position based on his attributes using the ykyky balanced table for attribute weighing. Post#113 on page 4 should give you any idea of how to do it and then Mark made it more graphical in post #285 on page 10. Expand
got it, thanks.. but in Mark's post (page 4, #113) he's subtracting the formula by 121. any ideia why the 121 specifically?
With the position preference in GS you can have an easy view for your squad, bu i'm ok with your reflexion. However, when i see all this "important atributes" i'm asking a question, is there real change between positions in all this atributes ? I mean, for a defender, is it only important to focus on Pace and Acc, like a Striker... Maybe !
Falbravv said: With the position preference in GS you can have an easy view for your squad, bu i'm ok with your reflexion. However, when i see all this "important atributes" i'm asking a question, is there real change between positions in all this atributes ? I mean, for a defender, is it only important to focus on Pace and Acc, like a Striker... Maybe ! Expand
There are some attributes that are only important to one or another position, so they are very hard to measure in tests that consider the entire team. For example, it's pretty obvious that Jumping Reach affects way more the performance of central defenders than wingers. Stamina and Work Rate should also affect more the players that are more involved in the match, like flank players and midfielders, and Finishing has more impact on strikers. It's pretty obvious, but it's not easy to measure.
Finally, if we want to know that, we need to test attributes with minus ratings for line of players... i mean heading and jumping reach for defenders, finishing for strikers etc
Falbravv said: Finally, if we want to know that, we need to test attributes with minus ratings for line of players... i mean heading and jumping reach for defenders, finishing for strikers etc Expand
That would basically multiply the attributes to test by at least 7 or 8 (GK, DC, WB, DM, CM, AM, W and ST). And that's ignoring roles. I mean, not impossible, but still not something to be expected, unless there are no more tactics to test.
ZaZ said: That would basically multiply the attributes to test by at least 7 or 8 (GK, DC, WB, DM, CM, AM, W and ST). And that's ignoring roles. I mean, not impossible, but still not something to be expected, unless there are no more tactics to test. Expand
It's only a way of thinking, i'm not asking anymore about what this forum done, it's already a nice and very important work.
But i love try to find more that what we have already done.
Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps.
@Mark am i right in saying that if I want a players true positional rating, in its simplest form, I need to reduce the GS positional rating by 2.17 for every point under 20?
Middleweight165 said: @Mark am i right in saying that if I want a players true positional rating, in its simplest form, I need to reduce the GS positional rating by 2.17 for every point under 20?
It is by 2.17%. For example you have a player rated 18/20 for a position and GS shows 56.84%. The calculation is 56.84% - (56.84% x (2.17% x 2)) = 54.37%
Hey @Mark Does the positional rating on GS not take into account the position value or is it just inaccurate? Why is your calculation necessary?
I'm looking at a player who has a position value of 1 and a positional rating of 66.9%, so using your calculation, his true positional value is 39.3%. Is that correct?
Middleweight165 said: Hey @Mark Does the positional rating on GS not take into account the position value or is it just inaccurate? Why is your calculation necessary?
I'm looking at a player who has a position value of 1 and a positional rating of 66.9%, so using your calculation, his true positional value is 39.3%. Is that correct?
Your calculation is correct. Of course you can improve your players position value and therefore their positional rating by training them and playing them in the position.
GS have a very minor adjustment for positional value, it is around 0.35% per point. My values are derived from the FM Arena testing over the last 2 years, and I believe they are much closer to the mark.
Mark said: Your calculation is correct. Of course you can improve your players position value and therefore their positional rating by training them and playing them in the position.
GS have a very minor adjustment for positional value, it is around 0.35% per point. My values are derived from the FM Arena testing over the last 2 years, and I believe they are much closer to the mark.
Thanks!
Can you expand a bit further on you trying to get value for your money that you described in this post https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/14024/
I dont quite understand how you can find value. Why wouldn’t you just use positional rating and buy the highest rated player you can afford?
Middleweight165 said: Thanks!
Can you expand a bit further on you trying to get value for your money that you described in this post https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/14024/
I dont quite understand how you can find value. Why wouldn’t you just use positional rating and buy the highest rated player you can afford?
Sure. I looked at 2 tables, the Cost of Attribute Table by position and the ykykyky positional rating weightings. I only looked at attributes that were 50 or higher in the ykykyky positional rating weightings and then divided this score by the corresponding value on the Cost of Attribute Table. This then gave a value rating, higher the better.
My expectation of this score is that if a player has high values for these value scores their rating will be better value than those that are higher in the high cost attributes. I use these in the filters and it seems to be working, although I haven't done comparisons against those with that are higher in the high cost attributes. And I always include acceleration in my filters, other than for DM or GK.
So not really tested but an assumption.
Mark said: Sure. I looked at 2 tables, the Cost of Attribute Table by position and the ykykyky positional rating weightings. I only looked at attributes that were 50 or higher in the ykykyky positional rating weightings and then divided this score by the corresponding value on the Cost of Attribute Table. This then gave a value rating, higher the better.
My expectation of this score is that if a player has high values for these value scores their rating will be better value than those that are higher in the high cost attributes. I use these in the filters and it seems to be working, although I haven't done comparisons against those with that are higher in the high cost attributes. And I always include acceleration in my filters, other than for DM or GK.
So not really tested but an assumption.
Quick thought for you @Mark (and possibly @ZaZ )... when looking at IWB (i.e ZAZ Blue) Do you look at the ratings for DLR or WBLR? - Im assuming that either way you still look at the Position Rating (x/20) for DLR because that's where they're actually "playing" according to FM.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking.
Evanscam97 said: Quick thought for you @Mark (and possibly @ZaZ ... when looking at IWB (i.e ZAZ Blue) Do you look at the ratings for DLR or WBLR? - Im assuming that either way you still look at the Position Rating (x/20) for DLR because that's where they're actually "playing" according to FM.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking.
To be fair, I just look to the four attributes with the highest impact in that table. It's usually Acceleration, Pace, Stamina and Work Rating, with one or other different attribute for certain roles. Since I usually search using the scout centre, and I always retrain my wingbacks to play in both sides, then I just search both DL and DR positions, and select the best I find (it doesn't matter if I end up using two DR or two DL).
About WBR/L, I don't search for players natural in that position because it's harder to train a player in three positions (DR, DL and the one he was natural before).
@Mark Hey, really nice work and I'm sorry if I'm asking a stupid question but with all the different rating systems I'm still not sure how to actually select attributes for my filters in-game. I have genie scout with ykykyky ratings but I don't want to rely on that while playing.
I see that the attributes are weighted differently, but how many of the top attributes do I filter on? For instance, GK has Agi 100, Reflexes 80, Acc 70, Strength 70, Concentration 65, Aerial 60, Decisions, Pace and Handling 50. I suppose taking all of these is too many, so where should I cut? Above 50? And then for instance filter agi at avg+2, reflexes avg+1, acc avg+1, str avg+1, conc avg, aerial avg? I'm generally playing in top divisions so I'm only looking for the best of the best.
I'd really appreciate some input on the actual process here, like how you would go about building an in-game GK filter, so that I can replicate the process for the other positions myself.
Do these figures work in FM23 too?
johnconnerson said: Do these figures work in FM23 too?
They appear to - yes
Hello,@Mark I have a question that u have probably already answered in this thread but I'm a little bit lost. Same as others I would like to use excel for the calculations as I don't want to see CA/PA etc.
Mark said: That is an interesting question. I think our Chinese colleagues gave us the answer to this very question. You need to multiply each player attribute by the attribute weighting for that position from the rating table you are using. Then total of all these calculations and divide by the total value of all the weightings for that position to give you the weighted average value of attributes. Multiply the weighted average value of attributes by 20 and subtract 121. This will give you the Tactical True Current Ability for that position for that player and allow you to compare them with other players of the same position.
You do need to remember the analysis done by FM Arena on position ability though. If a player is less than accomplished at the position you shouldn't be using them in that position.
Based on the calculations provided I did some test to see how it works for Lewandowski as FST. After multiplying each player attribute by the atribute weighting for the FST from the ykyky balanced table, then divided the total of it by the total value of all the weightings (which is 1172 cause im not taking weakfoot) and it gave me a number which then I used to multiply by 20 and subtract 121. This resulted in 204,2 Tactical True Cuerrent Ability for Lewandowski. I also did the calculation for the "perfect player" and the maximum number based on the calculation shows 294,3. I divided Lewandowski's score by the "perfect player" score and % value is 72,7.
And here it is where I'm lost. What other calculation needs to be done to get the General Rating for the position I'm looking for. As I have seen some screenshots posted by You it shows that Lewandowski is somewhere around 92% and its way off from the 72,7 I'm getting.
Sorry in advance if something is unclear, but I hope it all makes sense
Pikabo said: Hello,@Mark I have a question that u have probably already answered in this thread but I'm a little bit lost. Same as others I would like to use excel for the calculations as I don't want to see CA/PA etc.
Based on the calculations provided I did some test to see how it works for Lewandowski as FST. After multiplying each player attribute by the atribute weighting for the FST from the ykyky balanced table, then divided the total of it by the total value of all the weightings (which is 1172 cause im not taking weakfoot) and it gave me a number which then I used to multiply by 20 and subtract 121. This resulted in 204,2 Tactical True Cuerrent Ability for Lewandowski. I also did the calculation for the "perfect player" and the maximum number based on the calculation shows 294,3. I divided Lewandowski's score by the "perfect player" score and % value is 72,7.
And here it is where I'm lost. What other calculation needs to be done to get the General Rating for the position I'm looking for. As I have seen some screenshots posted by You it shows that Lewandowski is somewhere around 92% and its way off from the 72,7 I'm getting.
Sorry in advance if something is unclear, but I hope it all makes sense
I am not sure what some of that means. You dont need to divide by the perfect player score as genie scout will do the calculation.
Please tell me what you are trying to achieve and I will see if I can help you
Sure, maybe I can show you some examples for better understanding
Let's forget about the part with dividing by the perfect player and only stop at the Tactical True Current Ability. Following only your caluclations quoted in my first post I've made an excel file using ykyky balanced table for FST.
I took 2 players and did the calculations:
Then I looked them up in the Genie scout (don't the have the G version so I downloaded FM22 again and used the older version) and their General Rating shows this:
^I know it says TS for Mavididi but its the exact the same as for the FST
And now like I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of Genie Scout cause it shows too much information (CA/PA, other hidden attributes etc.), but the Tactictal True Ability favors Mavididi by a margin and the General Rating in Genie shows that Abel Ruiz would be a better option by 0,5%. I just want to make sure that the excel file can help me pick up the player who probably should perform better based on the weighted attribute table I'm using.
Pikabo said: Sure, maybe I can show you some examples for better understanding
Let's forget about the part with dividing by the perfect player and only stop at the Tactical True Current Ability. Following only your caluclations quoted in my first post I've made an excel file using ykyky balanced table for FST.
I took 2 players and did the calculations:
Then I looked them up in the Genie scout (don't the have the G version so I downloaded FM22 again and used the older version) and their General Rating shows this:
^I know it says TS for Mavididi but its the exact the same as for the FST
And now like I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of Genie Scout cause it shows too much information (CA/PA, other hidden attributes etc.), but the Tactictal True Ability favors Mavididi by a margin and the General Rating in Genie shows that Abel Ruiz would be a better option by 0,5%. I just want to make sure that the excel file can help me pick up the player who probably should perform better based on the weighted attribute table I'm using.
Ok, now I think I understand what you are after. I haven't really played with the Tactical Real CA (TRCA) before. When I do the calculations based on the info you provided I get different scores - 133.17 for Ruiz and 139.55 for Mavididi. When compared with their current CA of 130 (133.17) and 129 (139.55).
The machine learning conclusion would be pick Mavididi, because as they said "if the tactical real CA is higher than the player’s CA, the player is very suitable for ZaZ-Blue DM tactics. The higher the tactical real CA, the more suitable it is for player selection".
I hope this helps
Ok, I had a small mistake in my calculations (mixed the multipliers for teamwork and leadership). Thanks for checking it on your side!
The only question thats left is that if it is accurate to use TRCA for other tactics as well? Does it matter what roles were used? Or as long as the tactic uses GK/CD/FB/DM/W/AM/ST and avoids WB/MC/MRL it is fine to use the TRCA to calculate players usefulness for that Position excluding factors like Players Instructions and Roles. I think that in previous converstations you have already touched the topic but I also think it was based on the General Rating from Genie Scout and not the TRCA. Any idea on that or is it something that was not tested so we can't be sure of the outcome?
Pikabo said: Ok, I had a small mistake in my calculations (mixed the multipliers for teamwork and leadership). Thanks for checking it on your side!
The only question thats left is that if it is accurate to use TRCA for other tactics as well? Does it matter what roles were used? Or as long as the tactic uses GK/CD/FB/DM/W/AM/ST and avoids WB/MC/MRL it is fine to use the TRCA to calculate players usefulness for that Position excluding factors like Players Instructions and Roles. I think that in previous converstations you have already touched the topic but I also think it was based on the General Rating from Genie Scout and not the TRCA. Any idea on that or is it something that was not tested so we can't be sure of the outcome?
We definitely cant be as confident using a formation outside of Blue, however I think you can be reasonably confident. I have used the positions around and related to the ones tested to derive the ratings for other positions. I am confident it works.
I will give you my thoughts on the remaining questions. I have not seen anything that indicates roles are important. I have no faith in the general ratings, I only use positional ratings. Given the experience with the the ykykyky ratings I would be surprised if TRCA doesn't work. They claimed to have tested it and their work all stacks up. I will now have a bit of a look at it.
Well that's even more than I hoped to learn! Thank you for taking your time to replay and help me out with it.
I will also give it a go and if I come across any interesting results, I will make sure to share it here with you and the others.
Apologies for my noob question, but what is TRCA?
Tactical Real CA. Basically it should calculate player's usefulness on the position based on his attributes using the ykyky balanced table for attribute weighing. Post#113 on page 4 should give you any idea of how to do it and then Mark made it more graphical in post #285 on page 10.
Pikabo said: Tactical Real CA. Basically it should calculate player's usefulness on the position based on his attributes using the ykyky balanced table for attribute weighing. Post#113 on page 4 should give you any idea of how to do it and then Mark made it more graphical in post #285 on page 10.
got it, thanks.. but in Mark's post (page 4, #113) he's subtracting the formula by 121. any ideia why the 121 specifically?
Thanks
Gracolas said: got it, thanks.. but in Mark's post (page 4, #113) he's subtracting the formula by 121. any ideia why the 121 specifically?
Thanks
That's what the machine learning guys said. I have no knowledge of how they came to that conclusion
Mark said: That's what the machine learning guys said. I have no knowledge of how they came to that conclusion
What do you think about make a global ratinf on GS with all the conclusion of Zippo tests for attributes ?
I mean 100 for Pace, 70 for acceleration, and decrease with all the other ratings ?
Falbravv said: What do you think about make a global ratinf on GS with all the conclusion of Zippo tests for attributes ?
I mean 100 for Pace, 70 for acceleration, and decrease with all the other ratings ?
The problem would be that you end up with the same rating for each position. Feel free to give it a try
Mark said: The problem would be that you end up with the same rating for each position. Feel free to give it a try
You can still filter by position, but still not ideal.
With the position preference in GS you can have an easy view for your squad, bu i'm ok with your reflexion.
However, when i see all this "important atributes" i'm asking a question, is there real change between positions in all this atributes ? I mean, for a defender, is it only important to focus on Pace and Acc, like a Striker... Maybe !
Falbravv said: With the position preference in GS you can have an easy view for your squad, bu i'm ok with your reflexion.
However, when i see all this "important atributes" i'm asking a question, is there real change between positions in all this atributes ? I mean, for a defender, is it only important to focus on Pace and Acc, like a Striker... Maybe !
There are some attributes that are only important to one or another position, so they are very hard to measure in tests that consider the entire team. For example, it's pretty obvious that Jumping Reach affects way more the performance of central defenders than wingers. Stamina and Work Rate should also affect more the players that are more involved in the match, like flank players and midfielders, and Finishing has more impact on strikers. It's pretty obvious, but it's not easy to measure.
Finally, if we want to know that, we need to test attributes with minus ratings for line of players... i mean heading and jumping reach for defenders, finishing for strikers etc
Falbravv said: Finally, if we want to know that, we need to test attributes with minus ratings for line of players... i mean heading and jumping reach for defenders, finishing for strikers etc
That would basically multiply the attributes to test by at least 7 or 8 (GK, DC, WB, DM, CM, AM, W and ST). And that's ignoring roles. I mean, not impossible, but still not something to be expected, unless there are no more tactics to test.
ZaZ said: That would basically multiply the attributes to test by at least 7 or 8 (GK, DC, WB, DM, CM, AM, W and ST). And that's ignoring roles. I mean, not impossible, but still not something to be expected, unless there are no more tactics to test.
It's only a way of thinking, i'm not asking anymore about what this forum done, it's already a nice and very important work.
But i love try to find more that what we have already done.