Sanassy09 said: it has been said several times since the 21st that finishing is of no use even for the attackers, we should favor acceleration and speed Expand
Finishing has been proven by the attribute testing to be of some importance, according to these https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/ its more important than work rate, stamina, strength and dribbling
CBP87 said: How long you been using it for? Expand About three months, best rating ~ 7.8, worst rating < 6.0 with no unhappy. I used to let assistant man take control and the rating usually average > 8,5
BadA said: I think it's pretty clear and the work done by some of the users here has been amazing. Check out the chart below. The higher the number, the more important the attribute. Expand
Can you put this into some context please, at what value does an attribute become important for that position?
marionk said: About three months, best rating ~ 7.8, worst rating < 6.0 with no unhappy. I used to let assistant man take control and the rating usually average > 8,5 Expand
Might be worth changing it if you're players aren't responding to it
Can you put this into some context please, at what value does an attribute become important for that position? Expand
This is the results from the test the Chinese forum did iirc, I think 50 was the point where you cut off the others , it's for genie scout fm22 but I think it's still ok for 23 . To search for players I created views using attributes 50 and above ,, I'm even sure Zaz created a genie scout file using 50 and above attributes
Rhumble said: This is the results from the test the Chinese forum did iirc, I think 50 was the point where you cut off the others , it's for genie scout fm22 but I think it's still ok for 23 . To search for players I created views using attributes 50 and above ,, I'm even sure Zaz created a genie scout file using 50 and above attributes Expand
Not sure this is still relatable to be honest, how can pace, acceleration and strength be more important than aerial reach for a GK
CBP87 said: Not sure this is still relatable to be honest, how can pace, acceleration and strength be more important than aerial reach for a GK Expand
not sure tbh ive been using it for one save and had a lot of success, and my own variations which essentially relies on acceleration and pace throughout except keepers on another save.
There is a video on Youtube by FMImmortal called "Top 5 Attributes for every football manager position" and that goes from 1-5 of their version of the most important attributes for FM23 , 1 being the most important , its a lot different to the attributes tested on here
I guess its just a case of having a go and seeing which give the best results for you
Rhumble said: not sure tbh ive been using it for one save and had a lot of success, and my own variations which essentially relies on acceleration and pace throughout except keepers on another save.
There is a video on Youtube by FMImmortal called "Top 5 Attributes for every football manager position" and that goes from 1-5 of their version of the most important attributes for FM23 , 1 being the most important , its a lot different to the attributes tested on here
I guess its just a case of having a go and seeing which give the best results for you Expand
Aye, I've seen that video,
For me to I tend to look at core attributes and then add some crucial attributes for that role. So Acceleration and Pace is a must, I tend to not got for players who have less than 14 in both. I then look at Agility, Balance and Anticaption. Adding Jumping Reach for defenders and strikers as well as Finishing for strikers. I add Work Rate for any demanding roles like wing backs or box to box midfielders.
I pretty much focus on the attributes on the attributes testing table https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/. I think its pretty comprehensive considering they have tested each attribute for nearly 3000 matches
For me to I tend to look at core attributes and then add some crucial attributes for that role. So Acceleration and Pace is a must, I tend to not got for players who have less than 14 in both. I then look at Agility, Balance and Anticaption. Adding Jumping Reach for defenders and strikers as well as Finishing for strikers. I add Work Rate for any demanding roles like wing backs or box to box midfielders.
I pretty much focus on the attributes on the attributes testing table https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/. I think its pretty comprehensive considering they have tested each attribute for nearly 3000 matches Expand
Yeah that's pretty much how I do it , I think I added strength to central defenders and DMs and stamina to full backs , but you use the core attributes I use on my main save I've found it successful , even players not meant for the top leagues do well with those attributes for top teams
CBP87 said: Can you put this into some context please, at what value does an attribute become important for that position? Expand
The full thread will give you all the context you ever wanted. As Rhumble pointed out, ZaZ used 50 as the cutoff, but it's all on a 100-point scale so it should be easy enough to gauge relative importance.
For me to I tend to look at core attributes and then add some crucial attributes for that role. So Acceleration and Pace is a must, I tend to not got for players who have less than 14 in both. I then look at Agility, Balance and Anticaption. Adding Jumping Reach for defenders and strikers as well as Finishing for strikers. I add Work Rate for any demanding roles like wing backs or box to box midfielders.
I pretty much focus on the attributes on the attributes testing table https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/. I think its pretty comprehensive considering they have tested each attribute for nearly 3000 matches Expand
The analysis done by fm-arena referenced earlier was a great start and the best they could do with the resources at their disposal. The analysis done on the Chinese forum, from where the table I posted a few comments ago originated, was more in-depth and position-specific. I doubt that a more comprehensive analysis has been conducted.
I see this topic as a philosophical one. Although there are many, many variables, at the end of the day this is a computer program, so there is an answer as to what is most important because it's coded that way. However, if you find a way of evaluating players that works for you and enhances your enjoyment of the game, then, by all means, do it. Some folks enjoy the pursuit of optimization and it's an important part of FM for them. Hopefully, they continue to share their work on this forum so we can all benefit from their obsession, I mean passion.
BadA said: The full thread will give you all the context you ever wanted. As Rhumble pointed out, ZaZ used 50 as the cutoff, but it's all on a 100-point scale so it should be easy enough to gauge relative importance. Expand
I've read this thread multiple times, if you read what I said then you'll see I was asking for the cut off for important attributes for a posiiton, an attribute being weighted at 50 isn't important. Its more balanced.
BadA said: The analysis done by fm-arena referenced earlier was a great start and the best they could do with the resources at their disposal. The analysis done on the Chinese forum, from where the table I posted a few comments ago originated, was more in-depth and position-specific. I doubt that a more comprehensive analysis has been conducted.
I see this topic as a philosophical one. Although there are many, many variables, at the end of the day this is a computer program, so there is an answer as to what is most important because it's coded that way. However, if you find a way of evaluating players that works for you and enhances your enjoyment of the game, then, by all means, do it. Some folks enjoy the pursuit of optimization and it's an important part of FM for them. Hopefully, they continue to share their work on this forum so we can all benefit from their obsession, I mean passion. Expand
The table you posted was also put in a discord channel and the mods in there confirmed the table was done for FM21
Fuk. This is so dumb. The more I know about the game, the more it's pointless to play it. I was thinking about getting Alphonso Davies, now when found out this. He will be my primary target.
Thanks for your work @Zippo! From your experience, is there any chance if you would add some more archetype players to the teams (like a target forward where the jumping/strenth stats matches those of the defenders, at the cost of speed/dribbling), would the automated team selection be smart enough to use them if such a role is selected in a tactic?
svonn said: Thanks for your work @Zippo! From your experience, is there any chance if you would add some more archetype players to the teams (like a target forward where the jumping/strenth stats matches those of the defenders, at the cost of speed/dribbling), would the automated team selection be smart enough to use them if such a role is selected in a tactic? Expand
then you'll see that increasing Strength attribute by +5 points for 10 positions in the tactic improves the score from 60 pts to 62 pts, so just by 2 points, which could be just the RNG for 2,400 matches.
Now, imagine what would be the difference if instead of 10 position the Strength attribute were increased only 1 or 2 positions because that's how many strikers a typical tactic has.
So Strength attribute does nothing for strikers, it could be "10" or "15" or "20", there'll be almost no difference at all.
Believe me, you aren't the first person who rises that kind of concerns and believe me, we aren't less curious than you when it comes to such matter so we have tested it many times.
and change the strikers' roles from AF/CF to TF/TF and also tweak their attributes increasing Strength and Jumping Reach but decreasing Acceleration and Pace then the result will drop significantly.
It has been tested and proven many times that Acceleration and Pace attributes are much more valuable than Strength and Jumping Reach for any striker role.
Speaking other words, if you have TF role in your tactic then with a fast and short striker for that role your result always will be much better than if you had a strong, tall but slow striker.
Thanks for your reply @Zippo <3 I'll try to keep my points as concise as possible, but if something is unclear, I can elaborate further.
* Attributes that are used for 1v1 comparisons have the highest impact (e.g. physical attributtes + dribbling) * Impact of strength in actual games is severely undererstimated in fm-arena because set pieces cannot be set (Kurt Zouma with 20 stength can easily do >35 goals a season while others with the same jumping reach cannot) * Using Dzek's version of the test league, I've tested TF tactics with default vs TF archetype (e.g. increased jumping, strength, aggression and bravery, but reduces pace, acceleration, dribbling and technique) and the results were way better (High crosses + wingers are useless if strikers can't get to the ball). Here are some results without using set pieces, only a 4-4-2 tactic with reliance on wing play, one TF and one AF in the front:
Vanilla Setup:
TF Archetype for the TF striker:
As you can see, the results were significantly better, more crosses connected and more goals were the result. The used archetype looked like this:
When looking at the average ratings and goals, most player will be this archetype. This might also be due to some slight balancing issues (maybe some other stats have to be reduced more, since jumping reach got a +7), but it the point should still be valid.
Summary: I agree that strength won't do much in this specific test scenario, and I'm 100% sure introducing the archetype wouldn't suddenly change the meta tactics much - but I'm also quite sure we'd see more diverse tactics uploaded that use roles like wingers, target forwards, targeted crossing and high crosses with mid-level success. The only difficulty I see is getting the archtetyp just right so that the AI will assign them correctly.
- - -
Some other points about biases in the attribute testing:
* Using a highly specialiced tactic for attribute testing might introduce some major biases into the resulting data. The selected tactic using "dribble more" on every role, uses the low-possesion, faced-paces and high-press meta. This will likely lead to overestimating the impact any related attributes, while underestimating attributes required for slow build-up play. * A plain increase of some attributes does not account for the different impact that attribute has on CA (for the specfic position) * Increasing/Decreasing some attributes affects all players, while others only affect a few (Unsurprising that physical attributes are relevant for everyone, while some mental attributes barely have any effect for most)
svonn said: Thanks for your reply @Zippo <3 I'll try to keep my points as concise as possible, but if something is unclear, I can elaborate further.
* Attributes that are used for 1v1 comparisons have the highest impact (e.g. physical attributtes + dribbling) * Impact of strength in actual games is severely undererstimated in fm-arena because set pieces cannot be set (Kurt Zouma with 20 stength can easily do >35 goals a season while others with the same jumping reach cannot) * Using Dzek's version of the test league, I've tested TF tactics with default vs TF archetype (e.g. increased jumping, strength, aggression and bravery, but reduces pace, acceleration, dribbling and technique) and the results were way better (High crosses + wingers are useless if strikers can't get to the ball). Here are some results without using set pieces, only a 4-4-2 tactic with reliance on wing play, one TF and one AF in the front:
Vanilla Setup:
TF Archetype for the TF striker:
As you can see, the results were significantly better, more crosses connected and more goals were the result. The used archetype looked like this:
When looking at the average ratings and goals, most player will be this archetype. This might also be due to some slight balancing issues (maybe some other stats have to be reduced more, since jumping reach got a +7), but it the point should still be valid.
Summary: I agree that strength won't do much in this specific test scenario, and I'm 100% sure introducing the archetype wouldn't suddenly change the meta tactics much - but I'm also quite sure we'd see more diverse tactics uploaded that use roles like wingers, target forwards, targeted crossing and high crosses with mid-level success. The only difficulty I see is getting the archtetyp just right so that the AI will assign them correctly.
- - -
Some other points about biases in the attribute testing:
* Using a highly specialiced tactic for attribute testing might introduce some major biases into the resulting data. The selected tactic using "dribble more" on every role, uses the low-possesion, faced-paces and high-press meta. This will likely lead to overestimating the impact any related attributes, while underestimating attributes required for slow build-up play. * A plain increase of some attributes does not account for the different impact that attribute has on CA (for the specfic position) * Increasing/Decreasing some attributes affects all players, while others only affect a few (Unsurprising that physical attributes are relevant for everyone, while some mental attributes barely have any effect for most)
Cheers! :-) Expand
If you don't have API of SI, good luck to teach to the "AI" to how select players for builds scenario.
Rest, is already being said millions of times, the engine is cross-favored, if people believe that is better to have a speedy gnome on the center instead of a Target Forward is their choice and they will just complain : OH,NO MY STRIKER DON'T SCORE OMG OMG BAD TACTIC/BAD ENGINE BLABLABLA, i've read this kind of "feedbacks" so many times that my brain just filtrer out automatically when i face them.
You can play a Target Forward as AF, roles are roles, there is no sky-rocket science being it, sadly.
The only thing i never understood is why players like Beto/Adebayo/Chermiti/Lewin/Doumbia and many others are just not included in the scenario.
Try Adebayo in a lone striker build and compare it to another gnome monster like Karim Konatè.
I mean do you prefer a gnome that can't jump or a Space-Cow that can even Jump?
That's why Haaland is a cheat-code. But you can achieve crazy results even with Pio Esposito Terminator.
Don't get biased by "average rate", it's totaly cosmetic on some roles, why?
Because if a specific player lose alot of "headers" aka Aerial Battle, they will simple get negative rate.
Delicious said: If you don't have API of SI, good luck to teach to the "AI" to how select players for builds scenario. Expand
I've just tried it, it wasn't very difficult. I've adjusted the values of the TF archetype until the Recommended CA of both players matched. As soon as that was the case, the AI correctly selects the player with the highest star rating for that role - which is the target forward archetype.
Delicious said: The only thing i never understood is why players like Beto/Adebayo/Chermiti/Lewin/Doumbia and many others are just not included in the scenario.
Try Adebayo in a lone striker build and compare it to another gnome monster like Karim Konatè.
I mean do you prefer a gnome that can't jump or a Space-Cow that can even Jump?
That's why Haaland is a cheat-code. But you can achieve crazy results even with Pio Esposito Terminator. Expand
Completely agree, Davie Selke is (or was especially in FM23) just another one of those strikers with insane physicals with aggression and bravery, in our online save he had multiple seasons with >40 goals. The very best strikers in the highly competetive online game are those that can also jump, not just run.
Delicious said: You can play a Target Forward as AF, roles are roles, there is no sky-rocket science being it, sadly. Expand
I mean roles are pretty much just some presets on the individual instructions with very minor custom coding for some roles (like inverted defenders, segundo volante, etc), but even these minor changes can be fun to use. For the target forwards, you have some unique mechanics, like setting him as priority target for crosses or for the keeper. This, in combination with some PPMs, can make tactics work that just won't work in these simplified test-scenarios. So I do think there are some incentives to at least try to capture some of this in testing, even if not everything can be modelled correctly if we don't get some amazing "sandbox" editor (maybe the switch to unity engine will allow a few more things like that).
Delicious said: Don't get biased by "average rate", it's totaly cosmetic on some roles, why?
Because if a specific player lose alot of "headers" aka Aerial Battle, they will simple get negative rate. Expand
I agree, it's the very same thing in real life ratings like sofascore. But still, the top scores in my test case posted above where the TF archetypes, despite them having only 133 suggested CA, while the speedy ones hat 141.
svonn said: Thanks for your reply @Zippo <3 I'll try to keep my points as concise as possible, but if something is unclear, I can elaborate further. Expand
Unforutanlty, I can't take into consideration the result of your test because 500 matches is really nothing and your testing methodology/environment is unknown for me and even if it were know then I still can't be sure that your test were done properly.
As I said it's been tested many times before but I can test it specially for you one more time.
svonn said: I've just tried it, it wasn't very difficult. I've adjusted the values of the TF archetype until the Recommended CA of both players matched. As soon as that was the case, the AI correctly selects the player with the highest star rating for that role - which is the target forward archetype.
Completely agree, Davie Selke is (or was especially in FM23) just another one of those strikers with insane physicals with aggression and bravery, in our online save he had multiple seasons with >40 goals. The very best strikers in the highly competetive online game are those that can also jump, not just run.
I mean roles are pretty much just some presets on the individual instructions with very minor custom coding for some roles (like inverted defenders, segundo volante, etc), but even these minor changes can be fun to use. For the target forwards, you have some unique mechanics, like setting him as priority target for crosses or for the keeper. This, in combination with some PPMs, can make tactics work that just won't work in these simplified test-scenarios. So I do think there are some incentives to at least try to capture some of this in testing, even if not everything can be modelled correctly if we don't get some amazing "sandbox" editor (maybe the switch to unity engine will allow a few more things like that).
I agree, it's the very same thing in real life ratings like sofascore. But still, the top scores in my test case posted above where the TF archetypes, despite them having only 133 suggested CA, while the speedy ones hat 141. Expand
As i said, let it go, you have even have online games speaking of for you. There are many points that are not considerated.
Just consider Jumping reach is the 3rd attribute that "influence" test/me/whatever you want
Height ain't really important, jumping reach is, sometimes follow a link between them sometimes you can find a 190m boy with 15+ jumping reach. You can make experiment around that but you see those stats are correlated somehow.
Now you should literally calculate the different between the 3 pace + 3 Accelaration vs 17/19 Jumping reach.
here some example :
Now if you go and check this Player test Striker you can understand your self without testing that ANY PLAYER WITH EVEN JUMPING REACH will be better then ANY GNOME. Because you simply put on the plate another important attribute that being said coming along with Strenght as well.
Now i don't really know how those attribute were tested here if they considerated the "LINK" between attributes as well or just separately.
About your test, idk something feels off, like some teams weren't really frozen, like the 55 results. I can tell you on my test, i am using beto prototype as Striker and TF isn't really perfoming compared to CF/F9/AF it's like -2/3 results all the time.
Now question is do you care to play your way or do you care about the size of the banana?
I am playing Pep build and i went for Konatè boy :
Cross will come towards him will simply goes to the Winger, since he can't jump, but if wingers will cross low he will score.
And to my experience i would go Pio Terminator instead of Konatè, even if toworrow they will tell me that earth is flat i will go for Terminator, because he can simply trasform those crosses into goals.
- Plus you can focus him even on corners, tactics are not being tested with set pieces as well.
You can compare Mbappè to Haaland as well. Most of people here will go prolly Mbappè at this point
Zippo said: Unforutanlty, I can take into consideration the result of your test because 500 matches is really nothing and your testing methodology/environment is unknown for me and even if it were know then I still can't be sure that your test were done properly.
As I said it's been tested many times before but I can test it specially for you one more time.
I'm assuming the loadout of the strikers in your tests is the same as in Dzeks database here:
Is that correct? If yes, here's a loadout for a target forward archetype with the same positions and recommended ca:
Basically just decreasing some stats like acceleration, pace, technique and dribbling a bit, and increasing jumping, strength, heading, aggression and bravery until I got the same recommended CA.
Note that I've only changed the players that only have "Striker" position instead of those that can also play wings (if I understood it correctly, thats also how it's set up in the fm-arena test), so the AI has both the fast option for the advanced striker role and the slow and tall one for the target forward. Since both have the same recommended CA, the AI selects the correct one for each position.
If something in the fm-arena setup is different feel free to adjust the exact stats
I remember Zippo (or a different admin) tested a 442 I submitted with floated crosses and a TF. One tested with a proper TF (high jumping reach etc), and one with standard testing league strikers. The one with a proper TF did much worse in tests. This was in FM23.
TommyToxic said: I remember Zippo (or a different admin) tested a 442 I submitted with floated crosses and a TF. One tested with a proper TF (high jumping reach etc), and one with standard testing league strikers. The one with a proper TF did much worse in tests. This was in FM23. Expand
Do you remember if the test setup used two TFs as forwards and both were "proper" without a speedy one?
it has been said several times since the 21st that finishing is of no use even for the attackers, we should favor acceleration and speed
Sanassy09 said: it has been said several times since the 21st that finishing is of no use even for the attackers, we should favor acceleration and speed
Finishing has been proven by the attribute testing to be of some importance, according to these https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/ its more important than work rate, stamina, strength and dribbling
Have using Zaz's training routine, player's training rating average ~ 6.8, is that normal ?
marionk said: Have using Zaz's training routine, player's training rating average ~ 6.8, is that normal ?
How long you been using it for?
CBP87 said: How long you been using it for?
About three months, best rating ~ 7.8, worst rating < 6.0 with no unhappy. I used to let assistant man take control and the rating usually average > 8,5
Players got low determination?
BadA said: I think it's pretty clear and the work done by some of the users here has been amazing. Check out the chart below. The higher the number, the more important the attribute.
Can you put this into some context please, at what value does an attribute become important for that position?
marionk said: About three months, best rating ~ 7.8, worst rating < 6.0 with no unhappy. I used to let assistant man take control and the rating usually average > 8,5
Might be worth changing it if you're players aren't responding to it
marionk said: Have using Zaz's training routine, player's training rating average ~ 6.8, is that normal ?
Criticise them if they underperform. I usually get 2/3 of my team at 8+
CBP87 said: Players got low determination?
Can you put this into some context please, at what value does an attribute become important for that position?
This is the results from the test the Chinese forum did iirc, I think 50 was the point where you cut off the others , it's for genie scout fm22 but I think it's still ok for 23 .
To search for players I created views using attributes 50 and above ,, I'm even sure Zaz created a genie scout file using 50 and above attributes
Rhumble said: This is the results from the test the Chinese forum did iirc, I think 50 was the point where you cut off the others , it's for genie scout fm22 but I think it's still ok for 23 .
To search for players I created views using attributes 50 and above ,, I'm even sure Zaz created a genie scout file using 50 and above attributes
Not sure this is still relatable to be honest, how can pace, acceleration and strength be more important than aerial reach for a GK
CBP87 said: Not sure this is still relatable to be honest, how can pace, acceleration and strength be more important than aerial reach for a GK
not sure tbh ive been using it for one save and had a lot of success, and my own variations which essentially relies on acceleration and pace throughout except keepers on another save.
There is a video on Youtube by FMImmortal called "Top 5 Attributes for every football manager position" and that goes from 1-5 of their version of the most important attributes for FM23 , 1 being the most important , its a lot different to the attributes tested on here
I guess its just a case of having a go and seeing which give the best results for you
Rhumble said: not sure tbh ive been using it for one save and had a lot of success, and my own variations which essentially relies on acceleration and pace throughout except keepers on another save.
There is a video on Youtube by FMImmortal called "Top 5 Attributes for every football manager position" and that goes from 1-5 of their version of the most important attributes for FM23 , 1 being the most important , its a lot different to the attributes tested on here
I guess its just a case of having a go and seeing which give the best results for you
Aye, I've seen that video,
For me to I tend to look at core attributes and then add some crucial attributes for that role. So Acceleration and Pace is a must, I tend to not got for players who have less than 14 in both. I then look at Agility, Balance and Anticaption. Adding Jumping Reach for defenders and strikers as well as Finishing for strikers. I add Work Rate for any demanding roles like wing backs or box to box midfielders.
I pretty much focus on the attributes on the attributes testing table https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/. I think its pretty comprehensive considering they have tested each attribute for nearly 3000 matches
CBP87 said: Aye, I've seen that video,
For me to I tend to look at core attributes and then add some crucial attributes for that role. So Acceleration and Pace is a must, I tend to not got for players who have less than 14 in both. I then look at Agility, Balance and Anticaption. Adding Jumping Reach for defenders and strikers as well as Finishing for strikers. I add Work Rate for any demanding roles like wing backs or box to box midfielders.
I pretty much focus on the attributes on the attributes testing table https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/. I think its pretty comprehensive considering they have tested each attribute for nearly 3000 matches
Yeah that's pretty much how I do it , I think I added strength to central defenders and DMs and stamina to full backs , but you use the core attributes I use on my main save I've found it successful , even players not meant for the top leagues do well with those attributes for top teams
CBP87 said: Can you put this into some context please, at what value does an attribute become important for that position?
The full thread will give you all the context you ever wanted. As Rhumble pointed out, ZaZ used 50 as the cutoff, but it's all on a 100-point scale so it should be easy enough to gauge relative importance.
CBP87 said: Aye, I've seen that video,
For me to I tend to look at core attributes and then add some crucial attributes for that role. So Acceleration and Pace is a must, I tend to not got for players who have less than 14 in both. I then look at Agility, Balance and Anticaption. Adding Jumping Reach for defenders and strikers as well as Finishing for strikers. I add Work Rate for any demanding roles like wing backs or box to box midfielders.
I pretty much focus on the attributes on the attributes testing table https://fm-arena.com/table/18-attribute-testing/. I think its pretty comprehensive considering they have tested each attribute for nearly 3000 matches
The analysis done by fm-arena referenced earlier was a great start and the best they could do with the resources at their disposal. The analysis done on the Chinese forum, from where the table I posted a few comments ago originated, was more in-depth and position-specific. I doubt that a more comprehensive analysis has been conducted.
I see this topic as a philosophical one. Although there are many, many variables, at the end of the day this is a computer program, so there is an answer as to what is most important because it's coded that way. However, if you find a way of evaluating players that works for you and enhances your enjoyment of the game, then, by all means, do it. Some folks enjoy the pursuit of optimization and it's an important part of FM for them. Hopefully, they continue to share their work on this forum so we can all benefit from their obsession, I mean passion.
BadA said: The full thread will give you all the context you ever wanted. As Rhumble pointed out, ZaZ used 50 as the cutoff, but it's all on a 100-point scale so it should be easy enough to gauge relative importance.
I've read this thread multiple times, if you read what I said then you'll see I was asking for the cut off for important attributes for a posiiton, an attribute being weighted at 50 isn't important. Its more balanced.
BadA said: The analysis done by fm-arena referenced earlier was a great start and the best they could do with the resources at their disposal. The analysis done on the Chinese forum, from where the table I posted a few comments ago originated, was more in-depth and position-specific. I doubt that a more comprehensive analysis has been conducted.
I see this topic as a philosophical one. Although there are many, many variables, at the end of the day this is a computer program, so there is an answer as to what is most important because it's coded that way. However, if you find a way of evaluating players that works for you and enhances your enjoyment of the game, then, by all means, do it. Some folks enjoy the pursuit of optimization and it's an important part of FM for them. Hopefully, they continue to share their work on this forum so we can all benefit from their obsession, I mean passion.
The table you posted was also put in a discord channel and the mods in there confirmed the table was done for FM21
Fuk. This is so dumb. The more I know about the game, the more it's pointless to play it.
I was thinking about getting Alphonso Davies, now when found out this. He will be my primary target.
Thanks for your work @Zippo! From your experience, is there any chance if you would add some more archetype players to the teams (like a target forward where the jumping/strenth stats matches those of the defenders, at the cost of speed/dribbling), would the automated team selection be smart enough to use them if such a role is selected in a tactic?
svonn said: Thanks for your work @Zippo! From your experience, is there any chance if you would add some more archetype players to the teams (like a target forward where the jumping/strenth stats matches those of the defenders, at the cost of speed/dribbling), would the automated team selection be smart enough to use them if such a role is selected in a tactic?
Hey,
If you look at our player attributes testing for FM24 - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/7542-5-points-to-strength-for-all-positions/
then you'll see that increasing Strength attribute by +5 points for 10 positions in the tactic improves the score from 60 pts to 62 pts, so just by 2 points, which could be just the RNG for 2,400 matches.
Now, imagine what would be the difference if instead of 10 position the Strength attribute were increased only 1 or 2 positions because that's how many strikers a typical tactic has.
So Strength attribute does nothing for strikers, it could be "10" or "15" or "20", there'll be almost no difference at all.
Believe me, you aren't the first person who rises that kind of concerns and believe me, we aren't less curious than you when it comes to such matter so we have tested it many times.
For instance, if you take this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/8315-424-cf-cabuloso/
and change the strikers' roles from AF/CF to TF/TF and also tweak their attributes increasing Strength and Jumping Reach but decreasing Acceleration and Pace then the result will drop significantly.
It has been tested and proven many times that Acceleration and Pace attributes are much more valuable than Strength and Jumping Reach for any striker role.
Speaking other words, if you have TF role in your tactic then with a fast and short striker for that role your result always will be much better than if you had a strong, tall but slow striker.
Cheers.
Thanks for your reply @Zippo <3 I'll try to keep my points as concise as possible, but if something is unclear, I can elaborate further.
* Attributes that are used for 1v1 comparisons have the highest impact (e.g. physical attributtes + dribbling)
* Impact of strength in actual games is severely undererstimated in fm-arena because set pieces cannot be set (Kurt Zouma with 20 stength can easily do >35 goals a season while others with the same jumping reach cannot)
* Using Dzek's version of the test league, I've tested TF tactics with default vs TF archetype (e.g. increased jumping, strength, aggression and bravery, but reduces pace, acceleration, dribbling and technique) and the results were way better (High crosses + wingers are useless if strikers can't get to the ball). Here are some results without using set pieces, only a 4-4-2 tactic with reliance on wing play, one TF and one AF in the front:
Vanilla Setup:
TF Archetype for the TF striker:
As you can see, the results were significantly better, more crosses connected and more goals were the result. The used archetype looked like this:
When looking at the average ratings and goals, most player will be this archetype. This might also be due to some slight balancing issues (maybe some other stats have to be reduced more, since jumping reach got a +7), but it the point should still be valid.
Summary: I agree that strength won't do much in this specific test scenario, and I'm 100% sure introducing the archetype wouldn't suddenly change the meta tactics much - but I'm also quite sure we'd see more diverse tactics uploaded that use roles like wingers, target forwards, targeted crossing and high crosses with mid-level success. The only difficulty I see is getting the archtetyp just right so that the AI will assign them correctly.
- - -
Some other points about biases in the attribute testing:
* Using a highly specialiced tactic for attribute testing might introduce some major biases into the resulting data. The selected tactic using "dribble more" on every role, uses the low-possesion, faced-paces and high-press meta. This will likely lead to overestimating the impact any related attributes, while underestimating attributes required for slow build-up play.
* A plain increase of some attributes does not account for the different impact that attribute has on CA (for the specfic position)
* Increasing/Decreasing some attributes affects all players, while others only affect a few (Unsurprising that physical attributes are relevant for everyone, while some mental attributes barely have any effect for most)
Cheers! :-)
svonn said: Thanks for your reply @Zippo <3 I'll try to keep my points as concise as possible, but if something is unclear, I can elaborate further.
* Attributes that are used for 1v1 comparisons have the highest impact (e.g. physical attributtes + dribbling)
* Impact of strength in actual games is severely undererstimated in fm-arena because set pieces cannot be set (Kurt Zouma with 20 stength can easily do >35 goals a season while others with the same jumping reach cannot)
* Using Dzek's version of the test league, I've tested TF tactics with default vs TF archetype (e.g. increased jumping, strength, aggression and bravery, but reduces pace, acceleration, dribbling and technique) and the results were way better (High crosses + wingers are useless if strikers can't get to the ball). Here are some results without using set pieces, only a 4-4-2 tactic with reliance on wing play, one TF and one AF in the front:
Vanilla Setup:
TF Archetype for the TF striker:
As you can see, the results were significantly better, more crosses connected and more goals were the result. The used archetype looked like this:
When looking at the average ratings and goals, most player will be this archetype. This might also be due to some slight balancing issues (maybe some other stats have to be reduced more, since jumping reach got a +7), but it the point should still be valid.
Summary: I agree that strength won't do much in this specific test scenario, and I'm 100% sure introducing the archetype wouldn't suddenly change the meta tactics much - but I'm also quite sure we'd see more diverse tactics uploaded that use roles like wingers, target forwards, targeted crossing and high crosses with mid-level success. The only difficulty I see is getting the archtetyp just right so that the AI will assign them correctly.
- - -
Some other points about biases in the attribute testing:
* Using a highly specialiced tactic for attribute testing might introduce some major biases into the resulting data. The selected tactic using "dribble more" on every role, uses the low-possesion, faced-paces and high-press meta. This will likely lead to overestimating the impact any related attributes, while underestimating attributes required for slow build-up play.
* A plain increase of some attributes does not account for the different impact that attribute has on CA (for the specfic position)
* Increasing/Decreasing some attributes affects all players, while others only affect a few (Unsurprising that physical attributes are relevant for everyone, while some mental attributes barely have any effect for most)
Cheers! :-)
If you don't have API of SI, good luck to teach to the "AI" to how select players for builds scenario.
Rest, is already being said millions of times, the engine is cross-favored, if people believe that is better to have a speedy gnome on the center instead of a Target Forward is their choice and they will just complain : OH,NO MY STRIKER DON'T SCORE OMG OMG BAD TACTIC/BAD ENGINE BLABLABLA, i've read this kind of "feedbacks" so many times that my brain just filtrer out automatically when i face them.
You can play a Target Forward as AF, roles are roles, there is no sky-rocket science being it, sadly.
The only thing i never understood is why players like Beto/Adebayo/Chermiti/Lewin/Doumbia and many others are just not included in the scenario.
Try Adebayo in a lone striker build and compare it to another gnome monster like Karim Konatè.
I mean do you prefer a gnome that can't jump or a Space-Cow that can even Jump?
That's why Haaland is a cheat-code. But you can achieve crazy results even with Pio Esposito Terminator.
Don't get biased by "average rate", it's totaly cosmetic on some roles, why?
Because if a specific player lose alot of "headers" aka Aerial Battle, they will simple get negative rate.
Hope this help you.
Delicious said: If you don't have API of SI, good luck to teach to the "AI" to how select players for builds scenario.
I've just tried it, it wasn't very difficult. I've adjusted the values of the TF archetype until the Recommended CA of both players matched. As soon as that was the case, the AI correctly selects the player with the highest star rating for that role - which is the target forward archetype.
Delicious said: The only thing i never understood is why players like Beto/Adebayo/Chermiti/Lewin/Doumbia and many others are just not included in the scenario.
Try Adebayo in a lone striker build and compare it to another gnome monster like Karim Konatè.
I mean do you prefer a gnome that can't jump or a Space-Cow that can even Jump?
That's why Haaland is a cheat-code. But you can achieve crazy results even with Pio Esposito Terminator.
Completely agree, Davie Selke is (or was especially in FM23) just another one of those strikers with insane physicals with aggression and bravery, in our online save he had multiple seasons with >40 goals. The very best strikers in the highly competetive online game are those that can also jump, not just run.
Delicious said: You can play a Target Forward as AF, roles are roles, there is no sky-rocket science being it, sadly.
I mean roles are pretty much just some presets on the individual instructions with very minor custom coding for some roles (like inverted defenders, segundo volante, etc), but even these minor changes can be fun to use. For the target forwards, you have some unique mechanics, like setting him as priority target for crosses or for the keeper. This, in combination with some PPMs, can make tactics work that just won't work in these simplified test-scenarios. So I do think there are some incentives to at least try to capture some of this in testing, even if not everything can be modelled correctly if we don't get some amazing "sandbox" editor (maybe the switch to unity engine will allow a few more things like that).
Delicious said: Don't get biased by "average rate", it's totaly cosmetic on some roles, why?
Because if a specific player lose alot of "headers" aka Aerial Battle, they will simple get negative rate.
I agree, it's the very same thing in real life ratings like sofascore. But still, the top scores in my test case posted above where the TF archetypes, despite them having only 133 suggested CA, while the speedy ones hat 141.
svonn said: Thanks for your reply @Zippo <3 I'll try to keep my points as concise as possible, but if something is unclear, I can elaborate further.
Unforutanlty, I can't take into consideration the result of your test because 500 matches is really nothing and your testing methodology/environment is unknown for me and even if it were know then I still can't be sure that your test were done properly.
As I said it's been tested many times before but I can test it specially for you one more time.
Please, share any tactic that you think would work better with a slow/tall/strong striker instead of a fast/short striker - https://fm-arena.com/board/12-football-manager-2024-tactics-sharing-section/
The tactic will be tested through out our regular testing then I'll test it with the strikers you suggested
and you will be able to see what difference it'll make.
svonn said: I've just tried it, it wasn't very difficult. I've adjusted the values of the TF archetype until the Recommended CA of both players matched. As soon as that was the case, the AI correctly selects the player with the highest star rating for that role - which is the target forward archetype.
Completely agree, Davie Selke is (or was especially in FM23) just another one of those strikers with insane physicals with aggression and bravery, in our online save he had multiple seasons with >40 goals. The very best strikers in the highly competetive online game are those that can also jump, not just run.
I mean roles are pretty much just some presets on the individual instructions with very minor custom coding for some roles (like inverted defenders, segundo volante, etc), but even these minor changes can be fun to use. For the target forwards, you have some unique mechanics, like setting him as priority target for crosses or for the keeper. This, in combination with some PPMs, can make tactics work that just won't work in these simplified test-scenarios. So I do think there are some incentives to at least try to capture some of this in testing, even if not everything can be modelled correctly if we don't get some amazing "sandbox" editor (maybe the switch to unity engine will allow a few more things like that).
I agree, it's the very same thing in real life ratings like sofascore. But still, the top scores in my test case posted above where the TF archetypes, despite them having only 133 suggested CA, while the speedy ones hat 141.
As i said, let it go, you have even have online games speaking of for you. There are many points that are not considerated.
Just consider Jumping reach is the 3rd attribute that "influence" test/me/whatever you want
Height ain't really important, jumping reach is, sometimes follow a link between them sometimes you can find a 190m boy with 15+ jumping reach. You can make experiment around that but you see those stats are correlated somehow.
Now you should literally calculate the different between the 3 pace + 3 Accelaration vs 17/19 Jumping reach.
here some example :
Now if you go and check this Player test Striker you can understand your self without testing that ANY PLAYER WITH EVEN JUMPING REACH will be better then ANY GNOME. Because you simply put on the plate another important attribute that being said coming along with Strenght as well.
Now i don't really know how those attribute were tested here if they considerated the "LINK" between attributes as well or just separately.
About your test, idk something feels off, like some teams weren't really frozen, like the 55 results.
I can tell you on my test, i am using beto prototype as Striker and TF isn't really perfoming compared to CF/F9/AF it's like -2/3 results all the time.
Now question is do you care to play your way or do you care about the size of the banana?
I am playing Pep build and i went for Konatè boy :
Cross will come towards him will simply goes to the Winger, since he can't jump, but if wingers will cross low he will score.
And to my experience i would go Pio Terminator instead of Konatè, even if toworrow they will tell me that earth is flat i will go for Terminator, because he can simply trasform those crosses into goals.
- Plus you can focus him even on corners, tactics are not being tested with set pieces as well.
You can compare Mbappè to Haaland as well. Most of people here will go prolly Mbappè at this point
There are many others aspect to consider as well.
Zippo said: Unforutanlty, I can take into consideration the result of your test because 500 matches is really nothing and your testing methodology/environment is unknown for me and even if it were know then I still can't be sure that your test were done properly.
As I said it's been tested many times before but I can test it specially for you one more time.
Please, share any tactic that you think would work better with a slow/tall/strong striker instead of a fast/short striker - https://fm-arena.com/board/12-football-manager-2024-tactics-sharing-section/
The tactic will be tested through out our regular testing then I'll test it with the strikers you suggested
and you will be able to see what difference it'll make.
Good idea, cheers for running those tests! I've uploaded the tactic I've used for my testing here:
https://fm-arena.com/thread/8910-wingplay-target-forward-test-tactic/#thread-name-anchor
I'm assuming the loadout of the strikers in your tests is the same as in Dzeks database here:
Is that correct? If yes, here's a loadout for a target forward archetype with the same positions and recommended ca:
Basically just decreasing some stats like acceleration, pace, technique and dribbling a bit, and increasing jumping, strength, heading, aggression and bravery until I got the same recommended CA.
Note that I've only changed the players that only have "Striker" position instead of those that can also play wings (if I understood it correctly, thats also how it's set up in the fm-arena test), so the AI has both the fast option for the advanced striker role and the slow and tall one for the target forward. Since both have the same recommended CA, the AI selects the correct one for each position.
If something in the fm-arena setup is different feel free to adjust the exact stats
Cheers!
I remember Zippo (or a different admin) tested a 442 I submitted with floated crosses and a TF. One tested with a proper TF (high jumping reach etc), and one with standard testing league strikers. The one with a proper TF did much worse in tests. This was in FM23.
TommyToxic said: I remember Zippo (or a different admin) tested a 442 I submitted with floated crosses and a TF. One tested with a proper TF (high jumping reach etc), and one with standard testing league strikers. The one with a proper TF did much worse in tests. This was in FM23.
Do you remember if the test setup used two TFs as forwards and both were "proper" without a speedy one?
svonn said: Do you remember if the test setup used two TFs as forwards and both were "proper" without a speedy one?
svonn said: Do you remember if the test setup used two TFs as forwards and both were "proper" without a speedy one?
TF (a) + PF (a). TF with TF attributes, PF with "normal" attributes.
@svonn
This tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/8910-wingplay-target-forward-test-tactic/
( TYPE 1 ) Fast, short and weak striker ( 137 CA ) as Target Forward
( TYPE 2 ) Strong, tall and slow striker ( 140 CA ) as Target Forward
RESULT:
As you can see despite having a higher "star" rating as TF and a higher CA with TYPE 2 attributes, it still produces a worse result.
Btw, there's nothing surprising in that result because as I said, we've tested that many times already, just read through this thread or some others.
If you're getting any different results in your own tests then it's because you test for not enough matches or your testing mythology has issues.
Cheers.