Genie Scout G rating

Just a simple question, which Genie Scout G rating is more accurate? Or wich one you advice to me? FM 2019 or mv? Or other custom? Best regards

Hi,

Is this referring to possibility of development or attributes rating? I have never pay attention to this.

From my own experience players with 140 CA are as good as the 170.

2026-03-21 19:48#310091 luk4sh31 : Hi,

Is this referring to possibility of development or attributes rating? I have never pay attention to this.

From my own experience players with 140 CA are as good as the 170.

you should.. the rating result will change in best position from one or other

I have never really pay attention to those numbers. I will consider 15 a top attribute, 12 is good enough.

Physical matter the most. Not because they are consider OP but consistency affect only mental and technical attributes. (unless something has change in fm26)

Have a player ca 140 with consistent 17+ and he will be much better than 170 CA with consistency 7.

From the FM 24 manual, it does mention that physical attributes along with some key mental ones like Decisions, Determination and Positioning are more heavily rated bc they are good for all positions.

I think Match Engine was left same given the over 20 years they have been working at it.

I use the default rating that I assume the developer setup, CA does give you a good idea of how good a player is, however their personality and positional rating will also play a role in knowing if they will be able to perform to the best in regard to their attributes.

Their proficiency with their feet will also determine how good they are and I think the rating does not include that.

Traits can also make or break a player role and they have a higher priority than team instructions, however the rating does not consider this either.

Last but not least if they have a side preference when playing in central positions, I would think that also can influence how they perform and is also not considered in the ratings.

2026-03-21 22:54#310097 RPGFan :
I use the default rating

Which one? You have 4 +.grf files...

The one that the app has by default i do not change the ratings system, although one can do that.

although I'm considering increasing the weight of determination, decision and positioning, bc all position benefit from having that along with most of the physical attributes.

This is only main point of view but ..

When I was younger I was trying "study" the ME. Then the more knowledge I have gain the ME behavior seemed irrational.

I don’t think the changes in the new ME fix that. The fact that the ME has been updated so many times since November indicates that the game still has lots of errors.

To put that into perspective, you pick the best teams like Manchester City, Barcelona, or Liverpool.

Pick an individual tactical instruction for a player. Let’s say “cross near post,” with the main crossing set to low.

By picking the best team, we exclude issues with attributes, as these are some of the best players in the world.

So please answer: why do these players still cross high balls to the far side?

Going further, you have individual traits like some defenders “stay back at all times.” Yet, he randomly ends up on the opposition side while your defensive line is set to low.

How, in a logical world, would that be possible? It is rather a rhetorical question. The flaws in the ME make things unpredictable.

This is why I don't spend hours to find ideal players anymore.

In FM 24 I won Bundesliga and CL with Elvesberg having average players. Owen Beck who is rated in GScout is 75% W but I had him as win back. was POM in CL final.







I'm not saying you shouldn't buy better players because better players will give you more chances of winning matches without making changes. I just don't think it is necessary to use GScout to look for someone who is rated 90% because 80 will do similar job with more hassle.






What is more interesting for me is that I have some knowledge of how real-life research works. Back in the day, researchers tested people’s behavior and then calculated statistical probabilities.

Nowadays, they have concluded that it is far more complicated—that you cannot assume one person thinks like another. Therefore, most tests require face-to-face interviews where you collect more detailed data.

I don't think FM ME is that advance.

I think a lot of this can be solved by reading FM 24 manual related to attributes, who could give us better info than the developer themselves.

they mention how attributes work overall

"Take one small example. A winger who has a high attribute value for crossing, on average, delivers consistently dangerous crosses into attacking positions in perfect circumstances, i.e. with the ball fully under control and without significant pressure around them. But what happens if you then start to add in other factors? Introduce a defender closing them down, introduce a defender in the penalty area waiting to clear it, introduce a poor playing surface due to unfavourable weather. Everything changes.

If that player has high attributes in other areas, like pace and acceleration, dribbling and technique, for example, they have more ways to succeed. Players make thousands of mental calculations in every match based around the best option available to them at any given moment, and those are based off their attributes and their all-round competency. They aren’t always right in their decision (the specific Decisions attribute itself plays a big role here), nor is the right decision always the successful one."

However attributes alone will never be enough, given other things can also affect a player performance, such as their personality, feet ability, traits, weather, team instructions, quality of staff, training facilities, etc.

For example how will a player behave if a position or team instruction tells him to do something contrary to his traits ? It seems he will still attempt his trait, given they seem to have a higher priority and therefore are more important than any instruction given.

I enjoy this excel type of analysis and decision making which the game make the player to do, and while you can do well even ignoring the attributes (specially if you have a good coaching and recruitment team) there is a greater satisfaction of winning and doing well, when you also sort of work out all the right decision at the right time, bc that is how things also work in the real world.

Team and position specific instructions only means how likely are players going to attempt to do things or avoid certain actions but does not guarantee its never going to happen as I understand it.

One area that I initially overlooked is mentoring, which allows you to improve the mental attributes of players and also pass on useful traits.

I do agree with you to some extent, but I would disagree with the statement, “who could give us better information than the developer themselves?”

This year, it’s pretty obvious that the developers are selling an unfinished product. So, is this really the developer we should trust?

In theory, developers understand their own systems better than anyone. But in practice, there’s a gap between:

* what they intend the match engine (ME) to do
* and what players actually experience in thousands of hours of gameplay

I have read those manuals every time I’ve bought a physical version of the game, starting from FM 2005. But at the end of the day, those explanations are still just theory.

Every year, there are well-known exploits in the match engine that have never been properly addressed by the same developers who tell us what is important. Why is that?

Some long-time players are familiar with concepts like RNG (random number generation). In theory, RNG is used to simulate real-life unpredictability in football—things like:

A striker missing an easy chance
A defender making a random mistake
A shot deflecting in an unexpected way

Without RNG, every match would be completely predictable, and the game would feel artificial.
But what kind of consistency is that? None, or at least not enough to feel reliable.

In theory, RNG is meant to simulate real-life unpredictability in football. However, when combined with persistent exploits and unclear mechanics, it can make the game feel less like a realistic simulation and more like something you can’t fully trust or understand.

Yes the game has "some known exploits" but every game will have those, for me they ruin the whole immersion and fun out of the game, thankfully one can choose not to do them.

I think there was a video where people from Unity were showcasing some parts of FM as a case study and it was mentioned the match engine was not altered, given they have been working on it for so long and it does make sense if they wanted to start from scratch we would not have a game right now.

I think good players having a bad match is not necessarily bad, even irl that happens, and its something coaches have to deal with also.

I do not think there is a way to do away with them, if they tried probably its only a matter of time before some other exploit is found by someone else.

That is why I play guided by the attributes and things which I can see from the game, making it engaging and fun while also challenging.

So, are we concluding that GRF files are useless? I think Eugene must have based his app on some evaluation metric when he created it. There's a website, fmarena, where someone edited some GRF files, but I never saw much difference in the final rankings compared to the current ones, besides the fact that they were created for the FM24 modified match engine.

From the GS manual

"Rating is produced by a formula that takes into account position related attributes (e.g. Finishing for a ST, Marking for a DC). These attributes are given weights and these weights are inserted into a formula that provides a player’s rating on a percentage scale. If a rating is 80% this means this player has 80% of the attributes needed to be a perfect player in that position using the current rating system. The rating system used in GS is made by GS’s creator and may not be the way you rate players yourself."

I do not know based on what Eugene based the default rating of the app, but using it has worked well for me, so I see no need to change things, although I might change the weights of decision, determination and positioning given FM 24 says they are important mental attributes for all positions.

Beyond the percentages by position, there are three key factors that I always check in GS: important matches, consistency, and injury tendency. I don't know if you do the same.

This is only my understanding.

If the Match Engine (ME) has flaws and errors, it would mean that not everything is working as it should. If something is based on errors, it will usually create error-based outcomes.

It is hard for me to believe that SI is not able to fix issues such as dealing with gegenpress tactics that seem to exploit the ME, ball physics, etc. Instead, they say that attributes matter.

If attributes interact with each other and players make decisions based on them, what is the percentage probability of proper execution? I have no idea. We all try to make assumptions about which attributes are important because we want to believe the game is close to reality—but it is still just a game.

I’m not saying that Eugen’s files are wrong. He had an idea to create a way of calculating attributes to make it easier for users to search for players. He identified some patterns (I’m not exactly sure what they are) and built an app around them.

Does Eugen know how the ME works 100%? Probably not. Maybe he read FM guides and assumed that what they say is true, using them as a reference point.

What if SI is feeding us a kind of “fairy tale” so we believe these things matter, while in reality it was just an idea?

I don’t know if you’re familiar with match shouts. They were presented as a way to influence the game during matches. In reality, they might just be more of an immersion feature or even a placebo effect. But they admit that now when the new game came out and decide to remove it from original version of a game.