Too much difference between "natural" and "accomplished" positions?

I have Miguel Veloso in my Liverpool team, and he's listed as a DM/MC. DM is his "natural" position and he's an "accomplished" MC.

But, when look at the assistant's report, he gets 3 stars in the DM position ("leading star in premier league") but only 1½ stars in the MC position ("good championship player").

Surely this gap is a bit much? I mean, I could understand it if his MC proficiency wasn't that high, but it's listed as "accomplished" - which should mean, that's he should be almost as good as playing there as in his primary and natural position.

I have the same problem with Albert Riera: ML = 2½ stars and "good premier division player" - AML = 1 star and "decent championship player".

A player like Mascherano, though, only goes from DMC = 4 stars to MC = 3½ stars. I'm guessing that an attribute like Versatility has something to do with it, but I still feel that "accomplished" should mean just that, no matter what.

I never look at those reports I think they are wrong. I only look at their attributes and what I think is best suited for them to play. Also I think the only thing that changes when playing a player from his natural to anything lesser is his decision making. I could be wrong but!

:D XFH

Maybe the ratings are based on relevant attributes for each position, not just CA and the positional attributes.(In your example, Veloso may have very good attributes for DM, like strength, but not as good MC attributes such as creativity.)

I never look at those reports I think they are wrong. I only look at their attributes and what I think is best suited for them to play. Also I think the only thing that changes when playing a player from his natural to anything lesser is his decision making. I could be wrong but!

:D XFH

That is correct, his decision and positional attributes take a hit from playing out of position I read somewhere.

Maybe the ratings are based on relevant attributes for each position, not just CA and the positional attributes.(In your example, Veloso may have very good attributes for DM, like strength, but not as good MC attributes such as creativity.)

No, Veloso is a good MC as well, if you look at his attributes - e.g. 16 in Creativity and 15 in Long Shots. He's a better MC than Mascerano, in my opinion.

And I don't think the assistant looks at the attributes when he makes his judgement. I'm guessing it's a combination of the player's Current Ability, his positional rating in the position (20 is natural, 15-19 is accomplished, as far as I know) and then maybe an x-factor of some kind, like versatility.

Let's say that Veloso has a rating of 20 for DMC and 15 for MC. It's a gap, yes, but 15 is still pretty high. Surely that shouldn't be a difference of "leading premier division star" and "good championship player".

Even if he has a low versatility rating, I still think that it should not affect positions he's already "accomplished" in (if that's actually the case) - it should merely prevent him from learning new positions effectively.

It also depends on how good the assistant is at judging the player's ability, of coruse, but I don't feel this is an issue here - my assistant has high JPA and JPP ratings.

If they are young enough train them to become natural, takes 4-8 months with most players depending on adaptability i assume

Nothing to do with his position. Veloso is simply a much better defensive midfielder as his attributes show.

It would be a problem if he had Long Shots 20, Passing 20, Creativity 20, Finishing 20 and Pace 20 but was a better defensive midfielder in-game, for example.

Nothing to do with his position. Veloso is simply a much better defensive midfielder as his attributes show.

It would be a problem if he had Long Shots 20, Passing 20, Creativity 20, Finishing 20 and Pace 20 but was a better defensive midfielder in-game, for example.

I really don't think the reports reflect his actual attributes, but rather a combination of his hidden Current Ability and his hidden ratings in the different positions. That's why a player with good attributes can get just 1 star in the report, because his CA is rather low.

My main gripe is, that there seems to be a (too) big penalty for playing some players in their "accomplished" positons rather than their "natural" positions. And I would really like to know whether that's actually the case and if so, why that is.

Whats wrong with utilizing him as a "Deep Laying Playmaker/Support"?

Whats wrong with utilizing him as a "Deep Laying Playmaker/Support"?

Nothing. And that's actually what I usually do. I'd just like to know if the game is penalizing his ability excessively if I play him in MC rather than DMC.

I think I've got just the player to illustrate this issue:

He is natural in DC and WBR, but accomplished as DR. From FMRTE, his positional rating is 20 in DC and WBR, 18 in DR. I suppose 18 should already be considered as high as accomplished should go, however my assistant (JPA/JPP 17/18) rates him 4.5 stars for DC, 4 for WBR and 3 for DR.

Looking at his stats I can't see why he would be given such a low DR rating; in fact he would make a better DR than WBR because he's not a good dribbler.

I try to avoid retraining to new positions because I think retraining uses up precious CA points, but I could be wrong though.

it makes no difference. i would gladly play a player in a position if he is "competent" in the role. the attributes and versatility determine how well they adjust

it makes no difference. i would gladly play a player in a position if he is "competent" in the role. the attributes and versatility determine how well they adjust

The assistant's lower rating would suggest that the player actually takes quite a big ability hit when played in an "accomplished" position rather than "natural". If it's actually like this, then I think it should be tweaked to be made less severe.

But anyway, I guess only SI can explain exactly how this is working.

I'm quite sure it's a bug because my players still play well in accomplished positions and even in positions they're not trained for.

I let a young AM RLC (no other position ratings) play DR in three friendlies and he did a decent job.

That is correct, his decision and positional attributes take a hit from playing out of position I read somewhere.

Really? I've always felt (and I mean it, it's just a hunch) that players took consistency hits which makes a world of difference on their performance throughout the season. Decision & positioning hit would be rather insignificant compared to additional inconsistency which supposedly affects their CA in use for that particular match. Wish we could have proper info on issues so crucial like that rather than hunches or collateral knowledge.

I agree that players who are "accomplished" play worse than they should.

In fact the whole system is quite badly flawed. In real life players who are switched to a new position often adapt to it instantly, but that never happens on FM. Players who don't pick up a new position right away rarely ever do, but on FM you can retrain a player to natural in any position if you spend long enough trying.

When have you ever seen a player in real life played out of position for a number of months and go from being awful at it to being good?

Lucas is a great example irl

Anyway, my guess is how well an "Accomplished" player plays really depends on his versatility.

I bought Gorucuff to play as MR (Accomplished) (his natural position is AMC) and he has never been good at MR. He was playing so poorly so I ended up using him as AMC which he does a good job there. However, Jovetic is my target man striker now (Accomplished), but his natural position is AM LC.

I still think that accomplished players should play better; otherwise, it should not be called accomplished.

I agree that players who are "accomplished" play worse than they should.

In fact the whole system is quite badly flawed. In real life players who are switched to a new position often adapt to it instantly, but that never happens on FM. Players who don't pick up a new position right away rarely ever do, but on FM you can retrain a player to natural in any position if you spend long enough trying.

When have you ever seen a player in real life played out of position for a number of months and go from being awful at it to being good?

I don't know how you can say this - if a player is a natural DM C and accomplished M C it gives you a hint that in most roles at M C he will be worse, including a "defensive central midfielder" role.

There is very little difference between accomplished and natural in the match engine in terms of performance.

Mascherano cannot do a box-to-box or creative midfield role which is why he will be rated less as an M C. If you must play Mascherano at M C, you can augment this somewhat by not telling him to try doing a box-to-box or creative midfield role as he is a better DM C. Even if he wasn't (and was natural elsewhere, like on the wing), his attributes (tackling, work rate, aggression, lack of pace, etc.) would tell you he's better off with more defensive duties.

The only way you can say "I agree that players who are "accomplished" play worse than they should." is if you take Player X, clone him and say he is an M C - make one M C 20 and one M C 18, then show that on average the latter plays much worse. There will be a performance hit but I guarantee it will be no big deal.

There may be an issue with the star ratings but I see the star ratings for M C as being an "average" of all possible roles at M C, likely weighted to ignore the worst roles (i.e. Alexandre Song as a attacking, creative midfielder). The fact is the likes of Song and Mascherano cannot really perform too many roles at M C so they will be rated worse. However, there is certainly a set of instructions which suit these midfielders so if you do not wish to play them at DM C, you can cater for this.

x42bn6,

That is not my experience. I often retrain players to make better use of their attributes, and find that in the "accomplished" stage they tend to perform a lot worse than in the "natural" stage. More so than I would expect from the description "accomplished" anyway.

I think it is interesting that you brought up the issue of different roles within the same position because this is another aspect of the current system that doesn't work. At the moment Mascherano is rated as "natural" in a deep-lying playmaker role even though he has never played that position. He won't perform well there of course because his attributes aren't suited, but he is not held back by the fact that he is being asked to play what is effectively a new position.

Contrast this with the situation where I want my MR to play the same role slightly higher up the pitch. Even if his attributes are perfect, he won't be able to play it well there until he has been trained for up to two years to play as an AMR.

This is silly.

I'm not sure I agree with the first part. Perhaps they really aren't cut-out to be in that new role. A proper test to determine the "detriment" of a positional rating being lower is to take two identical players except one has a different natural role, and they must both ignore the "other" role and not play it at all - rather than "X plays worse at accomplished WB L than natural D C so there's a big problem with accomplished/natural" - how about your tactics or reading of attributes?

You raise a good point about the need to train a player to a new position despite his attributes being brilliant for the new role. There is, however, inevitably some training needed to learn a new position but I feel a player who not only trains that position but plays there regularly should develop that position quicker than someone who is learning that position simply for the future. Also a player who doesn't train in a new position but you shoehorn him there anyway frequently should learn that position over time as well, albeit slowly and perhaps capped to competent, because only the training ground can cover every single scenario.