is Physical Attributes part of Cur/Po Ability ? if it is.....it shouldn't

i ask this because i have been using the iFMRTE for iMac.......and improving the Shamrock Rovers side

i noticed that 99% of the players in the league are so out of shape

skill wise, yes i was expecting 7,8,9 and 10's but i was looking at the Physical Attributes and i was a tad bit annoyed

take Dan Murray a 28 year old shamrock rovers defender. the guy is 6f 2 and 14 stone.....in real life he is a bit of a bear

but in FM he's a joe soap .....is this because he plays in a pool league.

in FM jumping is 14 it should be around 17ish

in FM natural fitness is 10 it should be around 15ish

in FM stamina is 8 it should be around 13ish

in Fm strength is 14 it should be at least 17 or even 18

just wondering

thanks

[ireland] (Official) Data Issues

Here's the place to question it.

A player with 15/15 acceleration/pace is better than a player with 5/5 acceleration/pace, so in my mind physicals should definitely "spend" ability points, but I do agree that there's probably something to be said about excessive physical differences between lower league and top players. There should be both reasonably strong and reasonably pacey players in the lower leagues, just lacking skill or fotballing intelligence.

Definitely there's a lot of room for revamping the CA distribution system...

A pacey player is pacey whether he's at Man United or at Local Pub FC... For some reason FM puts heavy limitations on the physical traits of non-top players, probably due the CA weighing system, or due to the remarkable bias the ME seems have when it comes to speed/strength.

Having a player with 18 Pace, 17 Acceleration or with 18 Strength/Stamina in League Two could probably destroy the balance of the whole league, and it would probably require to give the player a much higher CA than he should have. Then we're stuck either with pacey players who should have pursued a career in track&field instead [aka useless at kicking/passing a ball] or with "toned down Mr. Average", more or less the small scale clones of top players, while some skills should have been higher but the CA puts a limit to those too.

All in all I think physical attributes should be FREE, and down to age development (a 16yo kid shouldn't generally be as strong/tall/resilient than his 24yo self, just like he's surely more fit than his 35yo self) and training.

"Wasting" valuable points on attributes that are either fixed by nature (if you sprain your ankle twice a month by entering the shower, you aren't likely to get less injury prone as you age) or age-related, or at best just moderately trainable isn't a great idea and it's a burden to the game itself

If you're not satisfied, just continue using FMRTE to do what you want.

I faff about with FMRTE myself, but i don't tell the community they should make the changes I do.

If you're not satisfied, just continue using FMRTE to do what you want.

I faff about with FMRTE myself, but i don't tell the community they should make the changes I do.

I think the issue the OP raised isn't just about "player X is underrated", and it's not something you can just fix with FMRTE.

The point is: physical attributes shouldn't gobble up CA/PA points the way they do now... Some of them are natural skills, related to one's bodily structure... there's not so much "ability" involved when a 6"4 tall guy jumps higher and is stronger than a 5"4 opponent; ditto for the smaller guy being more agile and faster.

Moreso, those physical attributes aren't the same at 15, at 20, at 29 and at 35... so why should we have CA involved in what is a mere physiological growth/decline factor?

Last but not least, you can still train someone to be stronger or faster, but the improvements are still heavily related to the person's physique... If I'm a stocky lad, I won't ever be as swift as a slim guy, no matter how hard I train.

So the point is physical attributes should not play such a huge part in the CA calculation, and their impact in the ME should be toned down.

The fact physical attributes have such an impact on CA creates two problems:

1) Mediocre players with impressive physical traits get higher CA just to recreate them with fair accuracy. But by doing so they become much more appetible to AI clubs than they are in real life. So we suddenly have Tough Guy playing at a top club just because he's strong and pacey and has 150CA despite being absolutely rubbish at playing football.

2) Mediocre players, usually from lower/smaller leagues, get their physical attributes cut because they must "fit" into the specific CA guidelines for that specific tier/nation. So we have physically impressive players getting toned down because they can't get more CA points due to league standard.

As if physical skills depend on where you are... 100m run in 10" are impressive whether you run them as Man Utd player or as part-timer down in tier 8...

Either way, the system produces debatable results...

I think that a footballing potential isn't necessarily linked with an athletic potential. Why don't SI make it simpler for themselves by implementing a separate Current Physical Ability and Potential Physical ability of each player, independent of their Ca and Pa

I think that a footballing potential isn't necessarily linked with an athletic potential. Why don't SI make it simpler for themselves by implementing a separate Current Physical Ability and Potential Physical ability of each player, independent of their Ca and Pa

Although I think this would probably be the best option going forward there is a chance it could completely unbalance the game short term and might take quite a while in house testing it before they add it into the game. Similarly how they said that they'd been testing dynamic reputation for a few years before its addition.

Although I think this would probably be the best option going forward there is a chance it could completely unbalance the game short term and might take quite a while in house testing it before they add it into the game. Similarly how they said that they'd been testing dynamic reputation for a few years before its addition.

Not necessarily...

As first step they could just rework the attributes weighing so that physical attributes stop being SO prominent in the CA calculation, while keeping them difficult to develop once a player has reached age 18-19

Then they can do all the in-house testing they want with a different and more elegant system, with Physical Attributes have their own separate CA/PA...

Rightly or wrongly, the current ME puts a lot of emphasis on speed. Without a total rewrite, I can't see it happening.

P.S. on what evidence do you think Dan Murray's stats should be higher?

I don't think that physical attributes such as strength stamina pace etc. should be on the same CA/PA scale as the technical and mental attributes.

For instance, if you set a player's training schedule to not have physical training at all, and max out their other training, you can essentially take CA away from physical attributes and give them to mental/technical attributes. That's like a manager saying 'I want you to be smarter off the ball, but to do that, you're going to have to run slower.'

Its true that being a good athlete wont make you a good footballer and vice versa but currently the CA/PA system is too simple to handle taking these stats out of the calculations imo. Currently the Physical stats are very powerful in the ME and so removing them from the CA/PA scale would give strong and quick players a massive advantage over slower, weaker players who may be technically better. In order to take them off the same scale a MASSIVE overhaul of the CA/PA system, scouting and the ME engine would have to be undertaken.

I don't think that physical attributes such as strength stamina pace etc. should be on the same CA/PA scale as the technical and mental attributes.

For instance, if you set a player's training schedule to not have physical training at all, and max out their other training, you can essentially take CA away from physical attributes and give them to mental/technical attributes. That's like a manager saying 'I want you to be smarter off the ball, but to do that, you're going to have to run slower.'

No that's the manager saying 'I want you to be smarter off and on the ball, but to do that, you're going to have to spend all of your time at the club on improving that particular aspect', and that will eventually lead to a natural decline in the player's physique.

But to get back to the OP: On one hand I completely agree. The few times I've been able to watch an FA Cup match between a Premiership side and a lower league side, the pundits always talk about how the Premiership team will be facing a physically strong side. In the game lower league teams are not only worse technically and mentally but also physically thus putting them in even more of a disadvantage. On the other hand you could say that there are several players out there who would be terrible if it wasn't for their incredible pace. The only reason Theo Walcott has the CA he has is his acceleration and pace. Without that he would need such a low CA that these two attributes need a high weighing. I also think if a very fast player is playing in the lower leagues he must be slightly below average for that level technically and mentally. Having that much pace is a huge advantage that it would allow to play at a higher level than your technical and mental attributes would warrant you to.

So in conclusion I think physical attributes, particularly Acceleration and Pace should still have relatively high weighings but it is possible that they should be toned down from their current levels.

The reason Pace, Work Rate, Strength, Tackling, Technique and Dribbling are so much more important attributes than the rest is that the players use them all the time! Through the entire match you can see with your own eyes how big an advantage faster players have over slower ones. Finishing, Long Shots and Flair, however, are attributes that most players never use, and those who use them get the chance to do so only a few times per 90 minutes. Therefore, they are less important.

In SI's defense, this actually does make sense.

They should rather adjust the impact of certain other attributes such as Stamina, Crossing and Passing so that they become more important. Not only is the Stamina stat having little effect on how tired a player becomes (in particular if it is not 15 or above), but player condition in a match has very little effect on performance. If a player with 20 stamina was still on 85% condition in the 80th minute, while the opposition players around him was on 70% because their stamina was only 12, you should really see him dominating. Now there is little difference. I have seen AI managers starting with players at 80% condition, being 60% already after 50 minutes, but still being the best player on the pitch. That annoyed me.

You can't just 'tone down the importance' of an attribute in the match engine. It doesn't work that way. There isn't some value that says Pace is X important, Finishing is Y important. The only way that physical attributes will become less important is when the other technical and mental attributes catch up. Pace is effectively countered by 'reading the game' type attributes (positioning, anticipation, decisions etc), so as these improve, physical attributes will be less important. It's natural that the match engine should develop this way - physical attributes are by far the easiest to code, you just make fast players move around the pitch quicker, better jumpers reacher higher in the air and so on. These are simple things to do. Technical attributes are slightly harder, as you need to define what a good outcome is, and then make the better player do it more often, so you need a better finisher to get his shots on target more often, a better crosser to get his crosses into decent places more often and so on. This is more difficult, but it is still reasonably straightforward to do. By far the hardest thing to code is the mental attributes, as you are effectively hafing to write code to determine what is the correct pass in this situation, what is the correct type of shot to make and so on. This is considerably more complicated to code, which is why this kind of thing has taken longer to develop. If you compare the early match engines to the recent ones, players were much less 'intelligent' and physical attributes were much more dominant than they are now. As the match engine improves, this trend should continue.

Or we could get rid of CA altogether, and let attributes vary by themselves... Then CA could be retained as a guide within the editor, but doesn't constrain anything physically. It will just help users when editing. For example, if you set all the physical attributes to be 20, the game will warn you that "This player will have CA 190" - at this point, the user will realise that perhaps it is not a good idea to make it so high, and thus decrease it. However, if you have a reason to do so, the game won't stop you by constraining it.

For all the ideas around "current physical ability" and such - one could argue that you could break this down further to be more accurate, to the point where you have a current ability for every attribute - oh! - this sounds oddly enough like having attributes move around themselves...

You can't just 'tone down the importance' of an attribute in the match engine. It doesn't work that way. There isn't some value that says Pace is X important, Finishing is Y important. The only way that physical attributes will become less important is when the other technical and mental attributes catch up. Pace is effectively countered by 'reading the game' type attributes (positioning, anticipation, decisions etc), so as these improve, physical attributes will be less important. It's natural that the match engine should develop this way - physical attributes are by far the easiest to code, you just make fast players move around the pitch quicker, better jumpers reacher higher in the air and so on. These are simple things to do. Technical attributes are slightly harder, as you need to define what a good outcome is, and then make the better player do it more often, so you need a better finisher to get his shots on target more often, a better crosser to get his crosses into decent places more often and so on. This is more difficult, but it is still reasonably straightforward to do. By far the hardest thing to code is the mental attributes, as you are effectively hafing to write code to determine what is the correct pass in this situation, what is the correct type of shot to make and so on. This is considerably more complicated to code, which is why this kind of thing has taken longer to develop. If you compare the early match engines to the recent ones, players were much less 'intelligent' and physical attributes were much more dominant than they are now. As the match engine improves, this trend should continue.

fantastic post, well done!

Rightly or wrongly, the current ME puts a lot of emphasis on speed. Without a total rewrite, I can't see it happening.

P.S. on what evidence do you think Dan Murray's stats should be higher?

because iv seen him play in person twice and many time on tv...RTE shows a monday night highlights show of the the games in the irish league....

im not saying he is "world class" his technical attributes is sound. at best he is a league 2 player. but his strength being 14 is the reason i stated this post.

i counldn't help think that if his CA and PA was better his strength would have been better to......because he is poor player should not dictate how fast or strong he is..

P.S if Heskey has strength of 18-19 .....seeing Dan Murray in action he should have strength at least 17-18 IMO

There is definitely a slight problem with the attribute weighting for physical stats. When the Regens start to come through we can see that far to many of the top players are physical beast strong quick and tall, way to many Drogbas and not enough Xavis.

Which makes me think that physical attributes are too CA expensive to allow lower league beasts with out crippling them in other areas and too likely to be selected as the attributes to spend points on for high CA regens.

Breaking CA/PA down into smaller chunks that cover Physical, Mental, Technical and Hidden would make studying the researched players and monitoring regen creation easier. leading to more diverse believable regens in future.

As for Dan Murray I think the researchers should give him what ever attribute values they feel he warrants and if that leads to him having a CA 30 points higher then anyone else in the league then so what. The fact he will be sold to a bigger team points out the over reliance of the AI scouts on CA and PA but the researchers shouldn't be trying to compensate for that.

I guess the main question is.

Does a big dump lump up front, or an olympic sprinter have the same level of usefullness or "ability" as a fat midget who can pass?

I guess the main question is.

Does a big dump lump up front, or an olympic sprinter have the same level of usefullness or "ability" as a fat midget who can pass?

So who's better Ian Dowie, Darius Vassell or Jan Molby? In the real world i think every one agrees its Molby but In the present ME I think Vassell would be the most useful.

There's definitely a big problem with players in lower leagues and their physical attributes. In the past, you'd find enough speed merchants in the lower leagues, or big tall players that could jump. They couldn't do much else of course, with generally naff technical attributes.

Now there seems to be a cap on the physical attributes meaning that everyone in the lower leagues is slow, unfit, has no stamina and can't jump.

That's not what I see when I watch football (albeit I don't watch much lower league, but I do watch football in countries where the standard is low): there's generally one big bulky lad at the back and one up front, and one or two speed merchants with a trick or two either up front or on the wings. Technically they are generally poor, which is also the case in FM, but physically they often have one or two excellent attributes. As has been said before, pace, jumping etc. are only partially linked to training. Some people are simply much faster than others, some are simply taller, and some are naturally fitter. But whether you are fast or slow has no impact on whether you can actually cross/pass etc. which is what generally distinguishes the good players from the bad players.

At the moment, if you took an olympic sprinter who's not very good at football, and put them in the FM world, they'd suddenly have 11 acceleration and pace due to them being a poor foorballer, which makes absolutely no sense.

because iv seen him play in person twice and many time on tv...RTE shows a monday night highlights show of the the games in the irish league....

im not saying he is "world class" his technical attributes is sound. at best he is a league 2 player. but his strength being 14 is the reason i stated this post.

i counldn't help think that if his CA and PA was better his strength would have been better to......because he is poor player should not dictate how fast or strong he is..

P.S if Heskey has strength of 18-19 .....seeing Dan Murray in action he should have strength at least 17-18 IMO

So it's basically your opinion against the researcher's. Not trying to slam you, I just thought maybe you knew how high he jumps, how much weight he lifts, how long he can run, etc.