CA vs Attributes vs Star Ratings

Hey all,

So I was wondering does anyone know what's the direct relation between CA and Atrributes and Star Rating's? I mean what determine's how good a player is? Is it his hidden CA rating, is it attributes or is it his star rating's? I ask because when determining my first team I have seen players with good looking atrributes but lower CA compared to another player who has higher CA but crappier attributes, so in the game who's better?

Now with the star rating's how does that work. I've seen my scout (scout with a 200 CA) rate player's 2.5 star's which doesn't make any sense to me...for example, Kyriakos Pappadopolous, we all know has amazing attributes, my scout rates him a 2.5 star's....I just don't get it. I have realized that the Star rating's do adjust depending on the current rep of the team you're at, but still, 2.5 stars for Pappa doesn't make sense to me.

If anyone has any insight to how all this work's, i'd love to be enlightened. Thanks.

Attributes are a reflection/calculation of the CA, with every attribute having a different "weight" depending on the player's position [Finishing will require more CA for a Striker than for a Defender]

Some attributes need more CA than others (ie. physical attributes are very CA-consuming), two-footedness is also a factor.

Star rating is not absolute but it's relative to the overall quality of your players, to the club's reputation and expectations.

2.5* means he's a starting XI material at your club, be it a Conference side or Barcelona.

The star ratings are just opinions of your staff. Like in real life they can be wrong. Obviously the better the staff member the more often the report will be accurate. As you said their opinion is also relative to your club, and the players you have that play in the same position.

I always pay more attention to the players attributes for the role I want him to play, rather than the stars.

I pay attention to the CA, CA supplies the attributes

the higher the CA the better the player

there are some factors that make some exceptions and those are the hidden attributes

stars are completely useless and I never take them into consideration

5 stars potential could easily plummet into 2,5 stars current ability/ potential with the wrong staff

Hey all,

So I was wondering does anyone know what's the direct relation between CA and Atrributes and Star Rating's? I mean what determine's how good a player is? Is it his hidden CA rating, is it attributes or is it his star rating's? I ask because when determining my first team I have seen players with good looking atrributes but lower CA compared to another player who has higher CA but crappier attributes, so in the game who's better?

Now with the star rating's how does that work. I've seen my scout (scout with a 200 CA) rate player's 2.5 star's which doesn't make any sense to me...for example, Kyriakos Pappadopolous, we all know has amazing attributes, my scout rates him a 2.5 star's....I just don't get it. I have realized that the Star rating's do adjust depending on the current rep of the team you're at, but still, 2.5 stars for Pappa doesn't make sense to me.

If anyone has any insight to how all this work's, i'd love to be enlightened. Thanks.

Having a high CA means nothing, if all those points are spent in the wrong attributes for the position he is playing ... but then again, you can use training to redistribute those.

Stars are a comparison between players in your squad.

I have many times started a game in the BSP or BSN in England, and had a player with 4 or 5 stars. But after I have gotten some good free transfers, he is now a 2,5 star player. It doesn't mean he is worse than when I started. Just that he isn't the best player in the squad anymore.

I pay attention to the CA, CA supplies the attributes

the higher the CA the better the player

there are some factors that make some exceptions and those are the hidden attributes

stars are completely useless and I never take them into consideration

5 stars potential could easily plummet into 2,5 stars current ability/ potential with the wrong staff

Actually, attributes supply the CA, not the other way around .

Oh, and you do realise that by relying solely on CA you're actually paying A LOT off attention to the stars? Considering with good staff the stars are extremely accurate on who has the highest CA in your team.

I think you are wrong on the CA

CA/PA are the core of a football player

then go positions (more positions on the field, more CA consumed)

then go attributes (more 20 attributes, more CA consumed)

then go PPM's (in this case can be learned from tutoring, but I am pretty sure they use CA too if they are trained)

all of them are fueled by CA

not attributes fuel CA

I think you are wrong on the CA

CA/PA are the core of a football player

then go positions (more positions on the field, more CA consumed)

then go attributes (more 20 attributes, more CA consumed)

then go PPM's (in this case can be learned from tutoring, but I am pretty sure they use CA too if they are trained)

all of them are fueled by CA

not attributes fuel CA

Partly right.

PPMs don't use CA at all.

As CA increases its distributed to attributes by the training you set. Training can also redistribute CA over time, most noticeable in older players who free up CA points as their physical attributes decline improving mental & technical attributes.

Each attribute is weighted per position and adding a position will increase the weighting of some attributes which eat up more CA points.

So I was wondering does anyone know what's the direct relation between CA and Atrributes and Star Rating's? I mean what determine's how good a player is? Is it his hidden CA rating, is it attributes or is it his star rating's? I ask because when determining my first team I have seen players with good looking atrributes but lower CA compared to another player who has higher CA but crappier attributes, so in the game who's better?

Now with the star rating's how does that work. I've seen my scout (scout with a 200 CA) rate player's 2.5 star's which doesn't make any sense to me...for example, Kyriakos Pappadopolous, we all know has amazing attributes, my scout rates him a 2.5 star's....I just don't get it. I have realized that the Star rating's do adjust depending on the current rep of the team you're at, but still, 2.5 stars for Pappa doesn't make sense to me.

Attributes determine how good a player is.

CA determines how high his attributes can be, taking into account their weightings.

Star ratings are a way of comparing the CAs of players with those in your squad.

As for Pappa, he appears to have good attributes but if I remember correctly he has one major weakness that means he isn't as good as he looks, and his non-defensive attributes are poor.

do PPM's really don't use CA points?

have they used CA in previous games?

do PPM's really don't use CA points?

have they used CA in previous games?

No, they've never used CA, but they might have stunted CA growth.

great news

thank you very much!

let me give you guys a great example:

SCOUT A (CA = 200) (total of att's = 149)

Attacking - 6_____Adapt - 13

Coa GK's - 1______Deter - 12

Defending - 5_____JPA - 20

Fitness - 1_______JPP - 20

MM - 5__________LOD - 9

Mental - 6_______Motivating - 6

Tactical - 8______Physio - 2

Technical - 6_____TK - 20

WWY - 9

vs

SCOUT B (CA = 185) (230) (total of att's = 173)

Attacking - 6_____Adapt - 14

Coa GK's - 6______Deter - 18

Defending - 5_____JPA - 20

Fitness - 5_______JPP - 20

MM - 9__________LOD - 19

Mental - 5_______Motivating - 9

Tactical - 12_____Physio - 2

Technical - 6_____TK - 15

WWY - 2

Who's the better scout and why?? (btw..the total of the hidden att's for each scout is 324)

Same thing goes with the training staff. We all talk about having 5 star coaches right. Well is a 5 star coach with a CA of 134 better than a 4 star coach with a CA of 180??

Thats staff rather than players & you can't add attributes up to equal CA as Attributes:CA isn't 1:1

On a sidenote I thought staff only went up to 150CA not 200CA.

As for which is better well they are both excellent as a Scout's main attributes are JPA & JPP and they both have 20 for each. I really wouldn't worry too much about other attributes for a scout although some people like determination and tactical knowledge if scouting opposition.

Thats staff rather than players & you can't add attributes up to equal CA as Attributes:CA isn't 1:1

On a sidenote I thought staff only went up to 150CA not 200CA.

As for which is better well they are both excellent as a Scout's main attributes are JPA & JPP and they both have 20 for each. I really wouldn't worry too much about other attributes for a scout although some people like determination and tactical knowledge if scouting opposition.

I understand that you can't add attributes up to equal CA, I did that just to compare the total attributes distributed on each scout because there's supposed to be a direct connection between CA and attributes so I want to know why the higher CA scout has lower attributes than the lower CA scout.

You say both are excellent scout's because the scout's main attributes are JPA & JPP so when I search in my game for all scouts that are a 20 in both JPA & JPP, you're going to tell me that a scout with a CA of 140 is just as excellent as the scout with a CA of 200??? I find that very hard to believe.

Staff works in pretty much a completely different way. First staff is far more specialized than players, so while a versatile player is useful, a versatile coach isn't since he can only take care off one category at a time with full efficiency. Because off this staff have like 20 attributes that don't count at all, but do fill up a little bit off CA. So your 200 CA scout will be epic at pretty much every role, but you only need him to scout, unlike a player he'd never fulfill two different functions.

Staff works in pretty much a completely different way. First staff is far more specialized than players, so while a versatile player is useful, a versatile coach isn't since he can only take care off one category at a time with full efficiency. Because off this staff have like 20 attributes that don't count at all, but do fill up a little bit off CA. So your 200 CA scout will be epic at pretty much every role, but you only need him to scout, unlike a player he'd never fulfill two different functions.

Define "every role"? Do you mean like coach, Ass man, etc.?

Define "every role"? Do you mean like coach, Ass man, etc.?

Yeah that's what I meant.

Star ratings are useful, but in the end it is what works in your tactic that matters. If a player looks great but his star rating or CA is poor, one of two things have happened:

1. He has somehow found an attribute distribution that makes good use of little CA. This can happen.

2. Your evaluation of his attributes is wrong.

In either case, check his Av.R, Goals, Assists and MOM's. If those are as good or better than the competition, what's the problem?

yes scouts with JPA & JPP =20 even if they have different CA will give you the same reports, why? because they use just JPA & JPP

I have a scout with regional and another with worldwide reputation, the one with regional has lower CA than the worldwide one, but they work the same because they use only 2 attributes for their role, their attributes are the same, therefore they are equals

yes scouts with JPA & JPP =20 even if they have different CA will give you the same reports, why? because they use just JPA & JPP

I have a scout with regional and another with worldwide reputation, the one with regional has lower CA than the worldwide one, but they work the same because they use only 2 attributes for their role, their attributes are the same, therefore they are equals

Thanks Poola, this exactly what I'm trying to get at. Ok so how would you go about ranking the top scouts in the game? would you just find all the scouts with JPA & JPP =20 and that's it, there's your top scouts in the game?

Thanks Poola, this exactly what I'm trying to get at. Ok so how would you go about ranking the top scouts in the game? would you just find all the scouts with JPA & JPP =20 and that's it, there's your top scouts in the game?

Pretty much.

If you wanted me to guess from your earlier examples I suspect Scout A who has the higher CA is capable of other roles to a better extent than scout B leading to a higher weighting for some of his other attributes.

TBH though you are doing yourself no favours by looking at CA/PA and would be better just playing the game the way it was intended then this question would never have arisen.

The important thing for scouts is Scouting Knowledge

Thanks Poola, this exactly what I'm trying to get at. Ok so how would you go about ranking the top scouts in the game? would you just find all the scouts with JPA & JPP =20 and that's it, there's your top scouts in the game?

Higher reputation scouts have more scouting knowledge when you sign them. In addition, it seems to me that higher-reputation (higher skill?) scouts gain scouting knowledge faster even though both have the same JPA+CA. I can't prove it, but what I can prove is that I have plenty of 16+ JPA/CA scouts with regional or less reputation having scouted their designated region for 3+ years and only achieved 50% knowledge in one of the countries there. I can also prove that a continental class scout with similar JPA/CA have gained more knowledge in the same timeframe and possibly in the same region.

However, in the same timeframe the clubs's reputation and budget has increased greatly, so that could be a contributing factor to the scouting itself.

There are so many advantages of signing high-rep staff that I recommend going for it in any case. Not only do they have more scouting knowledge and likely more favoured personel and "connections" (international app's), they also increase the club's reputation as a whole plus facilities. A warm, fuzzy feeling of accomplishment is also likely upon signing famous names to do your bidding.

Biggus - Better rep scouts don't have more scouting knowledge. I've seen enough high rep scout that stuck to one nation forever and therefore only got knowledge off one nation and just starting obscure scouts that already got multiple extra countries on 50% knowledge. Bigger rep scouts simply have a higher probability off having lots off different knowledge since they've been around longer.

Biggus - Better rep scouts don't have more scouting knowledge. I've seen enough high rep scout that stuck to one nation forever and therefore only got knowledge off one nation and just starting obscure scouts that already got multiple extra countries on 50% knowledge. Bigger rep scouts simply have a higher probability off having lots off different knowledge since they've been around longer.

Yeah higher -probablity- of high scouting knowledge is more correct to say.

I think you are wrong on the CA

CA/PA are the core of a football player

then go positions (more positions on the field, more CA consumed)

then go attributes (more 20 attributes, more CA consumed)

then go PPM's (in this case can be learned from tutoring, but I am pretty sure they use CA too if they are trained)

all of them are fueled by CA

not attributes fuel CA

Concerning positions:

I tend to train my players a second position so they can help out as backup if needed, ie. CB<->FB, CB<->DMC, etc.

Now i read this quoted post and am wondering if this is actually a bad thing i am doing. As long as the 2nd position is in the same "area" (defense, midfield), does that eat away attribute points/CA?

I am assuming, that i.e. FB might have higher attribute weighting in speed, crossing, etc than if the player were only a CB.

If this is correct, that every second position takes away CA for attributes, when does the game start calculating these? Only when he becomes a natural at the second position or already earlier?

Concerning positions:

I tend to train my players a second position so they can help out as backup if needed, ie. CB<->FB, CB<->DMC, etc.

Now i read this quoted post and am wondering if this is actually a bad thing i am doing. As long as the 2nd position is in the same "area" (defense, midfield), does that eat away attribute points/CA?

I am assuming, that i.e. FB might have higher attribute weighting in speed, crossing, etc than if the player were only a CB.

If this is correct, that every second position takes away CA for attributes, when does the game start calculating these? Only when he becomes a natural at the second position or already earlier?

Yes you have the right idea.

Training one side to the other doesn't make any difference as the skills are the same DR>DL or MR>ML (Still fullbacks or wingers etc). Mixing other positions increases the weighting for some attributes consuming more CA points. Obviously some positions are worse than others DC>DR might only increase a few attribute weightings as they share a lot of main attributes but DC>ST will increase a lot more as the attributes needed are totally different.

I don't know for sure but I believe the weighting will be affected by how useful the player is in his 2nd position. Accomplished meaning heavy weighting compared to competent.

Positions are NOT CA consuming, they just change the weightings of attributes. But more weighting here means less there, so the difference is usually pretty small and doesn't affect attributes that much.

I made some experiments on previous FM and my conclusions were:

- PMs don't take CA,

- more positions usually don't affect attributes much (but it can be profitable to have good-offensive-skilled player trained also in defensive positions, as it will lower offensive skills weighting),

- difference between one legged player (like 20-1) and two legged (like 20-18) can be about 1 in technical and mental attributes, and 1-2 in physical.

I don't know for sure but I believe the weighting will be affected by how useful the player is in his 2nd position. Accomplished meaning heavy weighting compared to competent.

Thank you!

This opens another question which you perhaps can answer:

Some players have (several) accomplished positions given by the researchers, in my case a player with natural MC and accomplished AML. I assume especially these two positions have very different attribute weightings.

If i intend to play him only as AML, is it more beneficial to train him to natural and lose (more) attributes/CA or just continue playing him as accomplished AML but therefore get more attribute points?

@ zolwik

I gather from your post that the loss in attributes is generally minimal so i should go for natural position

Thanks!