Has the value attributed to 'two-footedness' been changed for FM09?

For me, this was the single biggest flaw of FM08. Which actually goes some way to showing what a great game that was. But what I couldnt get over was that the game effectively penalized players for being two-footed. Wayne Hennessey (Wolves GK) is a perfect example - his attributes got completely shot due to being comfortable with either foot. But the two-footedness did not give him any conceivable advantage on the pitch in his role as a keeper. Even for outfield players, the benefit of having two strong feet is far outweighed by the across-the-board lower attributes. Issiar Dia is a good example of this, even though he has a good CA and PA in the game, his technicals and mentals rarely look anything better than average due to his two-footedness. I have done several experiments on this and have concluded that given the same ability level, having a one footed player (or maybe someone who is reasonable on his weaker foot) turns out to be better than having some who has 2 strong feet. I do agree with the concept of 'some' CA points being taken up by two-footedness, but currently it is way too many. If you have someone with a weaker foot rating of 100 and change it to say 10, his attributes go up by as much as +4 across the board. Too much emphasis on the weaker foot imo.

Would love to hear other members' opinions on this and whether the model is worked any differently on FM09.

The threat title should say attributed not attributes... sorry

The threat title should say attributed not attributes... sorry

And now it does

For what it's worth, I agree. Maradonna only used his right foot for standing on. He wasn't such a bad player.

I totally agree with you karan. this problem was one of the biggest reasons that put me off 08. it's ridicoulus that 'weak foot strength' affects all attributes so much, like you said as much as +4 across the board! I could accept the thinking that 'weak foot strength' influences attributes like dribbling, first touch, passing or crossing. but defenetly not physical or mental stats!!

what I noticed is that researchers put too many 1's for weak foot attribute for top leagues players. even I have some ability with my left foot and I play football once a weak. I think any a bit better pro-player should have his 'weak foot strength' at least 5.

anyway, wwfan said it all with Maradona example.

as far as I know this will be fixed in 09. but I don't know to which degree but it'd nice to know...

Even though I'm a staunch Liverpool fan, look at the difference between Ryan Babel and C. Ronaldo:

Babel's (weak foot attribute:1) attributes are astonishing, whereas Ronaldo (weak foot attribute: about 18) just looks like an average, albeit fast, winger when it pains me to admit that he's probably the most gifted winger in the world.

Exactly, thank you. Babel vs Ronaldo is an excellent example, as is Elano vs Ronaldo. The value attributed to two-footedness should ideally be such that two players having a similar CA, one of who is two-footed and the other is one-footed, should perform to a similar sort of level. Other things equal of course. That just does not happen in the game currently. One-footed players consistently out-perform their two-footed counterparts of a same ability level.

Even though I'm a staunch Liverpool fan, look at the difference between Ryan Babel and C. Ronaldo:

Babel's (weak foot attribute:1) attributes are astonishing, whereas Ronaldo (weak foot attribute: about 18) just looks like an average, albeit fast, winger when it pains me to admit that he's probably the most gifted winger in the world.

Edit: forget it, completely misread it.

But on the subject, yes the attribute hit for two-footedness is overdone and too simplistic. Having two good feet should also not have an impact on ones influence or bravery for example, as it does in the game because the CA distribution model means a drop will influence attributes randomly.

I think it is seriously flawed when the fact that two-footed-ness affects physical and mental attributes rather than just technical ones.

This is absolutely absurd. It makes no sense.

I think it is seriously flawed when the fact that two-footed-ness affects physical and mental attributes rather than just technical ones.

This is absolutely absurd. It makes no sense.

Actually, I dont have a problem with that. Because its not that two-footedness 'affects' physical and mental attributes, in truth it doesnt affect any attributes per say. It just acts as a component of CA, and my argument is that the weightage attributed to it is too much currently.

For example, if you changed a players pace attribute from say 10 to 20, all of his other attributes would go down a little bit to compensate (given the same CA is maintained). That doesnt mean that pace affects mental or technical attribites. Similarly, the same happens when you change a players weaker foot accuracy from say 10 to 20. The extent to which it happens is too much and effectively makes having two strong feet a disadvantage.

Yes, but when you change the two footedness rating, his physical and mental stats decrease. This is totally wrong. Only CA points taken should be the ones taken from technical attributes.

Yes, but when you change the two footedness rating, his physical and mental stats decrease. This is totally wrong. Only CA points taken should be the ones taken from technical attributes.

penalty taking, heading, marking, tackling, free kicks, long throws??!!?

let's take a look at messi - ronaldo example. messi uses his left foot mostly when dribbling, ronaldo uses both. why should 'two-footedness' favour messi driblling if they're both exellant at dribbling? it's just the metter of their style...

I whole-heartedly agree. This is a huge flaw IMO and it is the main reason why i no longer play FM08.

Actually, I dont have a problem with that. Because its not that two-footedness 'affects' physical and mental attributes, in truth it doesnt affect any attributes per say. It just acts as a component of CA, and my argument is that the weightage attributed to it is too much currently.

For example, if you changed a players pace attribute from say 10 to 20, all of his other attributes would go down a little bit to compensate (given the same CA is maintained). That doesnt mean that pace affects mental or technical attribites. Similarly, the same happens when you change a players weaker foot accuracy from say 10 to 20. The extent to which it happens is too much and effectively makes having two strong feet a disadvantage.

IMO, 'weak foot strenght' shouldn't have any influence on how CA will be distributed.

it's perfectly logical (for me at least) that if player has crossing attribute- 20 and weak foot attribute- 10, that makes his crossing with weak foot worth- 10. and that's it.

I agree with the OP. Two-footedness is undoubtedly a good thing to have in a player, but not at the sacrifice in attribute points players currently have. I remember someone doing an experiement on here with Huntelaar. They made him have 20 for left foot strength making him 2 footed, and his attributes dropped by 2 points across the board. Huntelaar, I think, has a reasonable left foot in game anyway, so attributes would drop even more in a player who started with 1 for their weaker foot.

I don't think its realistic that if a player improves his skill with his weaker foot, that he loses some ability to do certain things. Huntelaar IRL isn't suddenly going to become a worse finisher because he's improved his left foot.

At the very least the amount of CA points this takes up needs to be significantly reduced.

I agree that no points attributes should decrease with the skill of being two footed. It is indeed a skill to be able to use both feet.

I do agree with Mitja : 'player has crossing attribute- 20 and weak foot attribute- 10, that makes his crossing with weak foot worth- 10. and that's it.'

That is exactly how it should be.

I agree that no points attributes should decrease with the skill of being two footed. It is indeed a skill to be able to use both feet.

I do agree with Mitja : 'player has crossing attribute- 20 and weak foot attribute- 10, that makes his crossing with weak foot worth- 10. and that's it.'

That is exactly how it should be.

This actually would make a lot of sense.

If a player has for instance:

Strong foot ability - 20

Weaker foot ability - 12

Crossing - 16

Passing - 14

Finishing - 7

This should be represented in a way such as - if he crosses with his strong foot the attribute would be 16, with his weaker foot it would be 12 (as he is limited to an ability of 12 for that foot). Similarly if the player plays a pass with his weaker foot the value would be reduced from 14 to 12. However, if he were to be shooting with his weaker foot the value would still drop to 7 as this is his maximum ability for both feet.

You are then able to train said players on their weaker foot to increase that attribute.

The weaker foot value should not affect his other attributes as much as people have stated it does.

Yeah its pretty pointless for keepers and defenders especially. It makes the odd situation of having a player whose weak foot is 'reasonable' far, far better than one who's fully two footed. If a chance falls on a reasonable weak foot, his mental attributes, composure and the like are all so much better that if the game effectively 'halves' his finishing he'll still score it.

cant agree more. not only that, but the whole rating distribution system needs an overhaul.

It's the same thing as with the mediocre "Freds". People were complaining that their regens weren't becoming as good as they should and SI's response was something in the lines of: "Don't worry, if you wait long enough everyone in the world will be equally bad and it will be challenging to play again". All I can answer to that is... LMAO!

In my opinion, they messed up the two-footedness code badly and then they tried to defend themselves by trying to convince us that this was actually a good thing for the game

and that it worked as intended. I'm being harsh here, but all those childish excuses made me lose my interest in the game.

I'm pretty optimistic about 09 and I hope that both of these issues have been addressed.

IMO, 'weak foot strenght' shouldn't have any influence on how CA will be distributed.

it's perfectly logical (for me at least) that if player has crossing attribute- 20 and weak foot attribute- 10, that makes his crossing with weak foot worth- 10. and that's it.

That makes perfect sense mate but it would be far harder to work into the game. The easier solution would be to simply reduce the number of ability points that two-footedness takes up, drastically reduce even.

Oh, and about that Huntelaar experiment. Yeah, you're right, I saw that on the Dugout as well. And he already started with a decent weaker foot. I tried something similar with one of my players - this young Norwegian midfielder called Anders Karlsen. Supposed to be quite good irl. Well he had shocking attributes, and I realised it was because he had 20 for both left and right foot. I reduced one of them to 1 (the lowest value) and most of his stats went up +4 with a few +3

Some people on here seem to be thinking about things a little backward. It's not the case that points are taken off other attributes because a player is two footed, it's more the case that a player who is two footed is simply better than a player who is one footed. For example, if you have two absolutely identical players, but one was two footed and the other is very one footed, should thay have the same CA? The answer is clearly no, because the two footed player is better, so logically, that player should have a higher CA.

But if the one footed player was suddenly made two footed (eg. in the editor) without changing his CA, then the game would have to rebalance his attributes because the attributes he currently has are worth more than his CA allows. So the game reduces some of his attributes to balance it out. The game has no idea which attributes have been edited, so it makes a best guess and reduces those. The same will happen with any other attribute, if you increase it without changing his CA, other attributes may be decreased to compensate.

This actually would make a lot of sense.

If a player has for instance:

Strong foot ability - 20

Weaker foot ability - 12

Crossing - 16

Passing - 14

Finishing - 7

This should be represented in a way such as - if he crosses with his strong foot the attribute would be 16, with his weaker foot it would be 12 (as he is limited to an ability of 12 for that foot). Similarly if the player plays a pass with his weaker foot the value would be reduced from 14 to 12. However, if he were to be shooting with his weaker foot the value would still drop to 7 as this is his maximum ability for both feet.

You are then able to train said players on their weaker foot to increase that attribute.

The weaker foot value should not affect his other attributes as much as people have stated it does.

If he crosses with his weaker foot, wouldnt it be 16*(12/20) rather than simply 12? At least thats how I think it ideally should be modelled. Then thats when the true value of having two-footed players begins to manifest itself in the game...

IMO, 'weak foot strenght' shouldn't have any influence on how CA will be distributed.

it's perfectly logical (for me at least) that if player has crossing attribute- 20 and weak foot attribute- 10, that makes his crossing with weak foot worth- 10. and that's it.

I agree that no points attributes should decrease with the skill of being two footed. It is indeed a skill to be able to use both feet.

I do agree with Mitja : 'player has crossing attribute- 20 and weak foot attribute- 10, that makes his crossing with weak foot worth- 10. and that's it.'

That is exactly how it should be.

This actually would make a lot of sense.

If a player has for instance:

Strong foot ability - 20

Weaker foot ability - 12

Crossing - 16

Passing - 14

Finishing - 7

This should be represented in a way such as - if he crosses with his strong foot the attribute would be 16, with his weaker foot it would be 12 (as he is limited to an ability of 12 for that foot). Similarly if the player plays a pass with his weaker foot the value would be reduced from 14 to 12. However, if he were to be shooting with his weaker foot the value would still drop to 7 as this is his maximum ability for both feet.

You are then able to train said players on their weaker foot to increase that attribute.

The weaker foot value should not affect his other attributes as much as people have stated it does.

Exactly

Although I disagree with your system StanPetrov the principle is spot on.

My major issue with it is how it affects researchers and what the guidelines are. Unless the researchers have the time to be extremely methodical generating statistics of instances of using the different feet (e.g. making notes of every single instance of an event, which foot was used and how succesful said event was) then I can conceive of how it can distort the fundamental measure of a player's ability in the FM world: their attributes.

When you start to think about how it works in the real world there is so much more to it. - Range/accuracy of passing/shooting with weaker foot

- ability to control a ball with weaker foot for professionals is often higher relatively (i.e. they might not be able to hit a 30 yard screamer with any kind of consistency but if a team mate passes a ball towards their weaker foot they are more than capable of getting the ball under control or shifting the ball to their preferred foot accurately)

- the impact of ball velocity and trajectory on weaker foot control capability

- the impact of ball velocity and trajectory on weaker foot first time events (knocking a pass, first time shot)

- strength and quality of tackling with weaker foot for a defender would have a lesser discrepancy than their ability to pass but in FM both attributes take a similar 'hit'

- dominance in other attributes vs an opposition player makes having a lesser weak foot largely irrelevant (the ability to beat a man, create the angles to use the stronger foot, position correctly to tackle, etc.)

How you would go about modelling these intricacies is mind boggling though

Some people on here seem to be thinking about things a little backward. It's not the case that points are taken off other attributes because a player is two footed, it's more the case that a player who is two footed is simply better than a player who is one footed. For example, if you have two absolutely identical players, but one was two footed and the other is very one footed, should thay have the same CA? The answer is clearly no, because the two footed player is better, so logically, that player should have a higher CA.

But if the one footed player was suddenly made two footed (eg. in the editor) without changing his CA, then the game would have to rebalance his attributes because the attributes he currently has are worth more than his CA allows. So the game reduces some of his attributes to balance it out. The game has no idea which attributes have been edited, so it makes a best guess and reduces those. The same will happen with any other attribute, if you increase it without changing his CA, other attributes may be decreased to compensate.

I made this very exact point earlier in the thread. I dont debate that two-footedness should be a part of a players ability.

But the fact is, that I have played this game a lot and tested this particular topic a lot. Given two players of similar ability, the one-footed player will always perform better than the two-footed player. Which seems to indicate to me that two-footedness takes up way too many ability points if you will. Thereby making having two strong feet a disadvantage in the game, which I'm sure you'll agree is counter-intuitive.

That post wasn't really aimed at you karan, just the people who are moaning about stuff like footedness costing mental attribute points.

If it's working as you suggest then it is a bit wrong, but footedness should be a highly rated part of a player - being two footed is a huge advantage. Maybe it's more of an issue with the CAs being given to players then, and two footed players should be being rated higher than their one footed equivalents, so their attributes come out higher. The difficulty is how you balance it. Like you suggested earlier, two players with equivalent CA should perform to an equivalent level, but how do you compare this? If you are playing a two footed winger on the right and telling him to cross frequently, he is not going to make use of his left foot so he is at a disadvantage. If you played the same player behind the front two, he would make much more use of both feet and have a clear advantage.

That post wasn't really aimed at you karan, just the people who are moaning about stuff like footedness costing mental attribute points.

If it's working as you suggest then it is a bit wrong, but footedness should be a highly rated part of a player - being two footed is a huge advantage. Maybe it's more of an issue with the CAs being given to players then, and two footed players should be being rated higher than their one footed equivalents, so their attributes come out higher. The difficulty is how you balance it. Like you suggested earlier, two players with equivalent CA should perform to an equivalent level, but how do you compare this? If you are playing a two footed winger on the right and telling him to cross frequently, he is not going to make use of his left foot so he is at a disadvantage. If you played the same player behind the front two, he would make much more use of both feet and have a clear advantage.

I see your point, but I've made these comparisons across the board - goalkeepers, center halves, fullbacks, wingers, midfielders and strikers. One-footed players trump their two-footed counterparts (of the same ability of course) everywhere across the pitch.

Judging by how much the attributes rise/fall when you change weaker foot accuracy, I would say that two-footedness takes up somewhere between 30 and 50 ability points (going from 1 to 20 on weaker foot). That imo is too much when your maximum is 200.

Some people on here seem to be thinking about things a little backward. It's not the case that points are taken off other attributes because a player is two footed, it's more the case that a player who is two footed is simply better than a player who is one footed. For example, if you have two absolutely identical players, but one was two footed and the other is very one footed, should thay have the same CA? The answer is clearly no, because the two footed player is better, so logically, that player should have a higher CA.

This is where I disagree.

I look at it like this. When a player is generated then 2 equivalent CA players should essentially be capable of having the same level of ability of performing a given event i.e. hypothetically their attributes could be identical. But the current system means that if one has a significantly stronger weaker foot for a given CA then his probability of a successful event with his stronger foot gets decreased because his attributes take a hit.

For example 2 strikers with the same CA.

One has a weaker foot rating which is twice as high thus he has lower 'other' key attributes.

If both strikers are presented with the same opportunity on their stronger foot the lower weaker foot player will have a better probability of finishing because of his higher attributes.

To me this is a hypothetical flaw in the system. As others have said identical CA players should hypothetically be capable of having identical strong foot attributes but the weaker foot effect should be modelled by a specific reduction of the visible attribute due to performing the event with their weaker foot rather than a generic reduction in attributes based on a set formula of how the weaker foot affects the CA = attributes balance.

Of course having said all of that it might well work like that in the match engine and the intention of the effect is to create ambiguity which is more akin to real life. By this I mean the weaker foot effect makes judging players solely by visible profile attributes more difficult and you become more reliant on judging by performance via observation of the 2D and analysis of statistics.

For example 2 strikers with the same CA.

One has a weaker foot rating which is twice as high thus he has lower 'other' key attributes.

If both strikers are presented with the same opportunity on their stronger foot the lower weaker foot player will have a better probability of finishing because of his higher attributes.

But that's not a whole lot different to say, a striker with better heading. If you have two identical CA strikers with the same footedness, and identical other attributes, the better header will have a lower probability of scoring with his feet because of his higher heading attribute being counterbalanced by a lower finishing attribute. It's the same with any of the attributes. They all have different value in different situations, so I don't think you can compare in that way.

But that's not a whole lot different to say, a striker with better heading. If you have two identical CA strikers with the same footedness, and identical other attributes, the better header will have a lower probability of scoring with his feet because of his higher heading attribute being counterbalanced by a lower finishing attribute. It's the same with any of the attributes. They all have different value in different situations, so I don't think you can compare in that way.

I have no issue with that but that is not really what I meant.

Basically CA is the absolute judge of player ability.

You via the editor create two identical players with the same CA and identical attributes except for the weaker foot.

The one with the stronger weaker foot then has the same absolute ability but lower actual ability under certain circumstances due to lower attributes so the assumption is it will balance out.

But if you apply the system as outlined by others you remove this confusion and it is no longer an issue. CA = 150, Visible attribute = 20/20, weaker foot = 15/20 => when a calculation is performed for a given event the value 20 is used if performed with the stronger foot and the value 15 is used when performed with the weaker foot.

As it stands it appears as if it works like this:-

CA = 150, weaker foot = 15/20 => Visible attribute = 16/20 => Value used for calculation is 16 regardless of which foot is used.

If the reason for using the latter is purely for coding reasons and the processing load then fair enough (or for reasons pertaining to supermen players) but if it is a fundamental decision based on the coder's view of the way it should be modelled then personally I disagree. The values asigned by researchers are based on observation and if the researcher assigns the value based on usage of the stronger foot then it will lead to distortion or the researcher specifically altering his decisions based on fitting the model e.g. I want player A to have finishing 18 so I'll lower his weaker foot value to achieve this even though it alters the original assessment of the player's ability.

In other words you get Elano capable of dribbling like Ronaldo if he does so with his stronger foot or Lee Trundle being capable of finishing as well as Carlos Tevez if it is on his stronger foot. To me this just isn't right (I have the same reasons for my dislike of the mixing of attributes and weighting of certain physical attributes but that's for another argument).

'Basically CA is the absolute judge of player ability.'

I think this is wrong. I think CA is a guideline of a players attributes. So the program can give him certain amount of high attributes and not see them skyrocket (PA)

That is all I see CA and PA as.

Think about it this way.

Player A and Player B are exactly the same at every skill. Except for one thing. Player B can use his weaker foot. Which is the better player, and therefore which needs the higher CA?

I can confirm (the head Danish researcher and one of the German researchers have both told me this) that the weighing will decrease but not be removed. They "have a better way of doing it now", apparently.

'Basically CA is the absolute judge of player ability.'

I think this is wrong. I think CA is a guideline of a players attributes. So the program can give him certain amount of high attributes and not see them skyrocket (PA)

That is all I see CA and PA as.

I'm really struggling to get my point across so before I retreat from this thread here's one last shot.

CA determines attributes.

Two identical CA players with the same set weaker foot value can theoretically have identical attributes.

Two players with differing CA can have identical attributes if the weaker foot rating is low enough to allow this to happen.

Thus in a given scenario those two players with identical attributes will have an equal probability of completing a successful event.

Which leads to two players being equally as good in a given scenario even though in real life there is marked difference in their ability.

Example:-

2 strikers who are right footed.

One has an 'either' rating and one has a 'strong foot only' rating.

The 'either' player has a higher CA but because of the weaker foot effect certain attributes are very similar.

In this case being strikers those attributes are finishing, technique and composure.

Both players presented with similar opportunities on their strong foot against the same goalkeeper will have a similar probability of converting that chance because their attributes are the same.

Hence under certain circumstances you get a lower CA player capable of finishing like a higher CA player because of the weaker foot effect which for me is just wrong.

Think about it this way.

Player A and Player B are exactly the same at every skill. Except for one thing. Player B can use his weaker foot. Which is the better player, and therefore which needs the higher CA?

I can confirm (the head Danish researcher and one of the German researchers have both told me this) that the weighing will decrease but not be removed. They "have a better way of doing it now", apparently.

Thats good news, exactly what I wanted to hear

I understand what you are saying.

CA is not included in the match engine. Therefore the player with dual footed-ness will have a better chance of scoring. Making the both footed dude better.

What does it matter what CA a player is? It is his stats that determine what he does.

back to basics ->

is elano a good player? he is. ronaldo? yap, even much better.... all we want is to see their accurate attributes, becouse we just want to look at the player and judge him. we don't want to calculate and make science of it.

PS think of all those people who don't go to this forum, when they look at elano/cristiano, they must think it's some kind of joke. i'm sure many of them were put off 08, just like me.

I understand what you are saying.

CA is not included in the match engine. Therefore the player with dual footed-ness will have a better chance of scoring. Making the both footed dude better.

What does it matter what CA a player is? It is his stats that determine what he does.

apparantly

that should make one footed players much better, becouse their stats go up?!

I understand what you are saying.

CA is not included in the match engine. Therefore the player with dual footed-ness will have a better chance of scoring. Making the both footed dude better.

You're missing the point. Identical scenario where two players strike a ball with their stronger foot. The attributes determine the success of this. Two players with markedly different CA can have the same attributes and be just as likely to score.

Real life hypothesis again. You freeze a chance in a football match and hypothetically you can drop either Lee Trundle or Carlos Tevez into the situation. The chance is on the player's strong foot. Which player would you choose in real life?

In game these two players have almost identical attributes and thus both will be equally likely of converting said chance. Does this equate to your decision in the above hypothetical?

So there is much more to whether or not a player gets in to the position to have that chance but I still don't see how anyone can honestly say that Lee Trundle, Sebastian Rozental, Jose Luis Sierra, Malik Mouath Al-Hawasawi are as competent finishers as Carlos Tevez given an opportunity on their stronger foot.

In fact because of the way the system works with weighting of weaker foot and physical attributes these players are all better equipped attribute wise (finishing, technique and composure) to finish a given chance than Samuel Eto'o. Does that make any kind of sense to you?

I know I said I was retreating from this thread but this time I mean it . If you can honestly disagree with the above then there is now way I can convince you that the system is flawed.

isuck:

Eto'o and Tevez's CAs should be high enough to mean that the weaker foot problem doesn't affect them.

I agree the system is flawed.

I haven't got the game loaded at the minute but if Lee Trundle and Carlos Tevez have the same attributes then this game is a joke. Surely they only have a few attributes in common?

isuck:

Eto'o and Tevez's CAs should be high enough to mean that the weaker foot problem doesn't affect them.

Can you explain this to me?

Admittedly everything I've posted is based on assumptions of how the match engine works but I assume attributes determine success (holding all other variables equal such as morale, condition etc.). So if we take a striker who decides to shoot and does so with his stronger foot, if we freeze the game at that moment then aren't the relevant attributes the only thing that matters?

So if two players have the same finishing, technique and composure then they are both as likely to finish the chance regardless of what their CA is.

I'm not looking for in game statistics to show me how much more goals Eto'o and Tevez score because in my experience that is determined more by the team's status and how much they attack. A top club will attack more, create more chances and by extension the striker will score more goals (when managed by the AI). I've seen it happen in my game where clubs have a good season their rep increases and suddenly their strikers goals to games ratio improves significantly due to their respective team attacking more.

isuck:

Eto'o and Tevez's CAs should be high enough to mean that the weaker foot problem doesn't affect them.

what does CA have to do with the example isuckatfm posted? things are as clear as they can get.

I'm just wondering what has SI done about it. I heard smth about researcher tool for more accurate input of stats into the game, but that doesn't ring a bell for me.

I can't except idea that weak foot strength has anything to do with (especially phisical and mental) stats changing.

It was statistically proven in a thread from a few months ago that "two-footedness" more than makes up for the drop in attributes. For example, if two strikers have the same CA but one has 20/1 and another has 20/20 for their "feet" attributes, the 20/20, even with lower across the board attributes, will score about 1.5x more goals per season. I will try to find and post a link.

I can't except idea that weak foot strength has anything to do with (especially phisical and mental) stats changing.

It doesn't really - you need to stop thinking of it this way. What you are seeing is the game adjusting a players attributes because they are too high for his CA. If you go into the editor and increase any attribute (including weak foot strength)without adjusting the players CA up as well, the game will adjust the players attributes downwards so they match his CA.

It doesn't really - you need to stop thinking of it this way. What you are seeing is the game adjusting a players attributes because they are too high for his CA. If you go into the editor and increase any attribute (including weak foot strength)without adjusting the players CA up as well, the game will adjust the players attributes downwards so they match his CA.

I know all that. I believe CA should match the sum of all stats together put by researchers, and not the other way around.

do you think it's logical players pace, decision making, anticipation or heading increases just becouse he's not too good with his weak foot? and vice versa.

You have to remember that it's easy enough to pinpoint the flaws, but, the change can quite often lead to a sweeping overhaul!

I'd rather see foot-typedness taken out of the equation altogether. Oh, and a comment on what someone else said before: I've always been baffled about why CRonaldo looks rubbish in FM08. I guess I know now.

J

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=18848

Somewhere deep in this thread is statistical proof that two-footedness more than makes up for the drop in attributes.

I know all that. I believe CA should match the sum of all stats together put by researchers, and not the other way around.

do you think it's logical players pace, decision making, anticipation or heading increases just becouse he's not too good with his weak foot? and vice versa.

No, I don't think that's logical, but that's not what's happening . And whether CA drives the attributes, or the attributes drive the CA, it doesn't matter. Some value or values somewhere will have to be adjusted to keep the two in line. I assume it's done this way as it's much easier to keep the overall quality of players balanced if the researchers are working to rough PA and CA guidelines, rather than having to try and work to guidelines for all the attributes.

I'm not sure but foot strenght allways had influence on CA, but not this much. it defenetly doesn't keep the overall quality of players balanced, it does quite the opposite thing, imo.

I People were complaining that their regens weren't becoming as good as they should and SI's response was something in the lines of: "Don't worry, if you wait long enough everyone in the world will be equally bad and it will be challenging to play again". All I can answer to that is... LMAO!

I know this is off topic but has there been any word on this? has it been adressed- as someone who likes to play games well into the future this is one of the sad aspects of the game...

I know this is off topic but has there been any word on this? has it been adressed- as someone who likes to play games well into the future this is one of the sad aspects of the game...

Yes, its been addressed.