I don't totally understand the "pinwheel" suitability ratings

So Harry Kane has a full, bright green wheel when you set him to TM/S. If you switch him to TM/A though, he loses a notch, even though his finishing is a 15. What am I missing here? What would make him worse at attack than at support?

The key attributes for that role & duty change.

You could highlight them on the player attributes screen to see which they are.

EDIT

Probably worth mentioning as well that you shouldn't be picking a player's role & duty solely on which he is best at, you should be picking a role/duty that fits into your overall tactic & one that he can play reasonably well.

I tried that though. The only difference between TM/S and TM/A is finishing. And I would not think a 15 finishing is a reason someone is LESS suitable for a role/duty.

I tried that though. The only difference between TM/S and TM/A is finishing. And I would not think a 15 finishing is a reason someone is LESS suitable for a role/duty.

There are probably other changes as well as to how important each attribute is to the role its just not visable.

So for example something like passing might be slightly more important to a TM/S than a TM/A.

The suitability system is broken.

I have a youngster with sub 10 stat's that is perfect for TM, the system doesn't care if you have 20 in primary stats or 5, so for that player to be a good at a role, he just need to have more primary stats at the same level for the suitability system to mark it as good.

The system claim he is worse at TM/A because finishing is lower than heading or something like that. Even while he may be the best TM/A in the world.

The suitability system is broken.

I have a youngster with sub 10 stat's that is perfect for TM, the system doesn't care if you have 20 in primary stats or 5, so for that player to be a good at a role, he just need to have more primary stats at the same level for the suitability system to mark it as good.

The system claim he is worse at TM/A because finishing is lower than heading or something like that. Even while he may be the best TM/A in the world.

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way round.

As I understand it the suitability grapefruit (or whatever you want to call it - I like grapefruit) compares a players suitability for the role against other roles - not other players.

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way round.

As I understand it the suitability grapefruit (or whatever you want to call it - I like grapefruit) compares a players suitability for the role against other roles - not other players.

As far as I know it's just his suitability for the role period. It isn't compared to other roles (if it was then every player would have a green wheel for a role in any position as it would be the most suitable compared to the other roles)

If it is anything like how the roles are recommended, then it'll be based on the average of all the key attributes combined. If TM/A has one extra attribute, even if he is rated 15 in it, because it is one more number the average of his attributes would be lower in total in comparision to the TM/S, hence his rating will drop.

That's why you would find lots of players recommended for certain roles that have less attribute requirements, as their average is higher. Least that's how I remember it.

As I understand it the suitability grapefruit (or whatever you want to call it - I like grapefruit) compares a players suitability for the role against other roles - not other players.

I'm fairly sure that was what I pointed out with my post.

Edit: Woops quoted the wrong post. It's only a odd way of saying he might do well in a certain role, even while the player could be the best in the world at a role he isn't "perfect" for.

Does ppm's have anything to do with role suitability or is it just the attributes..?

Does ppm's have anything to do with role suitability or is it just the attributes..?

My bet would be it's all about attributes, thus ignoring ppms.

-SnUrF

I really dislike that role indicator.

The position indicator i dont mind, but for some reason i really hate the role indicator.

I really dislike that role indicator.

The position indicator i dont mind, but for some reason i really hate the role indicator.

I dislike both. I find it frustrating having to go through the attributes page to select specific roles to see if a forward is better suited to play as a defender, simply because the game won't let me speedily select a role attribute spread from the landing page if he isn't at least dodgy in that position. O_O

My bet would be it's all about attributes, thus ignoring ppms.

-SnUrF

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Not very good in that case to be honest..! I have an forward that is pretty pacey and likes to break offside traps, and according to pinwheel he should be played as a deep forward while my other forward that collects the ball deep is recommended as a poacher. Imo it should be other way around or maybe not totally focuzed on attributes..!

I dunno if it includes PPMs but I'm fairly sure it includes foot strength for wingers and fullbacks.

I dunno if it includes PPMs but I'm fairly sure it includes foot strength for wingers and fullbacks.

Again I'm not 100% sure but I've got this feeling (not sure where I got it tho ) that preferred foot is determined by hidden attribute(s) for left and right foot ranging from 1-20 like all the visible attributes. PPMs on the other hand are binary, meaning either a player has a PPM or not.

-SnUrF

Again I'm not 100% sure but I've got this feeling (not sure where I got it tho ) that preferred foot is determined by hidden attribute(s) for left and right foot ranging from 1-20 like all the visible attributes. PPMs on the other hand are binary, meaning either a player has a PPM or not.

-SnUrF

Main foot is always 20.

Weaker foot can range from 1-20.

I'm fairly sure that was what I pointed out with my post.

Edit: Woops quoted the wrong post. It's only a odd way of saying he might do well in a certain role, even while the player could be the best in the world at a role he isn't "perfect" for.

Apologies, I misread what you'd originally written. So yeah, what you said