10 current ability

Do we know how many attributes equals 10 current ability (gain or loss)? Obviously this varies. For strikers 10 current ability could be +- 4 pace or +-8 work rate because each attribute has different weights according to position. The reason i ask is because i want to understand the importance of consistency attribute. It has been suggested that an inconsistent player plays 10 current ability below his normal values.

If you don't mind, could you link the post that said that?

Even if true, it'll be difficult to give examples. Attributes 'cost' more CA the higher the attribute and there are different 'costs' for different attributes and also depending on the position the player plays. If you want to see, it might be easier to just use an editor to adjust CA 10 points lower and see the effects yourself that way. As I understand it, attributes would then be lowered to match the CA entered.

I will in the afternoon hunter. I will also try what you suggested with the editor.

IIRC the research guidelines states something like this. A player with value x for consistency will play x games out of 25 at full CA, and the rest at on average 10 CA lower (with random offsets up or down for individual games).

Physical attributes should not be lowered though. I tend to think of the 10 CA points as a decrease of 1 point in every mental and technical attribute. That's not entirely accurate, but it's the best intuitive approximation I have.

The game will be far more enjoyable if you don't know exactly how it works, its meant to let you know roughly how likely you can count on a player being at his best.

However, the attribute weighting system is, as far as I'm aware, not something that is disclosed publicly. I imagine in part due to the complexity behind it, and how unfriendly that information would be to an end user. While not all attributes are affected, there is no information if specific attributes are targeted or not. Only someone from SI could confirm that.

The game will be far more enjoyable if you don't know exactly how it works, its meant to let you know roughly how likely you can count on a player being at his best.

However, the attribute weighting system is, as far as I'm aware, not something that is disclosed publicly. I imagine in part due to the complexity behind it, and how unfriendly that information would be to an end user. While not all attributes are affected, there is no information if specific attributes are targeted or not. Only someone from SI could confirm that.

This is a long and thoroughly discussed theme. Games have always been about being good at them. The enjoyable part comes from being good at it. To be good at something you need information regarding it. It's the lack of information and this whole "blackbox" design that alienates players when they lose and lead them to believe the game is scripted that you see a topic about once a month if not more often.

Regarding the attribute weighting it is something that was mentioned on this very forum on FM14. I don't remember the specifics, nor I have a link to the thread but someone was using the game editor to calculate the relationship between current ability and specific attributes.

On topic to answer to HUNT3R:

It's approximately what rand21648 said. (thanks btw)

By design some parts of the game are obscured from end users for any number of reasons (complexity, irrelevance to actual gameplay, a very well designed system that you don't necessarily want being open to all to also use etc etc). It was demonstrated that through working out the attribute weighting system you could do things that were entirely unrealistic and broke the game, you didn't become "better" at the game, you just knew how to exploit the weaknesses the game couldn't handle. I know first hand, as I had Keirrison score over 2000 goals in the premier league many moons ago, purely thanks to training that exploited attribute weightings. Ultimately though, you don't need to know the attribute weighting system, or how much of an effect consistency can have to know how it works and how it affects your players. Players won't be at their peak all the time. It reads almost as trying to work out a way to predict when a player will be out of form and thereby potentially negating a genuine aspect of the game you shouldn't be able to pre-emptively (or at least play the odds on) to negate.

Where's that information sourced from regarding consistency? Doesn't look to be from this years manual so it could be outdated now.

The main risk with these types of threads is on one side as you mentioned without them people post making complaints of being scripted due to not knowing - but on the flip side of that people take anecdotal evidence that gets listed in some of these threads as gospel and make inaccurate claims or assumptions about how the game is working. Those discussions and threads are also all too familiar.

Some people play games with the view to beating the game (code), if that's what they find enjoyable then there's nothing wrong with that. I do not agree with that approach myself but they paid for the game & are free to approach it in whatever manner they choose to.

The potential negative of that approach is that it increases the chance of breaking the code & triggering bugs which then detracts from the potential enjoyment or as is more likely when playing FM lead to frustration because FM is designed with the express intention of removing input A = output B mechanics & when something inevitably breaks that connection it leaves the user confused because that's not how the vast majority of games work.

What I don't want to see from this point is any negativity aimed at Methos because of the way they wish to play the game, educate on why that might not be the best long term approach but do not criticise, I've already deleted one such reply.