Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Foxetta:

The amount of effort gone into this research is staggering.Great job all involved.But,due to a single figure IQ i must admit some of this thread is a bit beyond me.Just so i can get this clear in my head,am i right in thinking that basically,it pays well to train a predominantly one footed weaker foot to 11.Regardless of fluctuations in attributes,this will improve the players play in the match engine?

Also,does this mean that,to do this for a central player (eg a striker or AMC)I should retrain him to his weaker footed flank?(eg.right footed striker retrains to left winger)until his weaker foot reaches about 11?

This may have been answered already but hey....

Thanks again to Hawshields,Law Man etc.

Working out whether to train a player on his weaker foot is something that depends on the formation you use, however as a rule of thumb, if a player has a 'C' in his position (i.e DC, DMC, MC, AMC, FC) you should encourage development in the weaker foot and despite a small drop in attribute values, his effectiveness will be improved. I will be posting more about how to encourage this weaker foot development over the next few days.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by eatontj:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Foxetta:

The amount of effort gone into this research is staggering.Great job all involved.But,due to a single figure IQ i must admit some of this thread is a bit beyond me.Just so i can get this clear in my head,am i right in thinking that basically,it pays well to train a predominantly one footed weaker foot to 11.Regardless of fluctuations in attributes,this will improve the players play in the match engine?

Also,does this mean that,to do this for a central player (eg a striker or AMC)I should retrain him to his weaker footed flank?(eg.right footed striker retrains to left winger)until his weaker foot reaches about 11?

This may have been answered already but hey....

Thanks again to Hawshields,Law Man etc.

So far, the general thoughts on footedness are that it greatly helps players in the center of the pitch to be as competent with both feet as possible. Success in game situations within the FM match engine (i.e. completing a pass) relies on a combination of the relevant attributes (i.e. passing) and the ability level of which foot used by the player.

All players have one perfect foot, and a second foot of varying competence. All actions performed by the non-perfect foot suffer some sort of penalty in the match engine. So the importance of dual foot competence (DFC) is much greater than what people may have thought before, as players with stronger DFC but slightly lower attributes are more successful than players with weak DFC and higher attributes.

As far as testing goes, it seems that players in central positions greatly benefit from high DFC to the point where DFC is a more desirable than slightly higher attributes. Players on the outside, do see a benefit of high DFC... but seemingly not to the same extreme. Testing is not yet complete on all positions (DFC for GK is NOT desirable, however), but this is the current trend.

Basically, if you are comparing two player of similar attributes... but one has a higher DFC, then the higher DFC player will perform significantly better. However, having a high DFC "costs" the player development points, so a high DFC player may not develop quite as high attributes as a player with similar PA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post eatonj: I think we'll adopt this term "dual foot competence" from now on. Referring to players as being two-footed seems rather strange afterall. So, if we're all agreed, DFC is an adopted term in this thread.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by eatontj:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Benoit2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kolobok:

E.g. if you change CA of one-foot player, the engine won't change his foot scores because it assumes you want to have one-foot player. Instead it will give him more points in attributes. If you give a player unattainable characteristics (20/20 feet, 20 in every chargable attribute), the engine will make adjustments to create the best possible "balanced" player with 20/20 feet and CA 200 because the engine "thinks" it is what you want.

The bolded part is where you are wrong. The game most certainly does change the weaker foot.

The strength of the weaker foot should be seen as just another (hidden attribute) just like all the other ones.

A CA of 200 equals 16 for every attribute. Give a player 20/20 for acceleration and pace and all his other attributes will suffer. Give a player 20 for his weak foot and the same thing will happen, no more, no less.

CA still is the only predictor of exactly how good a player is. Does Elano/Silva look better then Ronaldo attribute wise? At first sight you'd say so, until you appreciate the fact that the area's where Ronaldo is better, are of greater importance. One way or another, all of Ronaldo's attributes are balanced and cause for a CA of 187, one which makes him significantly better then Elano/Silva.

A player with 20 for his weak foot is no better at all then one who has 1 for his weak foot, assuming they both have the same CA. Its just that their attributes are distributed differently. A central midfielder with a CA of 180 and a dead left foot will boss your midfield around no more or less then a central midfielder with a CA of 180 but a perfect weak foot.

As such, there is no significant importance in having two-footed players in the centre of midfield. Its just another attribute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on the analysis of in-game performance done earlier in this thread it seems readily apparent that a "two-footed player" (high DFC (Dual Foot Competence) will have a higher success rate for various game tasks (shooting, passing, tackling tested so far) than a "one-footed player".

So to say there is no significant importance to having a two-footed player may be incorrect. Although your analysis of the ration of CA to attributes and DFC sounds correct to me, it also appears that DFC is a highly favored attribute in the match engine based on the empirical evidence put forward thus far.

I get that a player with a CA of 180 and 20/20 for feet is sacrificing attribute points for the sake of DFC, but it seems worth it because performance wise player with a CA of 180 and a high DFC (spending some of those 180) does better than a player with CA and low DFC (despite this player having higher attributes).

At least that's my understanding of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Benoit2: I believe eatontj to be correct with this. Of course you were right to suggest that the feet scores are just another 2 attributes, but they are potentially the most important attributes - depending on position within the field. You can see how heavily the game weights this attribute over every other attribute by doing a simple test. Take a player in the database (Elano is already cited as a great example of this). If you look at his attributes in the database, you could note them down and notice that he has a left foot score of 1 (I believe). Now start the game and see how much of an increase the game must give Elano in many attributes just to support his CA of 170 (of thereabouts). It does not increase his weaker foot score, just the other attributes. Now go back to the editor and give Elano DFC (dual footed competence) and you will notice a large decrease in the attributes after loading the game. The weighting of the foot and hence the importance given to DFC is supported in all my tests, but again I'd be delighted if others ran their own tests to confirm this for themselves.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by lance101:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hawshiels:

And now to the differences in values between the 3 attribute types - TATT, MATT and PATT.

I am giving the most simplified fractions (ratios) here rather than producing lengthy decimals for each.

So ...

One TECHNICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT = One and eleven thirty sevenths of a MENTAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT (roughly one and a third)

One MENTAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT = seventy five ninety sixths of a PHYSICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT

One PHYSICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT = almost exactly one TECHNICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT. [A technical attribute point is worth very slightly more, but not enough to be noticeable]

Hawshiels:

I've been trying to find the exact formula to determine CA from ratings, but the matter seems more complicated than what you suggest here...

My testing framework was the following:

6 different players

- All MC (no other position)

- All Right Foot 20 and Left foot 1

- All CA 100

- All Pace/Balance/Agility/Acceleration set to 1 (this ratings work slightly different so I didn't want then to influence what I was finding)

- All the other attributes for all the players set to 20, except...

1 player with 1 in passing, 1 player with 1 in long shots, 1 player with 1 in creativity, 1 player with 1 in composure, 1 player with 1 in strenght and 1 player with 1 in stamina.

The players for which I set 1 in passing and 1 in creativity had their other attributes less reduced when the game started than the other four players - presumably because passing or creativity are more important for a M C than composure, long shots, stamina or strenght.

Then I proceed to test what happens in the set of pace/agility/balance/acceleration:

2 different players

- Both MC (no other position)

- Both Right Foot 20 and Left foot 1

- Both CA 100

- Both Balance/Acceleration set to 1

- One with Pace set to 1 and Agility set to 20, the other with the other way around..

- All the other attributes for both the players set to 20

The player with Pace set to 1 saw his other ratings be less reduced than the other player -> evidence that pace is more important than agility for a MC.

With my post just wanted to illustrate that the method enunciated by Hawshiels at the beggining of the thread is not completely accurate, so finding the exact translation of ratings to CA requires finding first what are the key attributes for each position (my guess is that the most important ones are the ones the in game "hints" refer to)

Hope my explanation was clear (english isn't my first language) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lance101: Remember that the ratios I gave were average ratios and allow you to quickly work out a CA for a player based on adding the TATT, MATT and PATT scores. It was just a way to speed up research for some people. But you are right that each position has different weightings for each attribute. I do plan to post all of these (I've been putting it together for a few days now to give to Law_Man for the final report) so it will be completely accurate (I hope).

Remember that my own knowledge and understanding of all of this has been improving over the past few days also, but rather than just post the weightings and attributes in small sections, I thought it best to get the complete picture before posting.

I thought I already knew much of this, but my own understanding is improving greatly thanks to the debate/discussions/arguments (constructively put) on this thread.

[Cleon]

From what I've seen on my own games, I tend to side with Benoit2 on this.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eatontj:

I get that a player with a CA of 180 and 20/20 for feet is sacrificing attribute points for the sake of DFC, but it seems worth it because performance wise player with a CA of 180 and a high DFC (spending some of those 180) does better than a player with CA and low DFC (despite this player having higher attributes).

Thats of course almost impossible to prove, especially in proving that whatever difference you find is also significant. Running just a few test is nowwhere near enough either of course.

Passing, tackling etc are just a few of many ways to measure a player's performance. The player with the weak foot in your example has the downside of being able to use just one foot, but on the up is slightly better at everything else. Everything else he does with his strong foot will be slightly better, but everything non-foot related, such as keeping his composure, his decision-making etc will also be slightly better, because everything will be better.

How are you going to measure that performance improvement? Exactly, you cant, so forget it. The only thing you need to remember is that every up has its downs and vise versa, and its up to you to decide how important you deem every attribute.

Some want their strikers to be very composed, others dont really care. Some want their full-backs to be good tacklers (which would improve their tackling ratio), others dont deem that too important and are happier if some of that ability is spend on some attacking quality.

Similarly, some will want their players to be two-footed, others dont really care, because the player will be good one way or another anyway. If all you want your winger to do, is run to the byline and cross, you wont care if he's got a dead weak foot. If you want your wingers to pose danger all round and go round the outside as well as cut inside, you'll want two-footed wingers, but that will come at the expense of a little all-round quality. It just depends on what you're looking for, no more, no less.

I myself want everyone in my team to have a determination of no lower then 15, eventhough it doesnt count toward CA at all. Its just that I deem it that important. Do I have any empirical evidence on just how important it is? No. All we can do is use common sense to decide how important every attribute is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Benoit2: I'm goint to use this very good post to make a very important point - and one that I don't make apologies for repeating over and over again.

There is no such thing as a good tactic, or player, or attribute, or anything else in FM08 or in football in general. This may seem an extreme statement but I stand by it 100% (though feel free to disagree).

The purpose of this thread is to give people the guidelines (not the rules) for having succcess in the game. Since everyone's tactics are different (unless they download one), and since the players are different, the importance of certain attributes is not only determined by the position, but also by the tactics deployed.

I am sure that the tactical geniuses on this forum will tell you that they will maybe have a preferred formation that they use, but they will look at 6-10 attributes in their players before determining how best to set their tactics.

So, by all means take a look at the tactics of Cleon, wwfan, rashidi, but don't just look at the tactics in isolation. Look at the players they are using and determine what attributes are giving them success with these tactics.

I see people going on to Cleon's threads and accusing him of 'cheating' or calling his tactics 'rubbish' because they can't get the same success with them. They miss the point. Cleon does not claim that his tactics are good, great or perfect. What he does claim (correctly) is that his tactics are great for the players he has.

So, what you write here Benoit2 is correct since it very much depends on the tactics, but the thread will be useful providing people use the information as guidelines - not rules.

p.s. The problem with common sense is that it just isn't that common.

[Cleon]

There is no such thing as a good tactic, or player, or attribute, or anything else in FM08 or in football in general. This may seem an extreme statement but I stand by it 100% (though feel free to disagree).

I strongly disagree..But I think I get what your getting at

The game doesn't depend on just one thing, its many factors.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Powermonger:

Well after much frustration and trial and error, I was finally able to export the data I needed from FM08 to redo my attribute analysis. Thankfully Excel 2007 made this task a little easier then previous versions of Excel but it still takes some time to do the calculations.

If you click here you can see the intial table I've produced. All this analysis is based on all the players from/in the major European leagues (Holland, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) and the UK (England, N.Ireland, Wales, Scotland). I had to leave out Ireland due to issues with Genie Scout unfortunately.

I would've liked to of included more nations for a wider sampling but Genie Scout wouldn't handle it. Anyway, there is about 85,000 players in the save game I used so it's big enough for the purpose of looking at attribute distribution.

If you look at the table, it's arranged into positions and each attribute, showing the percentage of players in each position who have that attribute equal to or greater than the value chosen. For this table, each column is only looking at players who are natural for that position (20) and who have a attribute value equal to or greater then 12. The highlighted cells are for any percentage score that is greater than 20%.

At the moment these statistics are based on all players in each position, regardless of CA or age. When I get time I'll do some additional tables to do age comparisons and also some CA filtering. I'll try and fix up the formatting too and see if I can do some extra conditional formatting to highlight discrepencies better.

I hope this initial data can bring extra value to this great discussion.

Brilliant Powermonger!

I suggest others take a look at this to see if there are any stats that pop out as interesting. I've noticed a couple that have given me an idea.

p.s. I am so impressed by the amount of thought and effort that is going into the posts on this thread. Amazing. To me, this is what the forums should be like - a community of different people with a common interest, sharing ideas and having a great constructive debate. We're not here to agree on everything, but I think we've shown you can disagree in a construtive and co-operative manner. Afterall, that's how we'll all learn more.

[Cleon]

p.s. I am so impressed by the amount of thought and effort that is going into the posts on this thread. Amazing. To me, this is what the forums should be like - a community of different people with a common interest, sharing ideas and having a great constructive debate. We're not here to agree on everything, but I think we've shown you can disagree in a construtive and co-operative manner. Afterall, that's how we'll all learn more.

Indeed

[Powermonger]

I'm just finalising the 2nd part of my analysis, I'm able to quickly do stats now per position based on age and CA. I've created three separate sheets using slightly different conditional formats to help pick out trends a little easier.

Any particular scenarios anyone is after? Next stage is building footedness into the queries.

[Hawshiels]

Now for the results of the tests for strikers and the relative importance of DFC (Dual Footed Competence).

I'll explain the tests here first of all.

I created 3 strikers in the database.

Striker 1 (Position=FC, Left foot=20, Right foot=1)

Striker 2 (Position FC, Left foot=1, Right foot=20)

Striker 3 (Position FC, Left foot=20, Right foot=20)

I used these strikers to test the effectiveness of their goal-scoring rates and ratios (i.e. shot attempts, shots on target, goals) in a number of different leagues. I set a CA for the player to be relative to the league he played in. The leagues I played were few, but feel free to do your own tests in the leagues you prefer.

I used Spanish First Division, Scottish Premier, English Premier, Swiss First Division, MLS, Brazilian second division, Conference north, Spanish second division). I run the same season 3 times in each of these leagues with three different formations. Note that other tactics are relevant but only serve to complicate the initial presentation and subsequent discussions.

The 4 formations I tried (based on either 4-5-1 or 4-4-2) and re-replayed 3 times were:

1. A striker formation where there are 2 up front in the FC positions (left foot on left side and right foot on right side)

2. A formation where there are 2 up front with left foot on right side and right foot on left side.

3. A formation with a loan striker left foot only.

4. A formation with a loan striker with DFC (both at 20)

Here are the results

In formation 1:

There was little difference between the ratios or goals in this test for either striker showing that the engine does not prefer right or left. This may seem obvious but I always like to check anyway. I used this as the baseline for all following tests though.

In formation 2:

There was very little difference between the two strikers (not enough to draw any conclusions from it), but here were the statistical differences between this formation and formation 1:

A formation 1 striker had an average of 1:2 (shots on target/shots at goal) compared to nearly 1:3 for formation 2. This suggests that strikers in formation 2 were making a 'considerable' number of shots with their weaker foot.

In formation 3:

The formation 3 striker had a ratio of 2:7 (almost exactly) for shots on target.

In formation 4:

The formation 4 striker had a ratio of 2:5, meaning that his ratio of shots to shots on target was slightly worse that a striker one formation.

However, it is the goals that ultimately count, and here is the really interesting part, shown in a table form. It shows the Shots on target ratios as well as the shots/goals ratios

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

S on T:Shots Goals:Shots

Formation 1 1:2 1:8

Formation 2 1:3 1:12

Formation 3 2:7 1:10

Formation 4 2:5 1:6

</pre>

These numbers (as you can imagine) have been simplified to make discussion and presentation easier. Also, by having the exact ratios it is misleading since various formational and tactical instructions can have an effect on the numbers anyway.

I am going to use 240 shots at goal in the following examples, to make the numbers nice and round.

So, if you give a striker in formation 1, 240 shots at goal over the course of a season, he will deliver 30 goals.

If the same striker is played in formation 2 and given the same number of shots at goal he will deliver 20 goals per season.

If the same striker is played in formation 3, he delivers 24 goals per season.

And lastly, a formation 4 striker given the same will deliver 40.

I didn't want to try to interpret too much of these findings because there will be many different opinions I'm sure, but some things to consider.

1. How does the decision making of a player determine his use of the weaker foot and hence result in soft weaker foot shots at the keeper?

2. How many times will a DFC striker find himself being able to take advantage of an easier goal due to his DFC?

3. In what percentage of situations, will a formation 3 striker be able to favour his stronger foot? 70%, 80%, 90%? And what does this do to his strike rate?

I present my findings for you for discussion.

[One final thought/question on this: If you have two right footed players playing in a 4-4-2 formation, at what stage do you move from a 4-4-2 to a loan striker to improve your shots:goals ratio? Or can you improve this ratio with two strikers by having one of the strikers playing deeper to improve the chances of moving the ball to his stronger foot?]

[Powermonger]

Here is an attribute analysis based on youth players who have attribute values greater than 12.

Looking at the table, aggression is fairly constant across youth players, bravery fairly dominant in the back four positions and GK. Acceleration, natural fitness and pace seem evenly distributed through the positions, although there is a slight bias towards more attacking positions for pace and acceleration.

As is expected, technical attributes aren't as prevailent but long throws being a non-CA attribute stands out the most.Doing different scenarios I can see patterns emerging already.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Of course you were right to suggest that the feet scores are just another 2 attributes, but they are potentially the most important attributes - depending on position within the field. You can see how heavily the game weights this attribute over every other attribute by doing a simple test. Take a player in the database (Elano is already cited as a great example of this). If you look at his attributes in the database, you could note them down and notice that he has a left foot score of 1 (I believe). Now start the game and see how much of an increase the game must give Elano in many attributes just to support his CA of 170 (of thereabouts). It does not increase his weaker foot score, just the other attributes.

First of, yes it does increase his weaker foot score. Re-run your tests.

Secondly, we must make a very important distinction: weighting towards CA does not equal importance in the match. Its just a rough guideline. Stating the opposite, means stating that mental attributes such as determination make no difference at all, because they dont count towards CA at all.

Thirdly, I know how heavily the game weighs the attribute. From a quick test I just did, it weighs even marginally more then acceleration and pace. This doesnt change the fact though that its still just another attribute.

Whats the difference between Elano with 1 for his weak foot and with 20 for his weak foot? The way many in this thread make it sound, including you, is that you should favor the Elano with the strong weak foot.

Based on what? That it makes him a better player? No it doesnt.

The strong-footed Elano looks like this.

The weak-footed Elano looks like this

How can you possibly be claiming that the strong-foot Elano is better? Do you not see how massively better the weak-foot Elano's attributes are? Claiming one is better then the other can only be done for specific situations, because overall its still the same player with the same CA.

The strong-foot Elano can shoot superbly with his left foot, the weak-foot Elano is better at everything else. Technically, mentally and physically.

Fourthly, its impossible to test the importance of a single attribute in the match engine. How can you ever test exactly how big a difference a single attribute makes?

- changing one attribute already affects all other attributes, which immediately renders any tests null and void (see my Elano screenshots)

- impossible to get reliable and valid statistics on the difference of a single attribute. How are you going to test the importance of anticipation? Or the importance of finishing? Shot-on target ratio for the latter? Or shots-to goal instead? And thats just leaving out the umpteenth other variables involved, including sheer luck. You'd have to run many test to get any reliable results.

- testing a difference from 5->10 is different to testing a difference from 10->15

- testing at lower league is different from testing in the EPL.

Testing things anywhere near comprehensive ist nigh-on impossible.

To get back to your test results indicating the dual foot player does better (or anything along those lines); just remember that the weak-foot Elano in that example would be way quicker to a tap in and score you a goal the strong foot Elano wouldnt have scored. Or score a belter with his strong foot that the dual-foot Elano couldnt do, because his long shots isnt as good.

But you cant measure that.

As such, Im getting back to the its still just another attribute, and its up to the gamer to decide how relevant it is for a certain position and how to set up the tactics to get the best out of a given player.

I'd like to ask Cleon to delete my previous post

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

Benoit2: I believe eatontj to be correct with this. Of course you were right to suggest that the feet scores are just another 2 attributes, but they are potentially the most important attributes - depending on position within the field. You can see how heavily the game weights this attribute over every other attribute by doing a simple test. Take a player in the database (Elano is already cited as a great example of this). If you look at his attributes in the database, you could note them down and notice that he has a left foot score of 1 (I believe). Now start the game and see how much of an increase the game must give Elano in many attributes just to support his CA of 170 (of thereabouts). It does not increase his weaker foot score, just the other attributes. Now go back to the editor and give Elano DFC (dual footed competence) and you will notice a large decrease in the attributes after loading the game. The weighting of the foot and hence the importance given to DFC is supported in all my tests, but again I'd be delighted if others ran their own tests to confirm this for themselves.

From what I've posted before it probably seems like I'm trying to pick holes in your theories but I am not disagreeing for the sake of argument. I'm just trying to figure it out so please don't take offense

With that said, what you said about how you tested the importance of two strong feet to me highlights the difference between the CA control model and the CA player development model. The control model is the one which directly adjusts attributes from the database when starting a new game. I think this is SI's way of ensuring researchers don't go overboard without them having to manually check every single researchers data. It is also the one that allows you to mould a player's attributes via training once they are past the development phase.

The development model does what it says on the tin. It controls how attributes develop naturally.

The reason why I side with Cleon and Benoit2 on this is from the in game editing tests I referenced earlier. Change a player's CA by say 40 points with FMM and his weaker foot rating will increase by more or less the same as all of the other Group A attributes. For me this is evidence of how all of those attributes are more or less equally weighted within the development model. The game uses an equation of balance. It checks stored values and maintains the balance between CA and attributes. So when I change a player's CA the attributes change to reflect this at the point the game does the CA/Attribute balance check.

It does not know the difference between CA changing in game via progress or CA being changed by external tools like FMM. It just references the value in the stored location.

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

I see people going on to Cleon's threads and accusing him of 'cheating' or calling his tactics 'rubbish' because they can't get the same success with them. They miss the point. Cleon does not claim that his tactics are good, great or perfect. What he does claim (correctly) is that his tactics are great for the players he has.

Nail on the head. Hopefully people will read the thread and understand rather than just blindly start choosing two footed players all over the park. Benoit2's example of wingers going to the byline or cutting inside and the importance of two strong feet (or not) is a perfect example of this.

Also to bring a bit of football to the debate in my opinion there's a distinction in football with two footedness. In football for me it's major impact is predominantly on control of the ball. Players will still tend to favour their stronger foot when it comes to key aspects like shooting, crossing, long range passing. In that way I think it is a little overcooked in game if it has the impact on pass completion, shots on target etc that Hawshiels data indicates.

To Powermonger great work. If it's possible can you look at attributes in conjunction plus CA. So instead of say 22% of AML have crossing > 12, how many have crossing + dribbling + agility + acceleration + pace > 12

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

How can you possibly be claiming that the strong-foot Elano is better? Do you not see how massively better the weak-foot Elano's attributes are? Claiming one is better then the other can only be done for specific situations, because overall its still the same player with the same CA.

The strong-foot Elano can shoot superbly with his left foot, the weak-foot Elano is better at everything else. Technically, mentally and physically.

Fourthly, its impossible to test the importance of a single attribute in the match engine. How can you ever test exactly how big a difference a single attribute makes?

- changing one attribute already affects all other attributes, which immediately renders any tests null and void (see my Elano screenshots)

- impossible to get reliable and valid statistics on the difference of a single attribute. How are you going to test the importance of anticipation? Or the importance of finishing? Shot-on target ratio for the latter? Or shots-to goal instead? And thats just leaving out the umpteenth other variables involved, including sheer luck. You'd have to run many test to get any reliable results.

To get back to your test results indicating the dual foot player does better (or anything along those lines); just remember that the weak-foot Elano in that example would be way quicker to a tap in and score you a goal the strong foot Elano wouldnt have scored. Or score a belter with his strong foot that the dual-foot Elano couldnt do, because his long shots isnt as good.

But you cant measure that.

As such, Im getting back to the its still just another attribute, and its up to the gamer to decide how relevant it is for a certain position and how to set up the tactics to get the best out of a given player.

Benoit2: You can use the information on this thread as you want to and as to how it suits the way you play.

I didn't believe that I had claimed that a DFC Elano was better than the single-footed. What I said was that if you improve the weaker foot score, the makers of the game obviously see this as an important advantage to they reduce the attributes accordingly. So, in actual fact I believe the overall performance in the course of a season would be equal - tactical instructions aside.

p.s. Your initial point about it increasing the weaker foot score is correct, but not at all significant I believe. It increases this attribute because it is just one more attribute but again the rate it increases this attribute is far less, proving the point about the importance the match engine places on DFC (dual footed competence).

p.p.s. And just so you know, the reason I make the DFC Elano sound better than the single-good-foot Elano, is because he IS if you apply the right tactics. I can make the DFC Elano more effective using the tactical instructions than I can a non-DFC Elano. And this is why personally I would always now choose a DFC player for a central position. But as I've said a number of times now, these are guidelines and it is largely down to your tactics as to how you choose a player.

[isuckatfm]

I can't use the editor as it freezes my computer but Benoit2's little test just confirms what my tests in FMM have been showing. Look at the difference between Elano 1 and Elano 2. All of the Group A attributes (except set piece ones) increased by exactly 2 and all of the Group B attributes increased by 1.

Benoit2 can I ask what where the exact figure you changed foot strength by?

[Powermonger]

To Powermonger great work. If it's possible can you look at attributes in conjunction plus CA. So instead of say 22% of AML have crossing > 12, how many have crossing + dribbling + agility + acceleration + pace > 12

Thanks, I'll look into doing more specific types of queries tomorrow.

One final one before I go, here is all players 21 or older with a CA greater then 100 where a attribute is 15 or more. A bit different looking to the youth table.

[Mitja]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

The strong-footed Elano looks like this.

The weak-footed Elano looks like this

I can understand that DFC has influence on every attribute that includes foot skill, for the sake of match engine simlicity. but how can DFC have influence on mental and physical attributes that's a flaw in match engine to me.

[isuckatfm]

Also to add there is no distinction drawn between 'key' attributes and non key attributes. As an attacking midfielder his defensive attributes changed by the exact same amount as his attacking attributes.

If there was position specific weighting in this 'CA control model' then you would expect different changes between different attributes. But what you get is +2 in one group and +1 in another.

But there is position specific costs to changing an attribute. So increasing tackling in a defender without changing CA will cause other attributes to decrease by a more significant amount than in a striker. But the same groupings of attributes will change in the same amounts.

To me again it points towards a 'control' model i.e. what you can have, and a 'development' model i.e. what you can get.

[isuckatfm]

I can understand that DFC has influence on every attribute that includes foot skill, for the sake of match engine simlicity. but how can DFC have influence on mental and physical attributes that's a flaw in match engine to me.

great point. He can now use his other foot better, but somehow it's caused his brain capacity and his ability to make decisions on the pitch decrease .

IMO it definitely needs looking at so that it reflects reality rather than dumbing down attributes to reflect the match engine. I'm sure it's no easy task but if the game is going to strive for realism then this is the type of thing that needs to be re-evaluated.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

From what I've posted before it probably seems like I'm trying to pick holes in your theories but I am not disagreeing for the sake of argument. I'm just trying to figure it out so please don't take offense

With that said, what you said about how you tested the importance of two strong feet to me highlights the difference between the CA control model and the CA player development model. The control model is the one which directly adjusts attributes from the database when starting a new game. I think this is SI's way of ensuring researchers don't go overboard without them having to manually check every single researchers data. It is also the one that allows you to mould a player's attributes via training once they are past the development phase.

The development model does what it says on the tin. It controls how attributes develop naturally.

The reason why I side with Cleon and Benoit2 on this is from the in game editing tests I referenced earlier. Change a player's CA by say 40 points with FMM and his weaker foot rating will increase by more or less the same as all of the other Group A attributes. For me this is evidence of how all of those attributes are more or less equally weighted within the development model. The game uses an equation of balance. It checks stored values and maintains the balance between CA and attributes. So when I change a player's CA the attributes change to reflect this at the point the game does the CA/Attribute balance check.

It does not know the difference between CA changing in game via progress or CA being changed by external tools like FMM. It just references the value in the stored location.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by Hawshiels:-

I see people going on to Cleon's threads and accusing him of 'cheating' or calling his tactics 'rubbish' because they can't get the same success with them. They miss the point. Cleon does not claim that his tactics are good, great or perfect. What he does claim (correctly) is that his tactics are great for the players he has.

Nail on the head. Hopefully people will read the thread and understand rather than just blindly start choosing two footed players all over the park. Benoit2's example of wingers going to the byline or cutting inside and the importance of two strong feet (or not) is a perfect example of this.

Also to bring a bit of football to the debate in my opinion there's a distinction in football with two footedness. In football for me it's major impact is predominantly on control of the ball. Players will still tend to favour their stronger foot when it comes to key aspects like shooting, crossing, long range passing. In that way I think it is a little overcooked in game if it has the impact on pass completion, shots on target etc that Hawshiels data indicates.

To Powermonger great work. If it's possible can you look at attributes in conjunction plus CA. So instead of say 22% of AML have crossing > 12, how many have crossing + dribbling + agility + acceleration + pace > 12 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, no offense in the slightest. I'm loving this! Afterall, I am no expert at all, and I am more prone to making mistakes than most people since I'm not very technical.

I've been looking at the different between the initial control/setting of the attributes based on CA and the ongoing development and it is indeed quite different in the way the engine develops certain attributes 'naturally'.

This is one reason we need to be carefuly about forcing changes on the game (using FMM) and then trying to derive true results from it. Equally, it would take so long to have these developments occur that we would not be able to present any information until next year.

But let me cover this increase of 40 to a player's CA. When you do this after starting a game using FMM it will increase the attributes by the same amount (Group A that is). But if you do the same again, but keep forcing the weaker foot score downwards, you'll see that it seems to have a higher weighting than the other attributes - when you see how many points it then re-distributes.

You are also correct about people taking snippets from this thread and getting the wrong message from it.

So, for the record:

I am NOT saying that DFC players are always better than SFC (single footed competency) players - regardless of position.

I am however saying that we have to consider that a DFC player with a passing/tackling/crossing/dribbling (or any other feet related attribute) score of 15 out of 20, may be the same or better than a SFC player scoring 17/18/19/20 if all other attributes are the same/similar.

I am saying that for ME PERSONALLY, I would now add DFC as a requirement for any player in a central position in my team. Because based on my own test, I believe that the engine rates this attribute very highly.

And finally, your point about DFC having its major impact for 'control of the ball', but still favouring the stronger foot for 'shooting/crossing', etc .... Again, this is something that will result in differing opinions, but I agree with you on the long range passing and crossing, but not so much on the passing, tackling and shooting. And here is why. As a defender you will not have time to go in with your stronger foot so having a stronger weaker foot is an advantage. Shooting works the same way IRL for me because you don't always have the space or time to get the ball to your stronger foot. Passing though is slightly different, but the reason I believe the importance of DFC passing is rated quite well in the engine is because DFC passing allows you to shape the pass of the ball better to carve out openings. Of course these attributes alone are nothing without technique, composure, etc.

Having said that, I do believe that the weaker foot thing is slightly overcooked because I would expect any professional footballer to be able to perform to some degree (better than in the engine) with his weaker foot. Unless his name is the late but great 'Davie Cooper' who only used his right foot to stand and run on.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

great point. He can now use his other foot better, but somehow it's caused his brain capacity and his ability to make decisions on the pitch decrease .

Maybe he's just confused about which foot to use so it takes him a little longer to decide things ...

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

What I said was that if you improve the weaker foot score, the makers of the game obviously see this as an important advantage to they reduce the attributes accordingly.

But this is true for exactly every other attribute that counts towards CA (once again reinforcing that the weak foot is still just another attribute)

Take for example an Elano with acceleration/pace 20/20: here (notice how he is no right-footed only

Or an Elano with work-rate 20: here

The fact that changing one attribute has a knock-on effect on all others is common knowledge for anyone having done a little research on this. Or so I thought anyway.

p.s. Your initial point about it increasing the weaker foot score is correct, but not at all significant I believe.

Then you're wrong. It increased and decreases as much as almost all other attributes (only acceleration, pace, agility and balance are different)

p.p.s. And just so you know, the reason I make the DFC Elano sound better than the single-good-foot Elano, is because he IS if you apply the right tactics. I can make the DFC Elano more effective using the tactical instructions than I can a non-DFC Elano.

You can only make him better in specific circumstances (such as perhaps all-round passing). There's no way you can make up for the pace difference, or mental difference etc using tactics. Under the right circumstances, the weak-foot Elano would do equally well all-round.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

I am however saying that we have to consider that a DFC player with a passing/tackling/crossing/dribbling (or any other feet related attribute) score of 15 out of 20, may be the same or better than a SFC player scoring 17/18/19/20 if all other attributes are the same/similar.

I meant that he may be the same or better in terms of effectiveness.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Mitja:

I can understand that DFC has influence on every attribute that includes foot skill, for the sake of match engine simlicity. but how can DFC have influence on mental and physical attributes that's a flaw in match engine to me.

Let me explain how this works:

The game adjust all attributes to fit with a given CA. Always. When all attributes combinded are too high or low for a particular CA, the game will raise all attributes equally (technically not entirely true, but not important for this example) until it matches with the CA.

So if you change any attribute, regardless which one it is, then all attributes together wont match with the CA anymore, so the game adjust all attributes evenly again until it is. Look at my Elano screenshots where I changed acceleration, pace and work-rate as examples.

[Joor]

I did a quick test with Pato, who is a natural two footed player in reallife, altho in fm he is 20 right 15 left when you start the game.

I began a new game where both feet was on 20 and all the technical attributes went down to around 13(which is 14 in a unedited database).

I went on holiday and told my assistant manager to use him as often as possible. At the end of first season he was my to scorer with 23 goal in Serie A. Hes technical stat was gone up to 14 finishing 14 composure etc at the end of first season.

Next, I tried a new season where hes left foot was on 11 (reasonable) . Now all the technical attributes was higher 15-16 in the beginning. This time he "only" manage to score 15 goals .

Both seasons he played 30-33 games. I use a 4-3-1-2 formation btw.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can understand that DFC has influence on every attribute that includes foot skill, for the sake of match engine simlicity. but how can DFC have influence on mental and physical attributes that's a flaw in match engine to me.

great point. He can now use his other foot better, but somehow it's caused his brain capacity and his ability to make decisions on the pitch decrease .

IMO it definitely needs looking at so that it reflects reality rather than dumbing down attributes to reflect the match engine. I'm sure it's no easy task but if the game is going to strive for realism then this is the type of thing that needs to be re-evaluated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imgaine how good the player would be, if his stats didn't decrease. He'd be way superior to others players and would overperform. While the game strives for realism, there are somethings that will always need things like this to be done with, to stop certain individuals being far superior.

While making him 2 footed might seem like a little change to some, for the match engine it causes other complications and something so small can have a massive impact on the way the game is coded. After all we have to remember we are just playing a game ad it has to be coded in a certain manner.

[Joor]

To me it looks like a two footed striker is just as effective with 14 finishing as one with 17 who only has 11 in hes the weaker foot...

[Joor]

Originally posted by Joor:

To me it looks like a two footed striker is just as effective with 14 finishing as one with 17 who only has 11 in hes the weaker foot...

Maybe he is even better ?

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

Then you're wrong. It increased and decreases as much as almost all other attributes (only acceleration, pace, agility and balance are different).

You should really have added the words "I believe" since neither of us know the weightings within the engine for sure. I could very well be wrong, but I can't find any evidence to suggest this.

We really need to clarify two things here. There are the weightings that the "game" uses to distribute points to each of the attributes based on CA, etc. And then there is the weighting that the "engine" applies to the importance of each attribute when processing a match.

What I am claiming from my experiments is that I believe that improving the weaker foot by X points gives a bigger potential advantage than improving most other attributes by X points. I can't say all because I can't test them all. It is for this reason that I made my claim about the weaker foot attribute being a more important one.

p.s. I am better at maths than English so perhaps I am using incorrect terms to described my theories.

[Cleon]

But this is true for exactly every other attribute that counts towards CA (once again reinforcing that the weak foot is still just another attribute)

Take for example an Elano with acceleration/pace 20/20: here (notice how he is no right-footed only

Or an Elano with work-rate 20: here

The fact that changing one attribute has a knock-on effect on all others is common knowledge for anyone having done a little research on this. Or so I thought anyway.

From the research I've done in the past this is true. It's the AI's way of trying to balance his stats out. And because you've increased something, it needs to take the points from elsewhere.

Then you're wrong. It increased and decreases as much as almost all other attributes (only acceleration, pace, agility and balance are different)

That's what I understood too what happens. Although id have choosen better words that 'you're wrong'

You can only make him better in specific circumstances (such as perhaps all-round passing). There's no way you can make up for the pace difference, or mental difference etc using tactics. Under the right circumstances, the weak-foot Elano would do equally well all-round.

Especially the mental side imo. If he's weak in certain stats for mental side of the game, no matter what tactic you use, you'll have certain things you'll have to accept and have no control over.

Let me explain how this works:

The game adjust all attributes to fit with a given CA. Always. When all attributes combinded are too high or low for a particular CA, the game will raise all attributes equally (technically not entirely true, but not important for this example) until it matches with the CA.

So if you change any attribute, regardless which one it is, then all attributes together wont match with the CA anymore, so the game adjust all attributes evenly again until it is. Look at my Elano screenshots where I changed acceleration, pace and work-rate as examples.

Again true, its the AI trying to balance things out again.

I did a quick test with Pato, who is a natural two footed player in reallife, altho in fm he is 20 right 15 left when you start the game.

I began a new game where both feet was on 20 and all the technical attributes went down to around 13(which is 14 in a unedited database).

I went on holiday and told my assistant manager to use him as often as possible. At the end of first season he was my to scorer with 23 goal in Serie A. Hes technical stat was gone up to 14 finishing 14 composure etc at the end of first season.

Next, I tried a new season where hes left foot was on 11 (reasonable) . Now all the technical attributes was higher 15-16 in the beginning. This time he "only" manage to score 15 goals .

Both seasons he played 30-33 games. I use a 4-3-1-2 formation btw.

No offence, but it doesn't really prove anything. He could have had low morale, weather conditions could have changed and been different from the other test game. He could have played against different people than the first test. Some of the other players may have had off days, or not provided him with the same chances as in the first test.

And so on, so many random factors that could have had an impact on why he scored less. A test like this imo is pointless as the game has too many random elements or factors that play a part.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Joor:

To me it looks like a two footed striker is just as effective with 14 finishing as one with 17 who only has 11 in hes the weaker foot...

Depends on his other stats, composure, decisions etc. All these stats will out weight how good he is with his other foot, as its these stats that determine how often he scores, creates chances etc and not how good he actually is with his foot.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Joor:

I did a quick test with Pato, who is a natural two footed player in reallife, altho in fm he is 20 right 15 left when you start the game.

I began a new game where both feet was on 20 and all the technical attributes went down to around 13(which is 14 in a unedited database).

I went on holiday and told my assistant manager to use him as often as possible. At the end of first season he was my to scorer with 23 goal in Serie A. Hes technical stat was gone up to 14 finishing 14 composure etc at the end of first season.

Next, I tried a new season where hes left foot was on 11 (reasonable) . Now all the technical attributes was higher 15-16 in the beginning. This time he "only" manage to score 15 goals .

Both seasons he played 30-33 games. I use a 4-3-1-2 formation btw.

Isn't it an incredible different !?!

I currently have a new game going (a real game - not a test one) and I am now going to ensure that all players in central positions have DFC (dual footed competence) where the weaker foot has at least 11.

Joor: Just think then how good that player will be if you can train each of his positionally important attributes to 20. The combination of this with the strong two feet will give you a great forward. I usually just play with 1 up front so I now see this as a NECESSITY for me personally.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

You should really have added the words "I believe" since neither of us know the weightings within the engine for sure. I could very well be wrong, but I can't find any evidence to suggest this.

For what I was responding too, I know full well what Im talking about, so I dont need those words

What I was responding to, is that if you change a player's CA for example (either in FMM or the editor), then all attributes will change equally (with exception of acceleration, pace, agility and balance), regardless of weightings, positions etc. (unless it doesnt count towards CA at all to begin with, such as determination).

So if you raise a player's CA and this results in his finishing having gone up by two, then his weak-foot will also have gone up by two.

This is a fact, so I dont need to use the words "I believe"

I did not make any statements with regards to the actual weighting towards CA, though a quick little test I did suggests it weighs more or less the same as acceleration and pace, which means it takes up a big chunk with regards to CA (but we already knew that, just look at the difference it makes for Elano). Once again though, its up to the gamer to interpret how important he or she values a particular attribute, regardless of the weighing towards CA, because this is different towards weighing in the match. Its all got to do with what tactics you employ etc.

Determination for example has no weighting at all towards CA, but I'll not have any player in my team with a determination lower then 15.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hawshiels:

You should really have added the words "I believe" since neither of us know the weightings within the engine for sure. I could very well be wrong, but I can't find any evidence to suggest this.

For what I was responding too, I know full well what Im talking about, so I dont need those words

What I was responding to, is that if you change a player's CA for example (either in FMM or the editor), then all attributes will change equally (with exception of acceleration, pace, agility and balance), regardless of weightings, positions etc. (unless it doesnt count towards CA at all to begin with, such as determination).

So if you raise a player's CA and this results in his finishing having gone up by two, then his weak-foot will also have gone up by two.

This is a fact, so I dont need to use the words "I believe"

I did not make any statements with regards to the actual weighting towards CA, though a quick little test I did suggests it weighs more or less the same as acceleration and pace, which means it takes up a big chunk with regards to CA (but we already knew that, just look at the difference it makes for Elano). Once again though, its up to the gamer to interpret how important he or she values a particular attribute, regardless of the weighing towards CA, because this is different towards weighing in the match. Its all got to do with what tactics you employ etc.

Determination for example has no weighting at all towards CA, but I'll not have any player in my team with a determination lower then 15. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Benoit2: Can you do me a favour then please?

Can you please do more of a test and tell me what you believe the weighting to be. I may not have done my tests properly - and hence I've got incorrect results - but I'd really appreciate it if you could test this properly and determine the weightings because I continually found the foot weighting to be at the very least considerably higher. So, the fact that it goes up 2 points along with other attributes is still I believe irrelevant. It is the weighting of it that is relevant to this thread.

Many thanks. Then we can reach a conclusion on this and move on to the next stage which is much more interesting and of greater important.

[isuckatfm]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:-

This is one reason we need to be carefuly about forcing changes on the game (using FMM) and then trying to derive true results from it. Equally, it would take so long to have these developments occur that we would not be able to present any information until next year.

This is where our opinions diverge. This is a game and all that it does is reference the value stored for CA and the values stored for the attributes, and then compares them to ensure they fit the rules of the model. It does this at certain points in game time (that’s the reason why you cannot see training effects until roughly one month after starting a game). It does not recognise if these values have been altered by an external input (FMM) or internal input (natural in game increases). It just looks at the values stored in the relevant memory location at that given point.

Originally posted by Hawshiels:-

But let me cover this increase of 40 to a player's CA. When you do this after starting a game using FMM it will increase the attributes by the same amount (Group A that is). But if you do the same again, but keep forcing the weaker foot score downwards, you'll see that it seems to have a higher weighting than the other attributes - when you see how many points it then re-distributes.

I recognise this also but what I am getting at is that there is a standardised development rate for all players, which is then passed through a function to decide where the points get distributed. Thus in your example of holding the weaker foot at a constant value it is equivalent to the natural development rate being altered because the player is not playing on a side opposite to his stronger foot or training on his weaker foot via specific side/position. The same is true of the training intensity bars. By assigning different values to that we are influencing how the game distributes the CA points gained by natural progression.

To be honest I think we are saying more or less the same things but internet communication being what it is I am probably misinterpreting some points you make or forgetting to put them into context with previous points you have made.

On the DFC issue I agree my statements were a bit generalised, but as you said it is context specific and separating this out, although possible, would take way too much effort and time.

Originally posted by Cleon:-

While making him 2 footed might seem like a little change to some, for the match engine it causes other complications and something so small can have a massive impact on the way the game is coded. After all we have to remember we are just playing a game ad it has to be coded in a certain manner.

I understand this and that is why I clarified by stating ‘I’m sure this is no easy task’. The whole match engine would probably have to be re-written to prevent robotic superstars. But as I said if the ultimate goal is realism then increases in technical attributes shouldn’t really impact on mental attributes in an ideal FM world.

I think the day when AI players can behave and develop like their real life counterparts might be the day when the computers takeover the world a la Terminator 2.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Benoit2: Can you do me a favour then please?

Can you please do more of a test and tell me what you believe the weighting to be.

Im not gonna do that, sorry. For starters, different attributes weigh differently depending on position. This may or may not also be the case with two-footedness (though at a glance I'd say this attribute isnt position dependent).

Reason Im not gonna do that, is because knowing exactly how much every attribute weighs for each position (or combination of positions) towards CA is firstly a big, long tasks, but more importantly, only relevant for those who edit players in the database. Moreover, researchers already have a tool that does exactly that.

For gameplay experiences, knowing the exact weighings towards CA is irrelevant. All that matters is how important it is in the match, which is an entirely different thing all together, and depends completely on how important you yourself rate particular attributes. Suffice to say it can make a big difference, just as acceleration and pace can make a big difference, and anticipation can make a big difference etc etc, depending on your team, tactics etc.

I'll generally only spend my time on research thats actually going to enhance my gaming experience. Knowing the exact weighings towards CA would add nothing towards my gaming experience and as such would just be a valuable waste of my time

So, the fact that it goes up 2 points along with other attributes is still I believe irrelevant.

It is indeed. Its only relevant in disproving a claim such as:

E.g. if you change CA of one-foot player, the engine won't change his foot scores because it assumes you want to have one-foot player. Instead it will give him more points in attributes. If you give a player unattainable characteristics (20/20 feet, 20 in every chargable attribute), the engine will make adjustments to create the best possible "balanced" player with 20/20 feet and CA 200 because the engine "thinks" it is what you want.

Which is what I did a page or so back.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

To be honest I think we are saying more or less the same things but internet communication being what it is I am probably misinterpreting some points you make or forgetting to put them into context with previous points you have made.

It is difficult doing something like this in this type of format. What I can tell you is that I find myself agreeing with you in just about everything, but then I read a return post of your's and I'm trying to work out why you think I'm of a different opinion. I'm not really sure of the differences in tone of each of the smiley faces so I'm also never sure how to interpret or use use these myself.

p.s. It is not necessary that we agree anyway, but I just wanted to confirm with you however that I am in agreement with you.

[Just watch out for something that I found when editing using FMM. The game appeared to make natural progressions with feet scores and postional scores based on natural events and increases in certain attributes. However, if I forced these increases in attributes, etc, the game did not appear to see these triggers and make the other changes. I must point out that I am not as technical as most of the people on here so there may be errors in the way I go about things with these tools - but my intentions are good.]

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Benoit2: Can you do me a favour then please?

Can you please do more of a test and tell me what you believe the weighting to be.

Im not gonna do that, sorry. For starters, different attributes weigh differently depending on position. This may or may not also be the case with two-footedness (though at a glance I'd say this attribute isnt position dependent).

Reason Im not gonna do that, is because knowing exactly how much every attribute weighs for each position (or combination of positions) towards CA is firstly a big, long tasks, but more importantly, only relevant for those who edit players in the database. Moreover, researchers already have a tool that does exactly that.

For gameplay experiences, knowing the exact weighings towards CA is irrelevant. All that matters is how important it is in the match, which is an entirely different thing all together, and depends completely on how important you yourself rate particular attributes. Suffice to say it can make a big difference, just as acceleration and pace can make a big difference, and anticipation can make a big difference etc etc, depending on your team, tactics etc.

I'll generally only spend my time on research thats actually going to enhance my gaming experience. Knowing the exact weighings towards CA would add nothing towards my gaming experience and as such would just be a valuable waste of my time

So, the fact that it goes up 2 points along with other attributes is still I believe irrelevant.

It is indeed. Its only relevant in disproving a claim such as:

E.g. if you change CA of one-foot player, the engine won't change his foot scores because it assumes you want to have one-foot player. Instead it will give him more points in attributes. If you give a player unattainable characteristics (20/20 feet, 20 in every chargable attribute), the engine will make adjustments to create the best possible "balanced" player with 20/20 feet and CA 200 because the engine "thinks" it is what you want.

Which is what I did a page or so back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm confused now - I think

The main point of this thread is to help create training schedules that will get the most out of a player - ie max out his PA in the best possible way for that player in that position.

So, knowing the weightings that each attribute has on the CA and its use of PA points is completely relevant - is it not?

[isuckatfm]

@ Hawshiels

Here's a little test to show what Benoit2 is describing:-

Take Anelka, increase his left foot by 31 using FMM and this is what happens in how the game adjusts in image 3 after 35 days game time:-

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4839/anelka01ap0.jpg

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8241/anelka02vs0.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/5133/anelka03mo3.jpg

Here’s another striker, increase his finishing by the same amount 31 and here’s the difference in how the game adjusts, Image 3 is 35 days later:-

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1959/christensen01ss1.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3897/christensen02io9.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1994/christensen03bq6.jpg

I may be interpreting it completely wrong but that to me shows the difference between the ‘control model’ affecting the impact of 2 strong feet on attributes from players in the database, and the ‘development model’ affecting how it sees a change in an attribute without a change in CA affecting the distribution of attributes.

You can see the difference in the weighting of increasing Finishing versus increasing the weaker foot by the same amount. The increase of weaker foot had roughly 1 point adjustment across one grouping of attributes. The increase of finishing had roughly 3 point decrease across the same grouping of attributes. Thus Finishing carries more weight than a weaker foot. Note how it decreases defensive attributes by exactly the same amount.

If I take a striker and do the dame thing except increase tackling/positioning the adjustments downwards are marginal i.e. a free attribute as you described. If I take the same striker and increase his CA as opposed to an individual attribute, then all the same grouping of attributes will increase by roughly the same amount regardless of whther or not they are a 'free' attribute.

There are two distinct equations at work here that I can see.

Equation 1: Controls how attributes are distributed for a given CA

and

Equation 2: Controls how attributes change for a given change in CA

That's my take on it anyway

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

There are two distinct equations at work here that I can see.

Equation 1: Controls how attributes are distributed for a given CA

and

Equation 2: Controls how attributes change for a given change in CA

That's my take on it anyway

Got it. Thanks.

I'll now try more of this myself. Hopefully this can get me to a stage where I know how to get these training schedules done. Afterall, I want to get to this stage asap - while maintaining integrity of the conclusions I've based them on.

Thanks for taking the time to present it this way.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

So, knowing the weightings that each attribute has on the CA and its use of PA points is completely relevant - is it not?

Training is not about getting the most out of your players, its about reshaping players (if you desire). Playing matches is whats going to improve a players CA, not training. Training just tells the game on what attributes it should spend those extra points.

So for a striker, you'd rather have the points added to "shooting" rather then to "defending", so you make him train more in shooting and less in defending, which will increase the chance a players' finishing will go up, instead of his marking, which would be pretty pointless for a striker. Thats why you should create training schedules. Not in order to raise his CA, because playing matches will do that.

As such, creating special pre-season schedules is also pointless, because playing matches will get players match fitness. Making them train very hard in aerobic and strenght would just reshape his attributes. In theory anyway, because in practice you'd be using those schedules far too short to really exhibit a lasting difference.

[Leroy1883]

Originally posted by Leroy1883:

Mr A. Player

Note: the names have been changed to protect the innocent. (Sorry couldn't resist.)

Physical

Acceleration = 56

Agility = 64

Balance = 54

Jumping = 55

Pace = 56

Stamina = 62

Strength = 37

Left Foot = 13

Right Foot = 100

Mental

Anticipation = 61

Bravery = 63

Composure = 50

Concentration = 64

Creativity = 79

Decisions = 62

Flair = 79

Influence = 43

Off the ball = 66

Positioning = 44

Teamwork = 62

Workrate = 49

Technical

Crossing = 56

Dribbling = 70

Finishing = 30

First Touch = 54

Heading = 43

Long Shots = 34

Marking = 27

Passing = 56

Tackling = 30

Technique = 75

Goalkeeping

Handling = 25

Aerial Ability = 20

Command of Area = 10

Communication = 25

Kicking = 15

Throwing = 15

One on Ones = 20

Reflexes = 5

Eccentricity = 5

Rushing Out = 5

Punching = 10

Position

GK = 1

SW = 1

DEF = 1

DM = 1

MID = 20

AM = 20

ATT = 1

WB = 1

Free Role = 1

Right = 13

Left = 10

Centre = 20

New Position

DL = 1

DC = 1

DM = 1

ML = 10

MR = 13

MC = 20

AML= 1

AMR = 4

AMC = 20

ST = 1

WBL = 1

WBR = 1

Note: I haven't included some attributes due to my understaning of them being free, if this is not the case or I have missed any then let me know and I can post them.

The the challenge is:-

Calculate Mr A. Players current ability

Any joy with calculating Mr A. Players current ability?

I think not only will the answer be useful to better understanding of the calculation, but also will help because this thread is dying out for a worked example.

In terms of the dual foot debate has anyone retrained a player and witnessed the changes in a real situation overtime? I would be interested to see how this is handled naturally, without the editor or any game modifiers.

[Leroy1883]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

Training is not about getting the most out of your players, its about reshaping players (if you desire). Playing matches is whats going to improve a players CA, not training. Training just tells the game on what attributes it should spend those extra points.

I would agree with this.

Originally posted by Benoit2:

As such, creating special pre-season schedules is also pointless, because playing matches will get players match fitness. Making them train very hard in aerobic and strenght would just reshape his attributes. In theory anyway, because in practice you'd be using those schedules far too short to really exhibit a lasting difference.

I agree here also, except that preseason training schedules do something else. A player in preseason on high strength and aerobic training is acutally building up his stock of negative fatigue points. In this way a good pre-season will see the player last longer during the season.

In terms of attributes yes they will rise, but then fall again after preseason.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hawshiels:

So, knowing the weightings that each attribute has on the CA and its use of PA points is completely relevant - is it not?

Training is not about getting the most out of your players, its about reshaping players (if you desire). Playing matches is whats going to improve a players CA, not training. Training just tells the game on what attributes it should spend those extra points.

So for a striker, you'd rather have the points added to "shooting" rather then to "defending", so you make him train more in shooting and less in defending, which will increase the chance a players' finishing will go up, instead of his marking, which would be pretty pointless for a striker. Thats why you should create training schedules. Not in order to raise his CA, because playing matches will do that.

As such, creating special pre-season schedules is also pointless, because playing matches will get players match fitness. Making them train very hard in aerobic and strenght would just reshape his attributes. In theory anyway, because in practice you'd be using those schedules far too short to really exhibit a lasting difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Benoit: I just don't understand what you are saying here. I just can't get my head around it and here is why.

You are saying that playing games improves a player's CA - NOT training. So, why do a player's attributes increase (and CA increase)with training for a player that plays NO matches?

If a player only trains (and doesn't play matches), how can you say he will never improve his CA? Is this true?

This seems a pretty fundamental point that perhaps I have always misunderstood. It would be great to understand this properly. Cheers

[Hawshiels]

Also, if a player only plays matches and never trains, can he ever increase/decrease attributes?

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

You are saying that playing games improves a player's CA - NOT training. So, why do a player's attributes increase (and CA increase)with training for a player that plays NO matches?

Natural development.

I of course cant possible begin to write down every detail I know, both because things are very complex and also because even I dont know everything of course But suffice to say that playing matches is what pushes up a player's CA, not training. So trying to figure out the exact weighings for every attribute in order to create better training schedules is pointless.

Finishing is more important for a striker then marking and as such weighs more as well, but common sense already tells you to train a striker more in shooting and less in defending.

Training schedules in FM08 (and 07 and 06) are extremely simplistic and there is no "optimal" schedule. All you can do is increase or decrease the importance of a particular training category, but exactly how much importance you give to each category doesnt influence the speed of progress of a players' CA.

[Serdar]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hawshiels:

So, knowing the weightings that each attribute has on the CA and its use of PA points is completely relevant - is it not?

Training is not about getting the most out of your players, its about reshaping players (if you desire). Playing matches is whats going to improve a players CA, not training. Training just tells the game on what attributes it should spend those extra points.

So for a striker, you'd rather have the points added to "shooting" rather then to "defending", so you make him train more in shooting and less in defending, which will increase the chance a players' finishing will go up, instead of his marking, which would be pretty pointless for a striker. Thats why you should create training schedules. Not in order to raise his CA, because playing matches will do that.

As such, creating special pre-season schedules is also pointless, because playing matches will get players match fitness. Making them train very hard in aerobic and strenght would just reshape his attributes. In theory anyway, because in practice you'd be using those schedules far too short to really exhibit a lasting difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you that having high numbers on both feet skills is not always best depending on position and tactical preferences. I'm also not sure yet about the given examples because I know by experience there are a lot of different factors in the game which affects outcome. Just run premiership without selection any club and after 5 attempts you will always get completely different tables. I think this is enough to prove that there is no "BEST" or "BETTER" concept in FM which can be exaplained just by summing up numbers with given formulas.

Training is something I never liked in CM/FM. First of all feedback from training is very poor and tracking progress is painful and confusing. But on the other hand, I cant believe that training concept of FM is as light as you call it. I myself never use any tool to track CA because I think game is more fun when I play without knowing that. I more count on what I see on field, stats and my sixth instict. But I think we all had young players who improved significantly in couple of years without really playing minutes in games. So training must have something to do with it. And in general, FM has a lot of features related to coaches, training facilities and training schedules. I dont think this entire system is just serving to switch skills from one attribute to another. There must be more to do with it, it is just not presented properly to average user.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hawshiels:

You are saying that playing games improves a player's CA - NOT training. So, why do a player's attributes increase (and CA increase)with training for a player that plays NO matches?

Natural development.

I of course cant possible begin to write down every detail I know, both because things are very complex and also because even I dont know everything of course But suffice to say that playing matches is what pushes up a player's CA, not training. So trying to figure out the exact weighings for every attribute in order to create better training schedules is pointless.

Finishing is more important for a striker then marking and as such weighs more as well, but common sense already tells you to train a striker more in shooting and less in defending.

Training schedules in FM08 (and 07 and 06) are extremely simplistic and there is no "optimal" schedule. All you can do is increase or decrease the importance of a particular training category, but exactly how much importance you give to each category doesnt influence the speed of progress of a players' CA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is sometimes difficult to know who to believe on the forums so please forgive me for asking this Benoit2, but how do you 'know' this? Do you work for SI? Cheers.

Also, if this is the way this works, then I am completely confused and quite de-motivated (and disappointed) at the moment.

When you say there is no 'optimal' training schedule, I of course understand this. But what we are trying to do is to come up with a series of development schedules for players in different positions to encourage their development in the attributes that are most suited for them. And secondly, I don't understand the last point about the training only determining the importance of the training category. Are you saying that the following would have the same effect?

A schedule where defence training set to 10 notches from the left hand side and Attack training set to 10.

And a schedule where the defence is set to 15 and the attack is set to 15?

Because in both examples, the importance is exactly the same.

Also, if a player's CA is increased from 150 to 180 over the course of a couple of seasons or so and he receives no training .... will his attributes change, or will he need to wait until he receives training for the "points" to be assigned to attributes?

[Leroy1883]

What he said

However, I do believe the overall weighting of the schedule to be one of the parameters that affect a player CA development. If a player doesn't train then not only will he have more CA points move to the unassigned category, he will also start to loses CA.

Also too much overall training also stunts CA development.