Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[Aytumious]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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

I should have also added, has it been established that sending you players to feeder clubs that aren't in active leagues a complete waste? Would it be better to just keep the guys playing in reserves and training with my staff?

It is a waste to send them to clubs that are not within either a viewable or playable league so you are better to get them into ANY games within these leagues. The best way to determine how useful the games are at improving your players is to look at the reputation of the league you are having them play in. If they play in the reserve league, this league will have a reputation that will dictate how quickly their CA rises.

So, always always start a game by including the leagues that surround the one you intend to play in (geographical location) because these are most likely going to become your affiliates and therefore you need them to be active to help improve your players.

p.s. Note that sending players to non-active leagues will improve them but only very very slightly so they are better off in training. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to follow up on my results. I've had some players at a non-active feeder team (I'm QPR, they were at MK Dons, reputation of regional).

18 YR, 8 CA gained, 6 months as a starter in 18 games

18 YR, 5 CA, 6 months starter

17 YR, 6 CA, 6 months starter

Does that look about right to you?

[praxiteles]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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

I just dont get it...even with high aerobic training nothing happend to agility and balance...and crossing gone up alot ?

If this player was playing games, you will notice that his strength will develop anyway. In fact, this is an area of physical development that almost requires no training which is strange.

As for agility and balance ..... I still haven't found a way to get these to increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is the case for strength, why do we tire our footballers with strength training? it seems it is of no use anyway.

[Joor]

Originally posted by praxiteles:

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

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

I just dont get it...even with high aerobic training nothing happend to agility and balance...and crossing gone up alot ?

If this player was playing games, you will notice that his strength will develop anyway. In fact, this is an area of physical development that almost requires no training which is strange.

As for agility and balance ..... I still haven't found a way to get these to increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is the case for strength, why do we tire our footballers with strength training? it seems it is of no use anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true, I only see stamina and strength go up when the player is in development(yougsters until 23).

And it doesnt matter if workload in training is high or low - same result.

[xouman]

so it's wise to set strength training intensity at low level after 23 yo? Won't those attributes go lower then?

And what about aerobics? Should I set also a low intensity past 23?

thaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks

[Joor]

Originally posted by xouman:

so it's wise to set strength training intensity at low level after 23 yo? Won't those attributes go lower then?

And what about aerobics? Should I set also a low intensity past 23?

thaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks

Well I had Kaka's aerobic and strength slider on medium(10) for 3 year(25-28) and nothing changed.

Same with Gilardino , I tried high intensity in both for 2 years and its still same result

[xouman]

Originally posted by Joor:

Well I had Kaka's aerobic and strength slider on medium(10) for 3 year(25-28) and nothing changed.

Same with Gilardino , I tried high intensity in both for 2 years and its still same result

Maybe they are already close to their PA... what about players with CA << PA?

[Joor]

Gilardino have 18 CA points left before reaching hes PA, so its not the case.

[SiN8]

What a great thread!!! Kudos to all the folks contributing to this.

This might have been already brought up, but I must have missed it. Which positions are most benefited from having ambidextrous feet? I assume skill positions such as ST and AMC would be much more likely use both feet as supposed to a lumbering centerback. Does the CA loss with "either" factor the position into account?

Also, I wonder what actions in the match engine use feet as a variable. I'm sure shooting/passing/crossing would be affected by where the ball is in relation to the player's feet. What about tackling? Does the match engine calculate which foot is used to tackle?

[xouman]

Originally posted by SiN8:

What a great thread!!! Kudos to all the folks contributing to this.

This might have been already brought up, but I must have missed it. Which positions are most benefited from having ambidextrous feet? I assume skill positions such as ST and AMC would be much more likely use both feet as supposed to a lumbering centerback. Does the CA loss with "either" factor the position into account?

Also, I wonder what actions in the match engine use feet as a variable. I'm sure shooting/passing/crossing would be affected by where the ball is in relation to the player's feet. What about tackling? Does the match engine calculate which foot is used to tackle?

hawshiels tests show that tackle is also highly improved with DFC. It seems that central positions (CB, DMC, MC...) are the most benefited with DFC.

[TsetungPFC]

It is important for me to explain the way the 'passing' attribute works within the game. A player with 10 passing and a player with 20 passing can both still make a perfect pass (or thereabouts) to a player standing 10 feet away. Equally, a player with passing 15 and a player with passing 20 can make an equally (or thereabouts) good pass to someone standing 50 feet away. But a player with passing 10 will never complete as many passes as a player with passing of 20 if they are attempting many longer passes. So, the passing attribute not only determines the accuracy of the pass, but it has a massive impact on the accuracy over a longer distance (i.e. 5 degrees of an error over 10 feet is nothing, but the same 5 degrees of error over 100 feet is alot). Make sense? Great. [This paragraph and its assumption also include assumtions that technique is the same/similar.]

Secondly, it is important to appreciate the importance within the engine of the 'decisions' attribute. The decisions attribute will help a player (especially given creative freedom) to decide how best to proceed - give any circumstance. "Should I cross it?", "Should I pass it back?", "Should I try my weaker foot?, "Should I shoot?". This is a key attribute so in all of my tests I ensure that this attribute is common.

Anyway, back to the findings.

The first season has been run 3 times to give me an average score (i.e. the same season was saved, run, stats noted, re-loaded, re-run, etc). Also, I have rationalised the numbers to take into account that one player may play less games than the others (there is not much of a difference here, but I did it anyway).

And the stats are like this. Lets just do passing first of all.

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

Midfielder 1 (Left only, Passing =19)

3162 Passes, 2788 Completed (88%)

Midfielder 2 (Either, Passing=14)

2123 Passes, 1900 Completed (89%)

</pre>

For the midfielders, I need to tell you a bit more about the tactics I used to test this. I have my midfielders set to normal passing (i.e. in the middle of the slider). In addition, they have slightly less than normal creative freedom. What does this do? Well, it does two things. Firstly, it ensures that my midfielders use their decision making skills (which are set at nearly maximum, 19) more meaning they will try passes only if it 'makes sense' after going through their 'decision engine'. So, what we see in our results is that Midfielder 1 (left foot only) tried more passes than player 2 (either foot) but both players has a similar % success rate. Why is this? It's actually quite sensible and proves that the decision-making within the game is very important. What this shows is that:

- When Player 1 goes through the decision making process, there are more times when it makes sense for him to try a longer pass (because he will be more likely to pass over distance). So, he will attempt more passes.

- When Player 2 goes through the decision making process, there are fewer times when it makes sense for him to try the longer distance passes due to his reduced passing ability so he will choose to dribble more or run with the ball more until his decision making process tells him to pass/shoot/cross, etc.

However, in both instances, since the decision making skill is the same, you would expect their completion percentage to be the same. Note that the difference between midfielders and defenders in this example is due to the decision making. Defender 2 has to make more passes, because it makes more sense to try a longer pass (even at the risk of losing it), than trying to make forward runs or trying to dribble.

Making sense so far?

You are making perferct sense. However I noticed that at no point does your explanation touches/mentions two-footednes?

Would I then be correct to think this would have been exactly the same with two midfielders of different passing abilities that were both one footed (but had equal decision making)?

Does this then imply a left footed only midfielder with a passing of 14 would also accumulate around 2100 passes of which 88-89% were completed passes? (Instead of the 3100 passes, because it makes less sense for him to attempt a long pass.)

[LSS]

Originally posted by praxiteles:

If this is the case for strength, why do we tire our footballers with strength training? it seems it is of no use anyway.

What if Strength training has other effects? Like in preventing injuries or getting back to 100% fitness after a game?

I don't think that the only purpose of training is to help player's development.

[lance101]

Originally posted by the guy:

Lance,

Have you been inputing the data one by one from FMM results? I am more than willing to try and calculate the weights for other positions, and was trying to figure out if there is a faster way to get the data. If you want help, please let me know.

Also, did you notice the ratios for the CM results? If you normalize by the smallest value, 0.095, the weights are almost exactly 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I remember someone at SI said the importance was weighted as integers from 0 to 5 for the 2007 version. They seem to be doing the same thing here as well. I wonder if the DM/CM combo can be calculated as a weighted average of the position weights. Just throwing it out there as a possibility, I have no data to back it up.

@the guy

Unfortunately yes... I've done the tedious job of copying, player by player, for many players per position all their ratings to a spreedsheet... If you can figure out some faster way of doing this, I would be able to do all the calculations very fast myself :|

Anyways, if you are thinking of replicating my process for some other positions, I can explain to you what I did:

1- I created one player per attribute - with CA 100, pace/agility/balance/acceleration 20 and all the other ratings 1, except the one rating I was trying to test at 20.

I also created one player with CA 100, pace/agility/balance/acceleration 20 and ALL ratings 1... through this method I was able to identify which ratings were free or not, and among the non-free, group them in accordance to how much the other attributes were changed, given that this non-free attribute was 20 (I know this is convolutaded... if you want to talk more about this, mail me at marcomigueis@netcabo.pt)

[TsetungPFC]

Originally posted by 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.

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?]

Thank you for doing this. There is information here that is useful to me immediatley and more of info which is interesting.

However I must ask if you also saved and have the absolute number of shots? I am asking because so far your findings imply a left-footed striker is better off playing in the left FC position, which sounds counter-inituative to me personaly. Is it possible that while a left footed striker in a left FC slot has a better goals per shots ratio that he is less likely to shoot and will accumulate less shots and thus goals in absolute number than a left-footed striker in a right FC position?

Also a striker test I would have been very interested would be a test that would use 2 strikers in a 442 formation of which one would be one-footed and the other two-footed, so we would be able to compare the results very much directly. I was a bit surprised your test didn`t include this setup as well, but oh well it would be no fun if we all thought the same.

[TsetungPFC]

Originally posted by Ellesthyan:

If I understand correctly:

Training serves three purposes:

1) Keeping players fit.

2) Increasing attributes with a set amount.

3) Serving as guideline for CA points to be distributed.

It also does one more thing. It reshapes the player within his CA.

If you buy a striker with CA 200 and PA 200 and with attributes at 16, then have him train shooting at intensive, but not have him train defense at all then his finishing will rise to 17, but his marking will fall to 15, while his CA will be unnaffected.

This is also the reason why a player who hasn`t trained for a while due to injury or a season break will sometimes see an increase in some attributes (while at the same time seeing many more attributes fall).

It used to be possible to drasticaly reshape a player through training, but since FM07 this has been toned down very much though.

[TsetungPFC]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

That's where you are wrong. Team Work is an attribute just like others and increases as CA increases. My point is that in the list of attributes I gave none of those attributes changed for thoose specific positions.

The Natural Striker and the Natural CB saw no change in Team Work as CA increased but all other positions did.

And Teamwork is a free attribute for both a Striker and a Central Defender. A coincidence?

[lance101]

Teamwork is indeed free for Sweepers, D C and F C.

[Joor]

Anyone know what teamwork is good for ?

Whats the difference between a striker with 20 or 1 ?

What I can see is that players with a high value are more willing to make himself available for a pass when a team mate is under pressure with the ball.

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by Joor:-

Anyone know what teamwork is good for ?

Whats the difference between a striker with 20 or 1 ?

What I can see is that players with a high value are more willing to make himself available for a pass when a team mate is under pressure with the ball.

And that right there is the fundamental issue with these 'free' attributes. If SI come out and say these attributes are irrelevant for the particular positions then it's not an issue.

But how can jumping, bravery and marking be irrelevant for an M C or DM C?

Or bravery and team work for a striker?

It calls into question how people have generally interpreted the effect of attributes on certain scenarios. If no AI managed regen strikers see increases in bravery does this mean that when the game is populated by regens only that strikers will be less likely to win headers as it has always been assumed that bravery plays a role in this?

You could argue that bravery is an inherent attribute related to personality, but if that is the case then why does it increase for centre halfs?

Add to this the whole agility and balance being stuck and you have to wonder what the hell is going on? Is this intended? Do these attributes matter?

[Joor]

About bravery, its important for defenders ofc.

How willing they are to charge down a shot, get themself between the ball and goal, block shots etc..also in the air ..like "throws himself in front of the header" and "gets across to charge down the header".

Same with goalkeepers who blocks the shot with his body.

Thats bravery.

You can say that strikers also need bravery , but its far more vital for defenders.

[Joor]

Anyone know the difference between strength and balance ?

Strength = the ability to knock someone of the ball and also hold opponents away from the ball?

balance = the abilty to stay on hes feet when challenge for the ball? in 1on1 etc.

Maybe also when he makes quick turns how often he fall/stumble ?

[LSS]

Are the "free attributes" free only when the players are created by the researchers? Or are they also free when the players develops?

[cice2]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

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

Anyone know what teamwork is good for ?

Whats the difference between a striker with 20 or 1 ?

What I can see is that players with a high value are more willing to make himself available for a pass when a team mate is under pressure with the ball.

And that right there is the fundamental issue with these 'free' attributes. If SI come out and say these attributes are irrelevant for the particular positions then it's not an issue.

But how can jumping, bravery and marking be irrelevant for an M C or DM C?

Or bravery and team work for a striker?

It calls into question how people have generally interpreted the effect of attributes on certain scenarios. If no AI managed regen strikers see increases in bravery does this mean that when the game is populated by regens only that strikers will be less likely to win headers as it has always been assumed that bravery plays a role in this?

You could argue that bravery is an inherent attribute related to personality, but if that is the case then why does it increase for centre halfs?

Add to this the whole agility and balance being stuck and you have to wonder what the hell is going on? Is this intended? Do these attributes matter? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because its free doesn't mean its not important. Eg. oxygen =) Its free for the purpose of player development, not gameplay. Training and performance are linked but not the same, so no confusion.

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by cice2:-

Just because its free doesn't mean its not important. Eg. oxygen =) Its free for the purpose of player development, not gameplay. Training and performance are linked but not the same, so no confusion.

My apologies I posted that point assuming people will have read (and remembered ) something I posted about previously in a test game I ran.

In AI managed players none of these 'free' attributes changed for players with particular positional combinations. Thus if they are important for gameplay you have a two fold effect:-

1. The AI teams become weaker because players they develop lack these attributes if they don't start with a high value. So you can have a DM regen produced with marking of 6 to begin with. But even if his CA is 70 and his PA is 190 that marking attribute will never change while is he being trained by AI controlled teams. So when he reaches close to his potential he'll be a world class DM in terms of his CA but with a marking attribute of 6 which is hardly world class.

2. Buying players already developed by the AI (24 years old +) will be less effective because of the inability of AI managed teams to develop these 'free' attributes. Again this detracts from the gaming experience and the overall quality of the player database.

The match engine is a calculator. It takes the attributes as inputs. When deciding on an outcome for a scenario it uses these attributes as the variables. For example does player A beat Player B for an aerial challenge? If the bravery attribute is involved in the calculation of the outcome of that scenario then regen strikers developed by the AI will be at a severe disadvantage because their bravery attribute will not increase as CA does.

That is where the importance of attributes within game scenarios becomes the deciding factor in whether or not this non development of attributes is an issue.

[Joor]

This thread need to get a bump , since I still see people in these forums who dont understand why some high CA players have poor technical attributes..

[the guy]

Is the thinking now that training should be set to maximize what we have learned here, meaning that training categories that are completely free should be maximized? For example, having goalkeepers training fully on attacking training since both creativity and passing are free. As I understand it, training tells the engine how to distribute the points from a gain in CA. Since the attacking category has no baring at all on CA, increasing it won't affect anything. It may slightly devalue the relative weight of other categories to each other, assuming the overall training intensity is kept constant, but wouldn't this method increase some possibly useful attributes more?

Along the same lines, shouldn't every training schedule have set pieces training at intensive? The only stat that counts in this category is crossing, and that is only for wide players. Surely wide players would benefit from an increase in it, and everyone else would benefit from having all of their set piece attributes increase.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

[Liu Chih Chiang]

After skimming through so many posts, I suppose the only way to get a player with perfect stats is to get CA to be higher than 200. Thus, if there is an editor which allows me to change the player's CA to be higher than 200, then I might be able to get a player with near perfect stats or maybe even perfect stats. Am I correct?

[Ljuba82]

First of all, I have to say that this topic is, by far, the best topic since I'm member of this comunity! It's simply fantastic! Well done Hawshiels and other!!!

The other thing I realised is why feedback and manual for game is so bad. The answer is cause the game is flawed...and of course, SI doesn't want to players see that...and more explanation about just this area of game prooves that!

I carefully read every single post for last 2 hours...and I have to write some mine oppinion.

1. I' m very experienced player...play matches in full...and since I study statistics...it was always interesting to examine some stuff, like "weight" of each attribute for every position. For example...for some previous version of game I found program that gives the players importance of each attribute for his position in scale 0-5. Value 0 means it's a FREE attribute...and I saw that only set pieces had such value. So...long time ago i knew that you can increase SET P attributes, no matter how high CA is. But now when I see that there are more FREE att, I'm shocked. Personally I don't like existence of free attributes at all. Let's take DC position for example. 1st DC have all attributes 5, but all his free attributea are 1. 2nd DC also have all attributes 5, but his free attributes are all 20. Their CA is equal, but it's obvious that player 2 is better. At least with crossing 20, Corners 20 he is more than capable to deliver a lots of fantastic assists from corners, with finishing 20, in rare ocasions when he is in opponent area (set pieces) he can be very dangerious when ball suddenly come to him...it maybe just once or two time in a season...but it's not good...Not to mention other benefits of free att. In my oppinion free attributes are bad. It's better that every attribute has it weight, so we can see that DC 2 is better than DC 1. For example...weight of crosing for defenders is low, but it should exist. Si can make those free att quite low...for example...20 pts in crosing for DC is equal to 0.25 pts in tackling attribute. Do you get my point?

Also there are other free attributes that makes the game flawed. Let's take jumping for DM, MC, AMC for example. It's obvious that you can see a lot of time that GK kick the ball to center of field...and of course there are lot of jumping duels in the middle. The other example is "teamwork". DC's and ST's should have benefits from this...for example you need good teamwork for efficient offside trap, or striker with low teamwork will be rather selfish...and will try to shoot even his teammate is in better position.

2. Altough I understand the alocation of attributes for one-footed and both-footed players better now...lots of people doesn't. People just want to see, when they are looking into profiles of players at first glance, that Ronaldo is better than some other one-footed player.

3. I don't know how "either foot" attribute is important for each position, but it's logic for me that it should be more important for DC's, MC's and ST's...cause they have less space and time on ball than wide players. Maybe someone can check that?

4. Hawshiels in one of his tests get result that it's better to have right-footed player in righ ST slot...and left-footed player on left ST slot. But it's exactly the oposite from manual!!! This area need more testing. For example...it's not important how much shoots your strikers had, it's important to see how much the whole team had shoots. Also you have one conclusion that there is no difference if player is right-foot only or left-foot only. Yes I agree, they should have similar ratings, but have in mind that there are 90% right-footed players (I saw it in one of the tables here), so having more left-footed players will generally benefit the team. Although their single rating will be equal...for the team is better to have versatility!

5. Someone said that CA points are distributed to attributes...and that there is no limit for each attribute, so that you can increase each attribute to 20 for the expense of some other attributes. I disagree with that. For example jumping. Altough height doesn't have "weight"...it determines the development of jumping. You will not see 160cm player with 16 in jumping!!! Similar with some other attributes.

6...and last...and more interesting for me... "lance 101" had a post with weight of each attribute for DM and MC position. If they are true...you can see the most important attributes for DM (in order of descending importance)...

Weak foot...0.491

Pace........0.393

Passing.....0.255

Tackling....0.213

Creativity..0.203

Agility.....0.199

Work Rate...0.190

Long shot, First touch, Techique, Anticipation, Decisions, Strenght, Stamina...all 0.166

...and it makes a perfect sense for me!!!

I would like to ask you lance 101 how did you get those results? Also I will ask one more question...since right now I have no time for testing. What will happen if you leave in editor empty space for CA for some player? Logic tells me that when game starts that player will have original attributes from DB. If it's true...than we can increase each attribute by 10 for examle, step bu step, one attribute after another...and we can see how much each attribute weight (imortance) is for every position by using some scoutin tool and reading his CA!!!

[Ljuba82]

...one more thing...

...it's very interesting for us to see such things...but I'm afraid that practical usage is minimal for this...cause you can't make training that maximise all free attributes...because all attributes are linked. For examle you can use DEFENDING training for striker to increase their marking and tacklinf for free, but you will also increase his positioning...that will cost you CA points.

Exception is SET PIECES...where in group you have 4 attributes that are free for all.

[Ljuba82]

Sorry for writing in pieces...but I can't remember everything what I read here that I wanted to comment.

I saw a discussion about is it beeter to have 2-footed player with lower attributes or one-footed with higher attributes when they have same CA.

In my oppinion it's perfectly logical that if their CA and free attributes are same...they will have same rating when testing long enough with all avaliable tactics. I think that Hawshiels get the same results in one of his test, maybe 2-footed player was slightly better...but you have to bear in mind that tactics that he used was maybe more suitable for 2-footed player.For example if I'm playing ultra-defensive for last 5 minutes...and I expect that I will be in my half to the end of game I would rather have one perfectly defensive player (Gatuso) in midfield than Kaka for example who maybe have more than 30+ in his CA comparing to my defensive-minded midfielder. And beacuse DM will have better rating than Kaka in such conditions...people will asume that he is better...and that will be wrong!!!

My conclusion is that players with same CA will be equal in average (when testing all formations, attacking, defensive tactics, positions...).

[TsetungPFC]

So this topic is officaly dead?

[qwertyuiopzxcvbnm]

Can someone sum up what has been learnt here please?

[lance101]

Originally posted by Ljuba82:

First of all, I have to say that this topic is, by far, the best topic since I'm member of this comunity! It's simply fantastic! Well done Hawshiels and other!!!

The other thing I realised is why feedback and manual for game is so bad. The answer is cause the game is flawed...and of course, SI doesn't want to players see that...and more explanation about just this area of game prooves that!

I carefully read every single post for last 2 hours...and I have to write some mine oppinion.

1. I' m very experienced player...play matches in full...and since I study statistics...it was always interesting to examine some stuff, like "weight" of each attribute for every position. For example...for some previous version of game I found program that gives the players importance of each attribute for his position in scale 0-5. Value 0 means it's a FREE attribute...and I saw that only set pieces had such value. So...long time ago i knew that you can increase SET P attributes, no matter how high CA is. But now when I see that there are more FREE att, I'm shocked. Personally I don't like existence of free attributes at all. Let's take DC position for example. 1st DC have all attributes 5, but all his free attributea are 1. 2nd DC also have all attributes 5, but his free attributes are all 20. Their CA is equal, but it's obvious that player 2 is better. At least with crossing 20, Corners 20 he is more than capable to deliver a lots of fantastic assists from corners, with finishing 20, in rare ocasions when he is in opponent area (set pieces) he can be very dangerious when ball suddenly come to him...it maybe just once or two time in a season...but it's not good...Not to mention other benefits of free att. In my oppinion free attributes are bad. It's better that every attribute has it weight, so we can see that DC 2 is better than DC 1. For example...weight of crosing for defenders is low, but it should exist. Si can make those free att quite low...for example...20 pts in crosing for DC is equal to 0.25 pts in tackling attribute. Do you get my point?

Also there are other free attributes that makes the game flawed. Let's take jumping for DM, MC, AMC for example. It's obvious that you can see a lot of time that GK kick the ball to center of field...and of course there are lot of jumping duels in the middle. The other example is "teamwork". DC's and ST's should have benefits from this...for example you need good teamwork for efficient offside trap, or striker with low teamwork will be rather selfish...and will try to shoot even his teammate is in better position.

2. Altough I understand the alocation of attributes for one-footed and both-footed players better now...lots of people doesn't. People just want to see, when they are looking into profiles of players at first glance, that Ronaldo is better than some other one-footed player.

3. I don't know how "either foot" attribute is important for each position, but it's logic for me that it should be more important for DC's, MC's and ST's...cause they have less space and time on ball than wide players. Maybe someone can check that?

4. Hawshiels in one of his tests get result that it's better to have right-footed player in righ ST slot...and left-footed player on left ST slot. But it's exactly the oposite from manual!!! This area need more testing. For example...it's not important how much shoots your strikers had, it's important to see how much the whole team had shoots. Also you have one conclusion that there is no difference if player is right-foot only or left-foot only. Yes I agree, they should have similar ratings, but have in mind that there are 90% right-footed players (I saw it in one of the tables here), so having more left-footed players will generally benefit the team. Although their single rating will be equal...for the team is better to have versatility!

5. Someone said that CA points are distributed to attributes...and that there is no limit for each attribute, so that you can increase each attribute to 20 for the expense of some other attributes. I disagree with that. For example jumping. Altough height doesn't have "weight"...it determines the development of jumping. You will not see 160cm player with 16 in jumping!!! Similar with some other attributes.

6...and last...and more interesting for me... "lance 101" had a post with weight of each attribute for DM and MC position. If they are true...you can see the most important attributes for DM (in order of descending importance)...

Weak foot...0.491

Pace........0.393

Passing.....0.255

Tackling....0.213

Creativity..0.203

Agility.....0.199

Work Rate...0.190

Long shot, First touch, Techique, Anticipation, Decisions, Strenght, Stamina...all 0.166

...and it makes a perfect sense for me!!!

I would like to ask you lance 101 how did you get those results? Also I will ask one more question...since right now I have no time for testing. What will happen if you leave in editor empty space for CA for some player? Logic tells me that when game starts that player will have original attributes from DB. If it's true...than we can increase each attribute by 10 for examle, step bu step, one attribute after another...and we can see how much each attribute weight (imortance) is for every position by using some scoutin tool and reading his CA!!!

I mostly agree with what you say in 1-

Now, what I did was to get the ratings of a bunch of players, all just with one position (either just MC or in the case of DMC, just DMC=20 and MC=15(because they always come together)), and then run a bunch of regressions to estimate the weight of each of the attributes in the CA.

Since I did that, I've made some more progress, as "the guy" pointed me out that you can do it by loading all the player ratings from scout genie in one shot to excel. So I've repeated my regressions with way more players at a time, and got similar results.. but as I couldn't find a definite way of how to proceed, my interest in this decreased since ...

- I do think that one should always train set pieces for all players, as it will have no CA cost - you might not want thought to max it, given that it takes away from what you can train simultaneously other attributes.

-If the weak foot is so important, as it seems to be, instead of having the generic weak/strong/ very strong, the numeric rating of the weak foot should be shown... and the weak foot by itself should be a category in the graphic display of the players quality, especialy in the comparision screen - this would help newcomers understand why ronaldo is still better than elano (although in my view, in the current fm, the weak foot skill is waaaaay overrated).

[keremkrk]

Forgive me if this question is answered before but I'm kinda lost in the vast findings in this post.

Question is: Are these free attributes free only at the point when the players are generated (indicating that they take up CA points when the players are progressing throughout their careers) or do the free attributes consume no CA points even when they increase through natural development or training?

[kolobok]

Forgive me if this question is answered before but I'm kinda lost in the vast findings in this post.

Question is: Are these free attributes free only at the point when the players are generated (indicating that they take up CA points when the players are progressing throughout their careers) or do the free attributes consume no CA points even when they increase through natural development or training?

The latter

[Simon Tipple]

Originally posted by Ljuba82:

1. I' m very experienced player...play matches in full...and since I study statistics...it was always interesting to examine some stuff, like "weight" of each attribute for every position. For example...for some previous version of game I found program that gives the players importance of each attribute for his position in scale 0-5. Value 0 means it's a FREE attribute...and I saw that only set pieces had such value. So...long time ago i knew that you can increase SET P attributes, no matter how high CA is. But now when I see that there are more FREE att, I'm shocked. Personally I don't like existence of free attributes at all. Let's take DC position for example. 1st DC have all attributes 5, but all his free attributea are 1. 2nd DC also have all attributes 5, but his free attributes are all 20. Their CA is equal, but it's obvious that player 2 is better. At least with crossing 20, Corners 20 he is more than capable to deliver a lots of fantastic assists from corners, with finishing 20, in rare ocasions when he is in opponent area (set pieces) he can be very dangerious when ball suddenly come to him...it maybe just once or two time in a season...but it's not good...Not to mention other benefits of free att. In my oppinion free attributes are bad. It's better that every attribute has it weight, so we can see that DC 2 is better than DC 1. For example...weight of crosing for defenders is low, but it should exist. Si can make those free att quite low...for example...20 pts in crosing for DC is equal to 0.25 pts in tackling attribute. Do you get my point?

Also there are other free attributes that makes the game flawed. Let's take jumping for DM, MC, AMC for example. It's obvious that you can see a lot of time that GK kick the ball to center of field...and of course there are lot of jumping duels in the middle. The other example is "teamwork". DC's and ST's should have benefits from this...for example you need good teamwork for efficient offside trap, or striker with low teamwork will be rather selfish...and will try to shoot even his teammate is in better position.

Researchers set a players attributes though so a Center Back is only going to have a very high corner taking attribute if he has this in real life. It's the responsibility of the research team to keep the attributes realistic. So any 'free' attributes are only going to exploited if a researcher puts in a high rating when the player isn't actually good in that area.

[Ljuba82]

Yes, but we can improve that free attributes with good training regime...without using player CA.

...I'm just saying that I don't like existence of free attributes. Lot of people who didn't read this think that if CA of 2 players are same...their quality is equal...but it isn't true. DC with crossing, SP attributes, finishing of 20 is better than one with those attributes set to 1 (not to mention determination).

[u]

Why cant we just get a developer come out and give a brief explanation about all this stuff?

[i4n37]

I have a question: What happens if a player forget a position - do the free attributes for that position get their CA points re-distributed to other attributes?

I tried a little test using FMM, first one by decreasing the New Position, then along with Position. Both attempts had no effect whatsoever to the player's attributes after a period of a monnth (even when his CA increased and some attributes grew)

[JAT]

I managed to compile a chart what I think shows free attributes for all playing positions.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/fmr2008/freeattributes.html

And about players who can play multiple positions. According to my testing, it seems that if player can play more than one position, he gets free attribute only if attribute is free for ALL positions he can play. For example if we take DC who has following free attributes (excluding "free for all" attributes)

Crossing

Dribbling

Finishing

Long shots

Technique

Creativity

Off the ball

Teamwork

And this player learns DM position, DM position has ollowing free attributes (excluding "free for all" attributes)

Crossing

Heading

Marking

Bravery

Influence

Off the ball

Jumping

In this case, player does not gain any new free attributes but loses following

Dribbling

Finishing

Long shots

Technique

Creativity

Teamwork

So I think that player cannot gain any new free attributes through training new positions but can lose them.

[Joor]

Great work JAT.

[eple]

Originally posted by the guy:

Is the thinking now that training should be set to maximize what we have learned here, meaning that training categories that are completely free should be maximized? For example, having goalkeepers training fully on attacking training since both creativity and passing are free. As I understand it, training tells the engine how to distribute the points from a gain in CA. Since the attacking category has no baring at all on CA, increasing it won't affect anything. It may slightly devalue the relative weight of other categories to each other, assuming the overall training intensity is kept constant, but wouldn't this method increase some possibly useful attributes more?

Along the same lines, shouldn't every training schedule have set pieces training at intensive? The only stat that counts in this category is crossing, and that is only for wide players. Surely wide players would benefit from an increase in it, and everyone else would benefit from having all of their set piece attributes increase.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

I would like to know this as well, because none of the free attributes are improving with my players. I've tried changing the training around but is has no effect. Still, I get the impression that not all have this problem.

[kolobok]

I would like to know this as well, because none of the free attributes are improving with my players. I've tried changing the training around but is has no effect. Still, I get the impression that not all have this problem.

quote:

Originally posted by the guy:

Is the thinking now that training should be set to maximize what we have learned here, meaning that training categories that are completely free should be maximized? For example, having goalkeepers training fully on attacking training since both creativity and passing are free. As I understand it, training tells the engine how to distribute the points from a gain in CA. Since the attacking category has no baring at all on CA, increasing it won't affect anything. It may slightly devalue the relative weight of other categories to each other, assuming the overall training intensity is kept constant, but wouldn't this method increase some possibly useful attributes more?

Along the same lines, shouldn't every training schedule have set pieces training at intensive? The only stat that counts in this category is crossing, and that is only for wide players. Surely wide players would benefit from an increase in it, and everyone else would benefit from having all of their set piece attributes increase.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

I would like to know this as well, because none of the free attributes are improving with my players. I've tried changing the training around but is has no effect. Still, I get the impression that not all have this problem.

I don't think it's going to work. Each training category requires "time" or, in terms of game language, adds points to workload. Hence, if you maximize, say, set pieces for defenders, either you need to drop workload somewhere else (to keep overall workload at accepatable level) or your players would start complaining about heavy training plus you would see more training injuries.

I think the result of this research tells us exactly the opposite - we need to have different training schedules for different positiions. What we know so far is that training itself does not lead to increase in CA. CA increases when a player plays matches. So if a players reaches a point when CA should increase, that increase translates into attributes improvement. Which attributes? I believe it depends on training and other settings (cross often / rarely, RWB, etc.).

[eple]

I have schedules for each position. The fullbacks have the schedules most similar to general, though I have put emphasis on the more attacking part of training and set pieces, because I play with offensive full backs and I prefer them to take corners and do the crossing. Still, they never improve dribbling, finishing or set pieces. The same can be said of the other free attributes on other positions, but the problem is clearer on full backs because they don't improve on the area in which their training dictates they should.

Is there any tricks to that, that changes it? I've read many people here on this thread that states the problem is limited to the AI. That the AI is the one that suffers from this, so it seems they do not have this problem, right?

[Joor]

Originally posted by eple:

I have schedules for each position. The fullbacks have the schedules most similar to general, though I have put emphasis on the more attacking part of training and set pieces, because I play with offensive full backs and I prefer them to take corners and do the crossing. Still, they never improve dribbling, finishing or set pieces. The same can be said of the other free attributes on other positions, but the problem is clearer on full backs because they don't improve on the area in which their training dictates they should.

Is there any tricks to that, that changes it? I've read many people here on this thread that states the problem is limited to the AI. That the AI is the one that suffers from this, so it seems they do not have this problem, right?

Its a huge problem ; none of the free attributes are improving .

I beleave SI knows about this bug..

[ShearersTino]

You might want to look at this. There is a excel spreadsheet (along with some other cruft in it) with all of the attributes I have worked out for each position that are free. I have not read all of the thread, but it would be interested to see if our results corralate.

It is the 3rd sheet on the spreadsheet. I think the WBL/R is in correct though.

[Han]

hi guys~~

[Serdar]

this is really good reading but despite all the fuzz there is very little conclusion. At least now we learnt what is a free attribute and being able to usee both feet can have more affect that we could imagine.

My personal outcome from this is;

*give up improving training because SI just made their own artificial rules which are not self-evident and neccessarly perfect.

*Also there is not enough evidence that training has a lot of impact on the success in game. I heard many players winning almost everything available without paying any attention to traning except hire coaches and make couple of schedules without worrying much about their outcome.

[ShearersTino]

Can anyone sum up?

Anytried the spreadsheet I linked to?

[Marseille07]

Whoa, first time seeing Han post something other than "oh this tactic sucks" nonsense!

[kolobok]

Just crossed my mind...

We have learned that 'either' foot significantly affect players' ability, which makes perfect sense. How about 'player prefered moves'. Imo 'Cuts inside' for winger or "Dictates Tempo' for MC may have great positive effect, 'Dives into Tackles' may reduce attributes' significance for DC or FB, whilst 'Shoots Free Kicks with power' should not have any effect as free kick is free attribute. Any ideas how to investigate it further?