Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Serdar:

please correct me if I'm wrong; if I have a player with CA = 150 and PA = 150 meaning he is using all he has already in attributes. when he gets 11 in a new position we should expect a drop in set-pieces very soon and this is done to ensure that other (real) attributes do not need to suffer.

I have a couple of test players going through this process at the moment so I'll confirm how this works in practical terms. As you'd expect though, SI have introduced some special conditions to deal with these transitions to make it work seamlessly for realism and enjoyment and this is what makes it really difficult to work out exactly.

[Mitja]

hawshiels, look at this. I changed elano to only MC natural. but this time his stats went up less then before; +1 only.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6440/elanomcef2.jpg

[alesim]

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 Serdar:

please correct me if I'm wrong; if I have a player with CA = 150 and PA = 150 meaning he is using all he has already in attributes. when he gets 11 in a new position we should expect a drop in set-pieces very soon and this is done to ensure that other (real) attributes do not need to suffer.

I have a couple of test players going through this process at the moment so I'll confirm how this works in practical terms. As you'd expect though, SI have introduced some special conditions to deal with these transitions to make it work seamlessly for realism and enjoyment and this is what makes it really difficult to work out exactly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all congratulations for the excellent thread.

Regarding your point on players with CA close or equal to PA, I think that even if they are young and with high versatility, it is very difficult to retrain them. This thread has help me understand why I could not train a regen to improve to more than the starting value of "10" in a postion that I thought was best suited for him. I was very surprised because he is still young and very verstile but after more than 2 years training and playing in the position the value is still 10.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Mitja:

hawshiels, look at this. I changed elano to only MC natural. but this time his stats went up less then before; +1 only.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6440/elanomcef2.jpg

I've just found out why this happens Mitja. When a player is first loaded into the game, the game does not want to penalise a researcher for correctly identifying all the positions that the player has played in - and hence removing all the 'free' attributes so it gives an allowance for all of them. This is why Elano is rated so highly. You will notice that if you remove the positions that he does not normally play in, he will represent the stats he was given in the database more accurately. The main reason is that when you made him MC-only you removed the wide player 'free' attributes so he was charged for them. Isn't it really neat though to have found this out and tried it for yourself?

You can understand why they did it this way, but there will be examples in the database - Elano being the most extreme one I can find - where this is the case, but not many. I am sure though that there is something else that makes this possible (a specific combination) but I've not yet found it. But I'll find it.

Well done for trying this out. It'll make you think about players, their CA, and attributes differently from now on.

[alesim]

Originally posted by Mitja:

hawshiels, look at this. I changed elano to only MC natural. but this time his stats went up less then before; +1 only.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6440/elanomcef2.jpg

Isn't he originally an AMC natural? Maybe making him a MC natural some of his attributes (tackling?) are more important toward total CA and so tha game doesn't have many spare points to allocate to his attribute to match his starting CA. Just a guess.

[Hawshiels]

p.s. I appreciate that SI don't want to give away any of their secrets to researchers, but if the researchers understood more about the impact of their assessments (in particular positions), I am sure there would be a smaller discrepency in the editor as opposed to the game - although you wouldn't eliminate it because SI need to tweak things to make them more stable.

I saw Paul had written something about changes to the software they will give the researchers ... I think this will reflect the game and engine more accurately allowing them to be more effective when building their databases.

[Mitja]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

You can understand why they did it this way, but there will be examples in the database - Elano being the most extreme one I can find - where this is the case, but not many. I am sure though that there is something else that makes this possible (a specific combination) but I've not yet found it. But I'll find it.

no actually I can't understand it why they did it

believe me these are not lonely examples of game changing editor db. I think it's more like "50/50"...anyway KUTGW

PS

I've been doing my own db's for long time and I'm not new in editing. it won't change my wiew on CA/PA system, you know probably what I think of it, anyway. I'm very intersting in your findings.

[Mitja]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

p.s. I appreciate that SI don't want to give away any of their secrets to researchers, but if the researchers understood more about the impact of their assessments (in particular positions), I am sure there would be a smaller discrepency in the editor as opposed to the game - although you wouldn't eliminate it because SI need to tweak things to make them more stable.

I saw Paul had written something about changes to the software they will give the researchers ... I think this will reflect the game and engine more accurately allowing them to be more effective when building their databases.

can't agree more, here. that's exactly what I wanted to hear from Pauc

I hope you can understand my rant on GQ forum.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Mitja:

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

p.s. I appreciate that SI don't want to give away any of their secrets to researchers, but if the researchers understood more about the impact of their assessments (in particular positions), I am sure there would be a smaller discrepency in the editor as opposed to the game - although you wouldn't eliminate it because SI need to tweak things to make them more stable.

I saw Paul had written something about changes to the software they will give the researchers ... I think this will reflect the game and engine more accurately allowing them to be more effective when building their databases.

can't agree more, here. that's exactly what I wanted to hear from Pauc

I hope you can understand my rant on GQ forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant that there are very few players where the difference in stats will be as noticeable as in Elano's case but I would imagine that most players stats will have to be altered by the game to some degree.

And as for your rants (and there have been a few of them over the past few months) ... I always understand why you are frustrated, I just don't agree with the way you go about it sometimes.

[Hawshiels]

WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're just going to love this one. I have now found out EXACTLY what the game is doing with the stats and it's something that I noticed earlier but didn't appreciate just how MASSIVE a difference it makes.

But you'll be glad to hear that it is simple, completely understandable (I hope) and precisely what you would expect. But how many of you ever check this attribute properly????

Ready for it ......

For some time now, I have noticed that two players with the same stats (EXACTLY) will get very different ratings in the game if played in EXACTLY the same position. I couldn't ever work this out until now.

Want to know how the game rates a player's passing, tackling, crossing, etc? You CANNOT just go by the attribute rating. You need to consider the strength of his feet.

It would appear that two-footed players within the game are much more valuable than I first appreciated - this probably relates to how the engine works in determining the effectiveness of passes, tackles, crosses, etc.

So, you could have a 'Right foot only' player with 20 passing, 20 tackling, 20 crossing, and 20 for all of the other 'feet' related technical attributes and yet they will not do as well in the engine as someone with 18 for each of these that can use both feet. This makes sense does it not?

So, what SI have done is to alter the stats to reflect this.

So, take your example of Elano. His left foot has a score of just 6 meaning that his other stats have to be increased considerably to make him effective at passing within the engine.

If his left foot was rated at 15, his attributes would plummet - otherwise he would be a superman player.

So, if you take the example of Kaka and Elano. Kaka's left foot score is 14 so his overall effectiveness within the engine needs to be reduced so his stats may fall. In fact you'll notice this with most players with a high 'second foot' score.

So, in actual fact ... the attributes are not lying at all. We have just forgotten to look at one of the most important attributes as far as the engine is concerned.

What you will find is that Kaka will outperform Elano (as you would reasonably expect). Why? Because Kaka's attributes have to be combined with the 'feet' scores to work out how effective he really is.

I bet none of you will forget to look at the 'feet' scores ever again.

p.s. If you want to prove this to yourself ...

If you want to get 18-20 for EVERY attribute, reduce the 'left' or 'right' foot score to be 1 and set the attributes to 20. You will not score less than 18 for any individual attribute. Set the 'other' foot to be 10 or higher and you'll notice that the attributes drop dramatically (i.e. you can lose up to 3 or 4 points per attribute).

AMAZING!

So, in summary. When you are looking for a player in the game, FM08 obviously rates two footed players higher, so you MUST NOT just compare attributes. You must compare the attributes AND feet to get a true reflection of how it works.

I am quite pleased with myself now.

[Hawshiels]

p.s. Paul C: Do I win a prize for discovering this or just a good kicking from SI? I hope this will prove to be constructive for everyone to know this because it is so sensible, and I wish I had realised the impact of this earlier.

[kolobok]

Hawshiels,

You will get a prize from SI - they will introduce a player with 3 feet in the next release and call him Hawshiels .

Great discovery! Just wondering how it changes your equation outcome. If I understand you correctly, the relationship between attributes and CA is greatly affected by the "foot score", some of the attributes may not be "free" and some lose weight.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by kolobok:

Hawshiels,

You will get a prize from SI - they will introduce a player with 3 feet in the next release and call him Hawshiels .

Great discovery! Just wondering how it changes your equation outcome. If I understand you correctly, the relationship between attributes and CA is greatly affected by the "foot score", some of the attributes may not be "free" and some lose weight.

Cheers.

It actually introduces a massive dimension and one that I'll have to look into MUCH more to understand. I.e. Should I try to train my player in the other stats or just get him to improve his efficiency with the other foot. Getting him to become good on the other foot can make a MASSIVE instant improvement whereas training takes longer perhaps. I'm going to play with it more.

p.s. ******************** WARNING ******************

******************** I AM GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT SOME SPECIFIC PLAYERS ********************

******************** YOU MAY NOT WANT TO READ THIS ********************

I have bought Alessandro Rosina on a couple of occassions in the game and I couldn't work out why he was so amazing when watching him in the match engine and he regularly gets high ratings. He even put Joaquin and Silva out of the team - he was THAT good.

Anyway, you know where I'm going with this now, but it will not surprise you to hear that he has a left foot score of 15 and a right foot score of 20. This is why 'attributes-wise' he may not look quite as good as the others, but in the game he is magical!

******************** END OF SPECIFIC PLAYER TALK ********************

[Serdar]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're just going to love this one. I have now found out EXACTLY what the game is doing with the stats and it's something that I noticed earlier but didn't appreciate just how MASSIVE a difference it makes.

But you'll be glad to hear that it is simple, completely understandable (I hope) and precisely what you would expect. But how many of you ever check this attribute properly????

Ready for it ......

For some time now, I have noticed that two players with the same stats (EXACTLY) will get very different ratings in the game if played in EXACTLY the same position. I couldn't ever work this out until now.

Want to know how the game rates a player's passing, tackling, crossing, etc? You CANNOT just go by the attribute rating. You need to consider the strength of his feet.

It would appear that two-footed players within the game are much more valuable than I first appreciated - this probably relates to how the engine works in determining the effectiveness of passes, tackles, crosses, etc.

So, you could have a 'Right foot only' player with 20 passing, 20 tackling, 20 crossing, and 20 for all of the other 'feet' related technical attributes and yet they will not do as well in the engine as someone with 18 for each of these that can use both feet. This makes sense does it not?

So, what SI have done is to alter the stats to reflect this.

So, take your example of Elano. His left foot has a score of just 6 meaning that his other stats have to be increased considerably to make him effective at passing within the engine.

If his left foot was rated at 15, his attributes would plummet - otherwise he would be a superman player.

So, if you take the example of Kaka and Elano. Kaka's left foot score is 14 so his overall effectiveness within the engine needs to be reduced so his stats may fall. In fact you'll notice this with most players with a high 'second foot' score.

So, in actual fact ... the attributes are not lying at all. We have just forgotten to look at one of the most important attributes as far as the engine is concerned.

What you will find is that Kaka will outperform Elano (as you would reasonably expect). Why? Because Kaka's attributes have to be combined with the 'feet' scores to work out how effective he really is.

I bet none of you will forget to look at the 'feet' scores ever again.

p.s. If you want to prove this to yourself ...

If you want to get 18-20 for EVERY attribute, reduce the 'left' or 'right' foot score to be 1 and set the attributes to 20. You will not score less than 18 for any individual attribute. Set the 'other' foot to be 10 or higher and you'll notice that the attributes drop dramatically (i.e. you can lose up to 3 or 4 points per attribute).

AMAZING!

So, in summary. When you are looking for a player in the game, FM08 obviously rates two footed players higher, so you MUST NOT just compare attributes. You must compare the attributes AND feet to get a true reflection of how it works.

I am quite pleased with myself now.

I wrote before and I will repeat myself. There is no doubt SI has a beatiful mind behind all these rules but it does not change the fact that these are very hard for a regular user to follow and understand. Do you expect an avarega user to make hours of tests with editor before starting the game to understand these.

When an average user wants a midfield who can make assists, they do look at passing and couple more (technique, creativity...) anything beyond this is confusing and a bad design in my opinion.

SI should remember not everyone is as good as Hawshiels when it comes to solve puzzles.

[Hawshiels]

Law_Man: I hope you haven't started to re-present any of this stuff yet. I'll need to look into it alot more based on this new finding before we try to make it usable.

Having said that, the training regimes we'll be able to create now should be fantastic. But what we'll also be able to do is to give the gamers an excellent guide to follow when buying players.

e.g. Do you buy a right footed player with 15 for the passing, dribbling, crossing attributes , or do you buy a two-footed player with 12 for these attributes?

The reason I say this is because the game doesn't appear to use the 'feet' score when calculating the value of a player. So you could end up buying a two-footed player for the same as a one-footed player - despite their stats being the same.

[Serdar]

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 kolobok:

Hawshiels,

You will get a prize from SI - they will introduce a player with 3 feet in the next release and call him Hawshiels .

Great discovery! Just wondering how it changes your equation outcome. If I understand you correctly, the relationship between attributes and CA is greatly affected by the "foot score", some of the attributes may not be "free" and some lose weight.

Cheers.

It actually introduces a massive dimension and one that I'll have to look into MUCH more to understand. I.e. Should I try to train my player in the other stats or just get him to improve his efficiency with the other foot. Getting him to become good on the other foot can make a MASSIVE instant improvement whereas training takes longer perhaps. I'm going to play with it more.

p.s. ******************** WARNING ******************

******************** I AM GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT SOME SPECIFIC PLAYERS ********************

******************** YOU MAY NOT WANT TO READ THIS ********************

I have bought Alessandro Rosina on a couple of occassions in the game and I couldn't work out why he was so amazing when watching him in the match engine and he regularly gets high ratings. He even put Joaquin and Silva out of the team - he was THAT good.

Anyway, you know where I'm going with this now, but it will not surprise you to hear that he has a left foot score of 15 and a right foot score of 20. This is why 'attributes-wise' he may not look quite as good as the others, but in the game he is magical!

******************** END OF SPECIFIC PLAYER TALK ******************** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing I know for sure now is; when FM online kicks in you will win grand prize!!!

This thread should become sticky, 5 star research.

[trebor1185]

Great find Hawshiels, just checked my wingers out and there all 1 footed so set them to train on the opposite flank. I'm right in thinking this improves there other foot?

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Serdar:

I wrote before and I will repeat myself. There is no doubt SI has a beatiful mind behind all these rules but it does not change the fact that these are very hard for a regular user to follow and understand. Do you expect an avarega user to make hours of tests with editor before starting the game to understand these.

When an average user wants a midfield who can make assists, they do look at passing and couple more (technique, creativity...) anything beyond this is confusing and a bad design in my opinion.

SI should remember not everyone is as good as Hawshiels when it comes to solve puzzles.

I completely understand your point here and I realise it is perhaps a little frustrating.

However, we want and expect the game to be as realistic as possible and what they have done is made it just that by assessing the attributes in this way. It's just that we (as gamers) have not taken the 'foot' scores as seriously as we should have. You could argue though that SI could have been clearer about the importance of the 'weaker' foot though.

Perhaps a way of representing the attributes to make it easier for the user would be to have a passing, dribbling, etc rating for each foot. So, for Elano you would have passing scores of 19 and 3, whereas someone like Rosina would have scores of 19 and 15 (to reflect his two-footedness). There are maybe people that would argue that this would confuse gamers more.

Either way, WE know now (or at least the people reading this thread do) so lets get back to the game and enjoy it even more now.

[Silver Foxx]

Wow I have read most of this post, and found it very interesting indeed.

The question I ask of you is this :

I don't use the editor to edit players and stats. Would you reccommend that I don't re-train players into other specific positions unless I really have to eg. if I dont have the money to buy a replacement??

I am a little confused as I have re-trained a lot of my Arsenal players positions. Is this a bad mistake???

Thanks.

[Hawshiels]

... and another thing ...

Sometimes you'll notice that after alot of training, your attributes seem to go down for some players. Well, I'm now beginning to think that this means that they are actually getting better - in real terms.

e.g. If a player is near his PA so he has no more CA points available (but we don't know this within the game). If this same player is being trained and at the same time begins to use his other foot more and develops it, the attribute scores could actually go down making us think that our training isn't working. When, actually what is happening is that his 'weaker' foot score is improving! So, the combination of a minor drop in attributes and an increase in 'weaker' foot actually makes him a better player within the match engine! This part is just theory so please treat is as such until I (or you of course) try it for yourself.

[kolobok]

I wrote before and I will repeat myself. There is no doubt SI has a beatiful mind behind all these rules but it does not change the fact that these are very hard for a regular user to follow and understand. Do you expect an avarega user to make hours of tests with editor before starting the game to understand these.

When an average user wants a midfield who can make assists, they do look at passing and couple more (technique, creativity...) anything beyond this is confusing and a bad design in my opinion.

SI should remember not everyone is as good as Hawshiels when it comes to solve puzzles.

Let me say that average user is expected to be an average manager . It's not to offend anyone - I consider myself as average at best.

Some people have great success and understanding of the game without using math, detailed analysis, etc. The y just feel it.

Basically, Hawshiels' discovery proves one thing - most of us fail to look through all available information. The fact that "two feet" player must be better than "single foot" one is not too complicated to guess, yet I thought about "left foot - right foot" only when looked at wingers. In fact if you think about it logically, "two feet" is extremely important for any DC-DM-MC-AMC-ST. It makes any of this players more effective as he does not need to spend additional time to change foot = better passing, better clerance, better finishing etc. And all this is pretty obvious for anybody who can think logicaly, yet we need Hawshiels to find it trough experimentation. It's rather shame on us than on SI

[Serdar]

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 Serdar:

I wrote before and I will repeat myself. There is no doubt SI has a beatiful mind behind all these rules but it does not change the fact that these are very hard for a regular user to follow and understand. Do you expect an avarega user to make hours of tests with editor before starting the game to understand these.

When an average user wants a midfield who can make assists, they do look at passing and couple more (technique, creativity...) anything beyond this is confusing and a bad design in my opinion.

SI should remember not everyone is as good as Hawshiels when it comes to solve puzzles.

I completely understand your point here and I realise it is perhaps a little frustrating.

However, we want and expect the game to be as realistic as possible and what they have done is made it just that by assessing the attributes in this way. It's just that we (as gamers) have not taken the 'foot' scores as seriously as we should have. You could argue though that SI could have been clearer about the importance of the 'weaker' foot though.

Perhaps a way of representing the attributes to make it easier for the user would be to have a passing, dribbling, etc rating for each foot. So, for Elano you would have passing scores of 19 and 3, whereas someone like Rosina would have scores of 19 and 15 (to reflect his two-footedness). There are maybe people that would argue that this would confuse gamers more.

Either way, WE know now (or at least the people reading this thread do) so lets get back to the game and enjoy it even more now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you wont find magical changes depending on weight/height ratio of players or something like that.

I agree despite they already have too many attributes to follow, at least the really critical ones like (pass, shoot, dribble) could be seperate for two feets to avoid further confusion.

For example I always thought, if a player has passing 16, right foot = 20 and left foot = 5; then passing with right is actually 16 and passing with left is 16*5/20 = 4. Although I could never prove it, I tryed to believe it since it looked sensible to me.

So now according to your new theory lets assume;

Player 1 : pass = 16, right = 20, left = 5

Player 2 : pass = 12, right = 20, left = 15

now you suggest that player2 is in fact better, correct?. Is it better because he can use both feets which is of course a good skill, what about if we just consider best case passing. Is it so that player2 can not make some passes with neither feet which player1 could achieve with right side only.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Silver Foxx:

Wow I have read most of this post, and found it very interesting indeed.

The question I ask of you is this :

I don't use the editor to edit players and stats. Would you reccommend that I don't re-train players into other specific positions unless I really have to eg. if I dont have the money to buy a replacement??

I am a little confused as I have re-trained a lot of my Arsenal players positions. Is this a bad mistake???

Thanks.

If you have re-trained any player into a new position, he will have lost the 'free' attributes he would have been given for his natural position. This means that he will have used up potential (or current ability points - depending on how you want to look at it), by training in this new position.

If you tell me the original position of a single player and his new position, I can tell you how to work out exactly what he has lost in points. But unless you know what his potential actually is, you won't know whether it was just a small mistake ... or a big bad one!

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Serdar:

<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 Serdar:

I wrote before and I will repeat myself. There is no doubt SI has a beatiful mind behind all these rules but it does not change the fact that these are very hard for a regular user to follow and understand. Do you expect an avarega user to make hours of tests with editor before starting the game to understand these.

When an average user wants a midfield who can make assists, they do look at passing and couple more (technique, creativity...) anything beyond this is confusing and a bad design in my opinion.

SI should remember not everyone is as good as Hawshiels when it comes to solve puzzles.

I completely understand your point here and I realise it is perhaps a little frustrating.

However, we want and expect the game to be as realistic as possible and what they have done is made it just that by assessing the attributes in this way. It's just that we (as gamers) have not taken the 'foot' scores as seriously as we should have. You could argue though that SI could have been clearer about the importance of the 'weaker' foot though.

Perhaps a way of representing the attributes to make it easier for the user would be to have a passing, dribbling, etc rating for each foot. So, for Elano you would have passing scores of 19 and 3, whereas someone like Rosina would have scores of 19 and 15 (to reflect his two-footedness). There are maybe people that would argue that this would confuse gamers more.

Either way, WE know now (or at least the people reading this thread do) so lets get back to the game and enjoy it even more now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you wont find magical changes depending on weight/height ratio of players or something like that.

I agree despite they already have too many attributes to follow, at least the really critical ones like (pass, shoot, dribble) could be seperate for two feets to avoid further confusion.

For example I always thought, if a player has passing 16, right foot = 20 and left foot = 5; then passing with right is actually 16 and passing with left is 16*5/20 = 4. Although I could never prove it, I tryed to believe it since it looked sensible to me.

So now according to your new theory lets assume;

Player 1 : pass = 16, right = 20, left = 5

Player 2 : pass = 12, right = 20, left = 15

now you suggest that player2 is in fact better, correct?. Is it better because he can use both feets which is of course a good skill, what about if we just consider best case passing. Is it so that player2 can not make some passes with neither feet which player1 could achieve with right side only. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is currently NO difference that I can see with height or weight. And you are right ... that would be a nightmare to work out!

As for your example about Player 1 and Player 2. I just don't know exactly what weighting the engine gives to the value of the 'weaker' foot. But, going by the way it treats it in reducing CA points, you could be correct. What I would be inclined to instantly deduce is:

Player 1ass = 16, right = 20, left = 5

Player 2ass = 14, right = 20, left = 15

In this instance, I am certain that Player 2 is better within the engine! You'll see the only thing I am not sure about is the tipping point - yet !

[kolobok]

If you tell me the original position of a single player and his new position, I can tell you how to work out exactly what he has lost in points. But unless you know what his potential actually is, you won't know whether it was just a small mistake ... or a big bad one!

It may not be a mistake at all! If a player improves his "weaker" foot score by training for a new position, or maybe some other "score" we haven't paid enough attention to, he may get much better despite loosing some points in some attributes.

[xouman]

For me it is a design(not programming) bug if I cant see obvious difference when I compare C.Ronaldo or Ronaldhinho with other average players in the game. I dont need to know what attributes are free or I dont need to know physical attributes are having higher affect on the pitch or any other factor which are not self evident to user. Not to mention users are not even supposed to see or know what is CA. I know Ronaldo is superior IRL and I expect him to look superior in FM from any angle otherwise I will start to doubt reality of the game.

Just think about maradona sum of attributes. He won't be among the players with more TATT (he lacked physical, aerial, defensive high attributes), but his real quality is beyond any doubt, because he was an awesome AMC, but not a good DC.

The important for a player in fm (as irl) it's how attributes are assigned: it's better to have few very good attributes than have lots of average attributes.

I always think of Raul (Real Madrid). He has low physical attributes, not really impressive technical attributes, and some good mental attributes. If you sum them you will have an average player (or worse), but the fact is that he has succeed at top level for years.

[Serdar]

Originally posted by kolobok:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you tell me the original position of a single player and his new position, I can tell you how to work out exactly what he has lost in points. But unless you know what his potential actually is, you won't know whether it was just a small mistake ... or a big bad one!

It may not be a mistake at all! If a player improves his "weaker" foot score by training for a new position, or maybe some other "score" we haven't paid enough attention to, he may get much better despite loosing some points in some attributes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I now think that; it depends a lot on how you want to use these players. If you want an overall good player I believe it is good to get new positions and second feet but on the other hand it might not be a positive impact for a player who plays at DC, to learn second feet or DMC position if he will play DC anyways.

[kolobok]

I now think that; it depends a lot on how you want to use these players. If you want an overall good player I believe it is good to get new positions and second feet but on the other hand it might not be a positive impact for a player who plays at DC, to learn second feet or DMC position if he will play DC anyways.

Could be. Another idea just crossed my mind. If a player has CA=100 and PA=190, does it mean that he can potentialy achieve CA=190 by playing in one position only? In other words, retraining is not necessary wasting PA points, but maybe using those PA points that were assumed to be given only if player is trained for additional position? So that we have:

- if additionaly trained, then PA=190;

- if not then PA = 150.

???

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by kolobok:

Could be. Another idea just crossed my mind. If a player has CA=100 and PA=190, does it mean that he can potentialy achieve CA=190 by playing in one position only? In other words, retraining is not necessary wasting PA points, but maybe using those PA points that were assumed to be given only if player is trained for additional position? So that we have:

- if additionaly trained, then PA=190;

- if not then PA = 150.

???

I love the debate this is creating here.

To answer your question about maxing out the PA with one single position, let me take a DC as an example.

A single-footed (i.e. score of 1 for the 'weaker' foot) DC with CA and PA of 200 can score 20 for all 'free' attributes and NINETEEN for all 'chargeable' ones so you can see that it is possible to max out a player in a single position.

And for your information, lets take the same DC but with two good feet (i.e. one foot rated at 20 and the other is 15 or above). In this instance, he can still score 20 in all 'free' attributes, but only FIFTEEN for the chargeable ones.

So, this lets you see how much the game values a strong 'weaker' foot.

[Hawshiels]

And to make my point further here, note that this is a difference of SIXTY EIGHT points when looking at the attributes on the player profile screen.

It is also worthy of note that the pace, balance, agility and acceleration are reduced by half the amount of the other attributes as a player increases his two-footedness. This tends to prove the earlier theory that these four attributes are deemed to be very important for every player in the game. So, look out for these attributes a little more the next time you buy a player.

[Mitja]

great work hawshiels!!

this is what PaulC answered me in GQ thread and now I see what he meant: "Worth noting that Ronaldo is also two-footed in the game, whereas Elano isnt. That makes a hell of a difference out on the field."

but of course I don't believe you as long as I don't test this feet theory

[alesim]

Hawshils great find on the foot thingy. I now remember that when Paul C posted in one of threads in regards to Elano and Ronaldo he clearly stated that the fact that Ronaldo was two footed made a huge difference. In view of your study do you believe that the opposition instruction "show into weaker foor" should now be considered more important?

Cheers and KUTGW

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by alesim:

Hawshils great find on the foot thingy. I now remember that when Paul C posted in one of threads in regards to Elano and Ronaldo he clearly stated that the fact that Ronaldo was two footed made a huge difference. In view of your study do you believe that the opposition instruction "show into weaker foor" should now be considered more important?

Cheers and KUTGW

Nice one alesim. I hadn't thought of that. But I'll (we'll all) we treating this much more seriously now I think.

[Law_Man]

Hawshiels: I'd noticed the better performance of players with two feet in-game for a while, and its certainly much more noticeable on FM08.

But its good that you've actually "proved" it with your experiment and watching the stats drop - more great work!

Law_Man: I hope you haven't started to re-present any of this stuff yet. I'll need to look into it alot more based on this new finding before we try to make it usable.

Nope haven't started at all, just doing my best to keep up with this thread at the mo due to revision and exams all this weeek! So discover, re-conceptualise and prove away!

e.g. Do you buy a right footed player with 15 for the passing, dribbling, crossing attributes , or do you buy a two-footed player with 12 for these attributes?

You buy a player natural in the position you want, who's two footed, with 12 for those attributes and as much potential as you can get!

e.g. If a player is near his PA so he has no more CA points available (but we don't know this within the game). If this same player is being trained and at the same time begins to use his other foot more and develops it, the attribute scores could actually go down making us think that our training isn't working. When, actually what is happening is that his 'weaker' foot score is improving! So, the combination of a minor drop in attributes and an increase in 'weaker' foot actually makes him a better player within the match engine! This part is just theory so please treat is as such until I (or you of course) try it for yourself.

But wouldn't he only improve his other foot if you were playing him on the opposite side? Or can for example a DC or an SC just randomly improve the strength of their weaker foot? I have noticed this on occasions, have you?

And all this is pretty obvious for anybody who can think logicaly, yet we need Hawshiels to find it trough experimentation. It's rather shame on us than on SI Wink

I've noticed this in-game for quite a while thank you very much!

[Mitja]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

And to make my point further here, note that this is a difference of SIXTY EIGHT points when looking at the attributes on the player profile screen.

It is also worthy of note that the pace, balance, agility and acceleration are reduced by half the amount of the other attributes as a player increases his two-footedness. This tends to prove the earlier theory that these four attributes are deemed to be very important for every player in the game. So, look out for these attributes a little more the next time you buy a player.

one footed player with "+ attributes" should have the same worth as two footed and "0 or even - attributes", by your theory. it must be like that for realism sake.

[kolobok]

A single-footed (i.e. score of 1 for the 'weaker' foot) DC with CA and PA of 200 can score 20 for all 'free' attributes and NINETEEN for all 'chargeable' ones so you can see that it is possible to max out a player in a single position.

And for your information, lets take the same DC but with two good feet (i.e. one foot rated at 20 and the other is 15 or above). In this instance, he can still score 20 in all 'free' attributes, but only FIFTEEN for the chargeable ones.

So, this lets you see how much the game values a strong 'weaker' foot.

Well, that's great. Since I consider everything from "no third party software" user position, it tells me that, other things equal, "too feet" player has higher current ability and higher chance to achieve his PA.

Wait a second. IIRC, some of the "chargable" attributes for DC are jumping and heading. So you telling me that "2 feet" DC who achieves CA 200 will have only 15 for jumping and heading? Kind of strange...

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Mitja:

great work hawshiels!!

this is what PaulC answered me in GQ thread and now I see what he meant: "Worth noting that Ronaldo is also two-footed in the game, whereas Elano isnt. That makes a hell of a difference out on the field."

but of course I don't believe you as long as I don't test this feet theory

Mitja: Well, please do me a favour and test it and then come back and tell us how you get on ..... You have no idea how long I've waited to hear you say "YOU'RE RIGHT HAWSHIELS". I'm waiting patiently.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by kolobok:

Wait a second. IIRC, some of the "chargable" attributes for DC are jumping and heading. So you telling me that "2 feet" DC who achieves CA 200 will have only 15 for jumping and heading? Kind of strange...

No! He can have 20 for these attributes but he will lose an equivalent number of points from the other 'chargeable' attributes.

So, if he has scores of just 15 for jumping, heading and tackling (as well as for every other attribute), he would have to lose 3 x 5 points from the other to make up for the 3 x 5 increase in these three attributes. Does that make it clearer?

I realise this is complicated and I never know if I'm explaining it well enough.

[kolobok]

No! He can have 20 for these attributes but he will lose an equivalent number of points from the other 'chargeable' attributes.

So, if he has scores of just 15 for jumping, heading and tackling (as well as for every other attribute), he would have to lose 3 x 5 points from the other to make up for the 3 x 5 increase in these three attributes. Does that make it clearer?

I realise this is complicated and I never know if I'm explaining it well enough.

It's not complicated. I typed as I was thinking, hit "post" and realised the answer .

And now I am thinking again Among players with CA >175 is there any "one foot" player? I am not home, so cannot check it, plus I am not good with editor and not sure if it's possible to check.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by kolobok:

And now I am thinking again Among players with CA >175 is there any "one foot" player? I am not home, so cannot check it, plus I am not good with editor and not sure if it's possible to check.

Brilliant question! And I know the answer since this was one of the questions I had that led me to the 'feet' discovery.

There are only 8 players in the entire database with just one foot (i.e. the other foot is rated at 1). Of the 8, 2 are goalkeepers and 6 are defenders. That is what made it jump right off the page at me initially.

So, it just shows the importance of that other foot! Again though, brilliant question.

[Hawshiels]

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 kolobok:

And now I am thinking again Among players with CA >175 is there any "one foot" player? I am not home, so cannot check it, plus I am not good with editor and not sure if it's possible to check.

Brilliant question! And I know the answer since this was one of the questions I had that led me to the 'feet' discovery.

There are only 8 players in the entire database with just one foot (i.e. the other foot is rated at 1). Of the 8, 2 are goalkeepers and 6 are defenders. That is what made it jump right off the page at me initially.

So, it just shows the importance of that other foot! Again though, brilliant question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should have added that there are only 8 with one good foot that are rated above "175" - as per your question.

[Silver Foxx]

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 Silver Foxx:

Wow I have read most of this post, and found it very interesting indeed.

The question I ask of you is this :

I don't use the editor to edit players and stats. Would you reccommend that I don't re-train players into other specific positions unless I really have to eg. if I dont have the money to buy a replacement??

I am a little confused as I have re-trained a lot of my Arsenal players positions. Is this a bad mistake???

Thanks.

If you have re-trained any player into a new position, he will have lost the 'free' attributes he would have been given for his natural position. This means that he will have used up potential (or current ability points - depending on how you want to look at it), by training in this new position.

If you tell me the original position of a single player and his new position, I can tell you how to work out exactly what he has lost in points. But unless you know what his potential actually is, you won't know whether it was just a small mistake ... or a big bad one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Hawshiels I had a few players in the process of being retrained, but had not actually 'aquired' the new position that I was aiming for. The only players I have that has aquired and gone 'accomplished' in this position is :

Robin Van Persie, who I believe was before 'Attacking Midfielder (Right,Left) Forward (Centre) he has now aquired Attacking Midfielder (Right,Left,Centre) Forward (Centre)

The other was :

William Gallas Defender (Right, Centre) and he is now Defender (Right,Left,Centre)

All of the other players who were in the process of being retrained I have now cancelled and put on 'not set'

Can you calculate what I may lose on Van Persie and Gallas, and also am I right to cancel in your opinion all the other players who hadnt aquired the postion (hopefully not losing any 'Free' points in the meantime?)

Thanks for you time

[Hawshiels]

p.s. And for those that are interested, please check your own editor for the names of the 8 I mentioned above. Please don't post them here without sufficient warning because I don't want to waste it for anyone, but I think you'll notice some interesting names in there and explains why the 'Good Player' forum talks about the AMAZING stats of these players.

We now all know that they may appear to be amazing because they have 20s in many of the attribute fields, but just don't expect these players to perform well within the engine if on their wrong foot!

[kolobok]

There are only 8 players in the entire database with just one foot (i.e. the other foot is rated at 1). Of the 8, 2 are goalkeepers and 6 are defenders. That is what made it jump right off the page at me initially.

Sorry, there are 8 players with 1 foot = 1 regardless of CA, right?

What would be the border points between "right only", "right", and "either" in player characteristics? And what would be the difference between "very strong", "strong", etc.? Hawshiels, you don't need to answer right away , it's more like some marks I make.

[kolobok]

Oops, disregard the first part of my previous post.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Silver Foxx:

Ok Hawshiels I had a few players in the process of being retrained, but had not actually 'aquired' the new position that I was aiming for. The only players I have that has aquired and gone 'accomplished' in this position is :

Robin Van Persie, who I believe was before 'Attacking Midfielder (Right,Left) Forward (Centre) he has now aquired Attacking Midfielder (Right,Left,Centre) Forward (Centre)

The other was :

William Gallas Defender (Right, Centre) and he is now Defender (Right,Left,Centre)

All of the other players who were in the process of being retrained I have now cancelled and put on 'not set'

Can you calculate what I may lose on Van Persie and Gallas, and also am I right to cancel in your opinion all the other players who hadnt aquired the postion (hopefully not losing any 'Free' points in the meantime?)

Thanks for you time

Well, the good news it that you will have lost no (very marginal) further points is because Van Persie had already started the game with a score of 11 out of 20 for each of the positions he has now trained fully in so the damage had already been done by the researchers.

Equally, with Gallas, his DL and DR scores were already above 11 in the database so training him in these positions didn't use up any (just marginal again) points because the damage had already been done. If however, you train Gallas in either of the wing-back positions, he will lost CA points because the database rating for him in these positions is less than 11. Hopefully that makes sense.

[kolobok]

p.s. And for those that are interested, please check your own editor for the names of the 8 I mentioned above. Please don't post them here without sufficient warning because I don't want to waste it for anyone, but I think you'll notice some interesting names in there and explains why the 'Good Player' forum talks about the AMAZING stats of these players.

We now all know that they may appear to be amazing because they have 20s in many of the attribute fields, but just don't expect these players to perform well within the engine if on their wrong foot!

It's funny, because a man in some other thread just posted pictures of 4 "amazing" regens in his game, and I looked at them just out of curiosity. Well, they all lack in many key attributes, 2 of them have "right only" foot, the other 2 "right". So for people who read this thread those players are average at best.

[Silver Foxx]

Thanks Hawshiels, yes you make perfect sense to me

Do you think I am right in removing players in progress of re-training?? I won't have lost points before they went 'accomplished' would I??

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Silver Foxx:

Thanks Hawshiels, yes you make perfect sense to me

Do you think I am right in removing players in progress of re-training?? I won't have lost points before they went 'accomplished' would I??

Yes, unfortunately you could have because the point at which the rating reaches 11 is the critical stage. It is at this stage that the 'free' attributes are lost. The reason it is difficult to determine this within the game is because 8,9,10,11, 12, ,13 are ALL orange. So, you don't really know when you've gone from 10 into 11.

The only thing I can say quite categorically is if it is yellow or less, you have not lost the 'free' attributes. If it is green you have lost the 'free' attributes. The orange is a 'grey' area (pardon the punn).unfortunately. So, unless you use another piece of software to determine the real value for the position, you just won't know for sure.

[Hawshiels]

I thought you may be interested to know that the same applies to goalkeepers. If he has only one usable foot (i.e. scoring 1 for the 'weaker' foot), he can have 18s, 19s and 20s as an average for ALL of his attributes. However, if he has a score of 15 or more for his 'weaker' foot, this average goes down to 15 for the chargeable attributes. Again a massive difference which suggests to me that you don't EVER want a keeper that can use both feet. I may be wrong but I can't see that it would be that helpful and it just uses up valuable points.