Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[Leroy1883]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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.

Hi Hawshiels,

Congratuations on your findings this is one of the best topics on here for a long time.

One area that sparked my interest was your discussion about the effect of the footedness of a player.

Apologies if my interpretation is incorrect, but I read this as 2 players with exactly the same attributes e.g Passing across the board perform better in terms of match rating e.g. 1-10 and in terms of match stats e.g 25 attempted passes, 20 successful if they have a better rating in their weaker foot.

This seems fine to me and makes sense.

The part that is disturbing is where adding more points to feet decreases other attributes.

The main reasons for this is in most cases a player will be using only one foot at a time.

e.g. If a left-foot only winger crosses a ball from the left wing with his left foot it does not make sense that a either-footed player in the same situation puts in a better cross, everything else being equal.

Now if the situation occurs on the right wing then the either footed player will be able to put in the same quality of cross, but the right footed player will not and he is most likely to know this and may attempt to cut back and attempt the cross using his left-foot if he has space.

I agree that consideration of player ability with either foot is desirable from a managers point of view.

It may also be that increasing footedness in the database decreases other stats as you suggest.

But attributes in isolation should be comparable, that has been the basis for FM for as long as I can remember. If this has changed then I think this is wrong.

Anyway hopefully this will stimulate a bit more debate.

Goodluck with you investigation

[kolobok]

The part that is disturbing is where adding more points to feet decreases other attributes.

It won't really happen in the game, only when you go to the extremes in the editor. In the game players have PA>CA, so if they increase their week foot score, it will increase their CA, though attributes may not change at all. In the editor, when you set CA = 200, week foot score = 1, all attributes at maximum, and then increase week foot score, the program must deduce points from attributes to keep CA at 200. In the editor you see proportinal change in attributes, in the game it might not be proportional.

[Leroy1883]

Originally posted by kolobok:

It won't really happen in the game, only when you go to the extremes in the editor. In the game players have PA>CA, so if they increase their week foot score, it will increase their CA, though attributes may not change at all. In the editor, when you set CA = 200, week foot score = 1, all attributes at maximum, and then increase week foot score, the program must deduce points from attributes to keep CA at 200. In the editor you see proportinal change in attributes, in the game it might not be proportional.

Hi kolobok,

I hope this is the case, I can understand why the editor would work like this, but the implication from previous posts seems to point at a difference in 'worth' of individual attribute values if two players have different footedness values.

This then lead to the assumption that you could get more bang for your buck by training a players weaker foot rather than the individual attributes.

As some have pointed out it would also make tools such as the player comparison tool in game useless.

I think you are right and this only applies to changing attributes in the editor.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Leroy1883:

The part that is disturbing is where adding more points to feet decreases other attributes.

The main reasons for this is in most cases a player will be using only one foot at a time.

e.g. If a left-foot only winger crosses a ball from the left wing with his left foot it does not make sense that a either-footed player in the same situation puts in a better cross, everything else being equal.

Now if the situation occurs on the right wing then the either footed player will be able to put in the same quality of cross, but the right footed player will not and he is most likely to know this and may attempt to cut back and attempt the cross using his left-foot if he has space.

I agree that consideration of player ability with either foot is desirable from a managers point of view.

It may also be that increasing footedness in the database decreases other stats as you suggest.

But attributes in isolation should be comparable, that has been the basis for FM for as long as I can remember. If this has changed then I think this is wrong.

Anyway hopefully this will stimulate a bit more debate.

Goodluck with you investigation

Leroy: You make a good observation here, but let me tell you what I've found and why it doesn't bother me at all.

Lets take two players.

Player 1 is RIGHT ONLY. He has 20 for passing and 20 for crossing.

Player 2 is EITHER. He also has 20 for passing and 20 for crossing.

If player 1 passes the ball with his right foot, he will pass it with the same average accuracy as player 2. However if he passes/crosses it with his left, he will have very little accuracy at all. So, in that regard you can take the attributes to be real values that you can compare.

Another example is this.

Player 1: RIGHT ONLY. Passing/Crossing = 20

Player 2: EITHER. Passing/Crossing = 17

If the case of player 1 passing with his right foot, he will have a higher average accuracy on that foot that player 2 will. However, he will have little accuracy on his left. So during the course of a game, if he sticks to his right foot, he will maintain a good overall average. Player 2 however can pass with either so his overall average will not be affected by which foot he can use. So, it is reasonable to assume that he can be more effective in the game. We don't know what the engine does differently with a RIGHT-ONLY compared to an EITHER player but going by the distribution of CA points, it is VERY significant.

And finally, the reason I think the current CA and attributes system works very well is this.

If you have a player that is two-footed, he can still achieve a score of 20 for any individual attribute. It is just that the overall score and weighting cannot take him above his PA and it may be at the expense of another skill. But that is how it works in real life.

For example. Lets take these two players.

Player 1: CA 150, PA 170, Passing = 16, Crossing = 16, RIGHT-ONLY

Player 2: CA 150, PA 170, Passing = 16, Crossing = 16, EITHER

If both of these player train to improve their passing ability for the same amount of time, you would expect the player that only has to get his right footed crosses correct to improve his attribute score more than the one that has to get both feet to cross to the same quality. In other words, it takes roughly twice as long to improve two feet as it does to improve one. This is what I believe is being reflected in the engine and it makes sense - although it doesn't take twice as long (it's quite a bit less than that within the game).

So, if we go back to this example of the two players, player 1 will improve his passing by 3, taking his CA up to 153. Player 2 on the otherhand will improve his passing by 3, but his CA will be 156 (or thereabouts). So, it appears he may have used up more CA points for an improvement of just 3 in his passing, but he now has it for both feet.

[Hawshiels]

p.s. The more you find out about how the game works, the more amazed I am at what has gone into this to improve realism and enjoyment. I still think we're correct to complain (in a sensible manner) when there are bugs, but equally I think we should all have some respect for the nightmare it must be to make changes within this game. It's so complex!

[Leroy1883]

So if everything else is equal would you suggest that a player with crossing 10 and fully trained in both feet is comparable to a another player with 20 for crossing and totally right footed when crossing with his right foot?

[Leroy1883]

No thats not what I meant

[kolobok]

So, if we go back to this example of the two players, player 1 will improve his passing by 3, taking his CA up to 153. Player 2 on the otherhand will improve his passing by 3, but his CA will be 156 (or thereabouts). So, it appears he may have used up more CA points for an improvement of just 3 in his passing, but he now has it for both feet.

Don't want to be boring, but I think we need to make clear distinction between "using" or "wasting" CA points and "achieving" CA points. That is, in the example above player rather "achieved" higher CA as he improved important attribute. On a contrary, a player may "waste" some CA points if they are earned through retraining and improving attributes he does not really need (e.g. MC retrained to DC => his jumping is not "free" anymore and some CA points he could have earned for MC position are "wasted").

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Leroy1883:

No thats not what I meant

Maybe you didn't mean that exactly, but it is actually a good question. But it's one you can determine for yourself depending on your own tactics.

Lets take the exact same football match and suppose we could have player 1 participate first and then player 2 so we could compare them.

Player 1 is EITHER and crossing = 10.

Player 2 is RIGHT-ONLY and crossing = 20.

If I was making up tactics for the first player, I would know that his crossing wasn't great (in fact only half as good as player 2) so I wouldn't want him to cross often on either foot, but I would want his creative freedom to be a little higher because he could then make the most of having two good feet to use in order to make the most of any openings.

Player 2 is someone I would want to cross the ball often, but I never want him to use his left foot for anything other than standing on.

But, if both players had 10 crosses to make in the game. 5 were with the left foot and 5 with the right, you could argue that player 1 has 10 decent crosses, whereas player 2 has 5 great crosses and 5 terrible ones - making them both equal !?!

I personally don't believe they are equal because I'd rather have player 2 any day (i.e. better to have 5 quality crosses than 10 decent ones).

But personally, if player 1 had crossing of 15-16, I would then take him over player 2 because I personally feel that 10 'very good' crosses would be better for my team than 5 excellent ones - perhaps.

This is what is great again, because you need to pick players that will work to your tactics - and vice versa. When you know what tactics you are using and why ..... you'll know the answer to which player is best.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

This is what is great again, because you need to pick players that will work to your tactics - and vice versa. When you know what tactics you are using and why ..... you'll know the answer to which player is best.

When I play with my young son, he sometimes says "Dad, what are you doing buying that player. He is rubbish!". But I am buying that player because he has the attributes I need to make the difference to my team. FM08 is actually quite a simple puzzle in some ways (just like real life football). If I knew exactly how the engine weighted attributes ... I would NEVER lose because I would know what players to play, in what positons and with what instructions. Thankfully, I don't know exactly which is why it is fun - but I do know quite alot of it which means I find myself buying and training players very effectively. I just want to pass this on.

[Leroy1883]

What I originally intended to say was:-

It just takes up more current ability if they are multi-footed.

But the values in game are still comparable.

E.g 20 is worth 20 regardless of footedness.

Hence increasing on the weaker foot doesn't cause attributes to be worth more, it just increases current ability.

But either footed players don't suffer penalties in the match engine as they have an equal weighting for both feet.

The thing is a right footed player on the right wing is never going to use his left foot to put in a cross, he doesn't have to.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Leroy1883:

What I originally intended to say was:-

It just takes up more current ability if they are multi-footed.

But the values in game are still comparable.

E.g 20 is worth 20 regardless of footedness.

Hence increasing on the weaker foot doesn't cause attributes to be worth more, it just increases current ability.

But either footed players don't suffer penalties in the match engine as they have an equal weighting for both feet.

The thing is a right footed player on the right wing is never going to use his left foot to put in a cross, he doesn't have to.

You have this spot on Leroy - except for the last sentence. If you have a right-sided, right-only footed player, you do not WANT him to cross with his left, but he sometimes does it if given creative freedom. You'll notice this if you watch your games and it usually results in an interception by the opposition. So, if you have this player in your team, DON'T give him the freedom to use this useless left foot of his.

[kolobok]

So if everything else is equal would you suggest that a player with crossing 10 and fully trained in both feet is comparable to a another player with 20 for crossing and totally right footed when crossing with his right foot?

To me it's like this. A player with crossing 20 and "right foot only" is still able to cross very good. The problem is that if opposition is able to force him to use left foot more often (e.g. close him down and show to weaker foot), then the accuracy of his crosses will decrease dramatically. An "either foot" player with crossing 10 will cross with the same accuracy regardless of the opposition, though that accuracy is not very good. Hence, when you make a decision whether to buy player or not, you look at his other attributes to assess whether "one foot" player he will be able to use his strong foot for crossing often enough (e.g. if he is very fast, good "off the ball", etc. - subject to investigate).

[fefeu]

Hawshiels english is not my fort you discovered because the problem of the attributes was happening quite so is?

thanks

[Leroy1883]

If I knew exactly how the engine weighted attributes ... I would NEVER lose because I would know what players to play, in what positons and with what instructions.

This is exactly the reason for the 1-20 visible scale over the 1-100 real values. Also some attributes are hidden and some you can just get a feel for e.g personality. Also the engine never takes a single attribute alone as inputs to is calculations.

My point is that an attribute in isolation is rated on the same scale. E.g 20 Finishing is 20 Finishing for all player regardless of outside influences. (Because of the 1-100 scale and I will have an uncertainty of 5 points.)

It is the understanding of how attributes collaberate with each other to produce in match 'plays' that is the real skill.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Leroy1883:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I knew exactly how the engine weighted attributes ... I would NEVER lose because I would know what players to play, in what positons and with what instructions.

This is exactly the reason for the 1-20 visible scale over the 1-100 real values. Also some attributes are hidden and some you can just get a feel for e.g personality. Also the engine never takes a single attribute alone as inputs to is calculations.

My point is that an attribute in isolation is rated on the same scale. E.g 20 Finishing is 20 Finishing for all player regardless of outside influences. (Because of the 1-100 scale and I will have an uncertainty of 5 points.)

It is the understanding of how attributes collaberate with each other to produce in match 'plays' that is the real skill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EXACTLY

[JAT]

First, thanks for an excellent thread. I have been thinking this CA = attributes thing long time.

Second, this footedness thing is very important. It is true that if player crosses or shoots with his stronger foot, it does not really matter how poor weaker foot is. But especially on higher stages, defenders know their opponents very well. And if player has weak foot, defenders try to force attacker to use this weak foot instead of stronger foot. That is why likes C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney are very difficult to defend. Taking their better foot off does not matter much, because weaker foot is almost as good as stronger. On FM 2008 this "show onto foot" instruction is connected to this and can be very useful.

Third, I have been using Random databases many time. On those databases all players' Technical, Mental, Physical and Goalkeeping attributes are set to 0. If this type of database helps doing this research, I'm glad to share it and/or my experiences based on it.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by fefeu:

Hawshiels english is not my fort you discovered because the problem of the attributes was happening quite so is?

thanks

I do not understand, but I can try another language if it helps. Habla espanyol? Hablo ingles, y espanyol un poco.

[fefeu]

guys,help me please,you discovered why the problem of the attributes was happening quite so is?english is not my firt language

[fefeu]

¿Usted discover porque el problema de los atributos era ocurrir muy demasiado lo es?Si yes le será eso corregir eses gracias

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by fefeu:

guys,help me please,you discovered why the problem of the attributes was happening quite so is?english is not my firt language

1. There is no problem with the attributes

2. Football Manager 2008 makes some changes to the attributes to make the game more realistic and enjoyable

3. A player's weaker foot can be trained, but it costs more CA (current ability) points to train a two-footed player.

Hope this helps you.

[fefeu]

thank you, but the one that I didn't like in the game is that the elano is better than the cr7.That that I would like to know if it will be concert

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by fefeu:

thank you, but the one that I didn't like in the game is that the elano is better than the cr7.That that I would like to know if it will be concert

Elano: tiene atributos mas, pedo tiene una pie bueno solo

Cristiano Ronaldo: tiene atributos menos, pedo tiene dos pie bueno.

Asi, Ronaldo es mejor en FM08.

Tenemos comprenderse?

p.s. me gusta estudiar los atributos y me gusta FM08!

[Sikaobi]

If you have a right-sided, right-only footed player, you do not WANT him to cross with his left, but he sometimes does it if given creative freedom. You'll notice this if you watch your games and it usually results in an interception by the opposition. So, if you have this player in your team, DON'T give him the freedom to use this useless left foot of his.

I'd hate to make things even more complex, but what about the "avoids using weaker foot" PPM. Would this permit using higher creative freedom for 1 footed player, and also, would it affect his ability to train his weaker foot?

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Sikaobi:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you have a right-sided, right-only footed player, you do not WANT him to cross with his left, but he sometimes does it if given creative freedom. You'll notice this if you watch your games and it usually results in an interception by the opposition. So, if you have this player in your team, DON'T give him the freedom to use this useless left foot of his.

I'd hate to make things even more complex, but what about the "avoids using weaker foot" PPM. Would this permit using higher creative freedom for 1 footed player, and also, would it affect his ability to train his weaker foot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point Sikaobi. I think this would be a very desirable PPM for player with a very weak foot - but I'll try this out. And secondly, I am not sure it would be wise to train a player with this PPM in his weaker foot if he wasn't going to use it anyway.

There are players in the database with a decent score for their weaker foot (up to 10 out of 20) but they also have this PPM set. I would consider this to be a poor PPM under these circumstances. I'll check this out alot more along with other preferred moves. I have tended not to bother too much with many of these - but I will be now.

[isuckatfm]

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.

If this is true then I guess the match engine is not as complex as everyone believes it to be. If I understand correctly the game adjusts attributes to reflect two footedness for a single attribute so say a player is assigned a rating of 18 in crossing by a researcher, if that player has a high rating in both feet then the CA/Attribute control equation downgrades the attribute assigned to reflect this? So it is a weighted sum based on the 2 feet ratings and positions?

Like I said if this is true what that means to me is the match engine does not recognise when a player uses his left foot and when he uses his right foot because if it did then this downgrading would be unnecessary. A researched player has been assigned attributes based on what they've been observed to do which they predominantly do with their stronger foot. Just because a player can use both feet shouldn't make this relative attribute lower.

IMO a far better way to do it would be that researchers assign the quality of an attribute based on their stronger foot. This remains the attribute value in the editor and the player profile. Then in match if a player uses their weaker foot for a scenario (crossing, long shot, finishing etc.) the calculation should downgrade the attribute within the calculation to reflect this weaker ability. It should not affect the rating assigned to the player's attribute by the researcher particularly when these observations will be based predominantly on seeing the relevant player perform the task related to the attribute with their stronger foot.

If it works the way your test indicates then if a researcher gives a player a rating of 18 for crossing as that player plays predominantly on the right and crosses with his right foot, that is the researcher's judgement of the players accuracy/quality in crossing. But if said player also happens to have a strong left foot then the CA/attribute control decides he can't have 18 for crossing because it violates it's rules. So suddenly a player who is researched as having 18 for crossing with his right foot now has a lower value.

They should be two separate entities independent of each other. Does a player who could finish/cross with consistent accuracy with his right foot suddenly become less proficient with his right foot just because he can also use his left foot? To me that's essentially what your tests appear to show is happening.

Like I said very, very disappointed if this is the case.

[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 Leroy1883:

No thats not what I meant

Maybe you didn't mean that exactly, but it is actually a good question. But it's one you can determine for yourself depending on your own tactics.

Lets take the exact same football match and suppose we could have player 1 participate first and then player 2 so we could compare them.

Player 1 is EITHER and crossing = 10.

Player 2 is RIGHT-ONLY and crossing = 20.

If I was making up tactics for the first player, I would know that his crossing wasn't great (in fact only half as good as player 2) so I wouldn't want him to cross often on either foot, but I would want his creative freedom to be a little higher because he could then make the most of having two good feet to use in order to make the most of any openings.

Player 2 is someone I would want to cross the ball often, but I never want him to use his left foot for anything other than standing on.

But, if both players had 10 crosses to make in the game. 5 were with the left foot and 5 with the right, you could argue that player 1 has 10 decent crosses, whereas player 2 has 5 great crosses and 5 terrible ones - making them both equal !?!

I personally don't believe they are equal because I'd rather have player 2 any day (i.e. better to have 5 quality crosses than 10 decent ones).

But personally, if player 1 had crossing of 15-16, I would then take him over player 2 because I personally feel that 10 'very good' crosses would be better for my team than 5 excellent ones - perhaps.

This is what is great again, because you need to pick players that will work to your tactics - and vice versa. When you know what tactics you are using and why ..... you'll know the answer to which player is best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

assuming that your findings are correct so far; my conclusion is;

1) make sure striker and mc/amc can use both feet.

2) for all the other positions prefer single foot because I believe in most cases players do not need their second feet in these positions. And other attributes are better to focus on single foot.

some might not agree but I guess then it is where different style of management comes in.

[Serdar]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

IMO a far better way to do it would be that researchers assign the quality of an attribute based on their stronger foot. This remains the attribute value in the editor and the player profile. Then in match if a player uses their weaker foot for a scenario (crossing, long shot, finishing etc.) the calculation should downgrade the attribute within the calculation to reflect this weaker ability. It should not affect the rating assigned to the player's attribute by the researcher particularly when these observations will be based predominantly on seeing the relevant player perform the task related to the attribute with their stronger foot.

If it works the way your test indicates then if a researcher gives a player a rating of 18 for crossing as that player plays predominantly on the right and crosses with his right foot, that is the researcher's judgement of the players accuracy/quality in crossing. But if said player also happens to have a strong left foot then the CA/attribute control decides he can't have 18 for crossing because it violates it's rules. So suddenly a player who is researched as having 18 for crossing with his right foot now has a lower value.

They should be two separate entities independent of each other. Does a player who could finish/cross with consistent accuracy with his right foot suddenly become less proficient with his right foot just because he can also use his left foot? To me that's essentially what your tests appear to show is happening.

Like I said very, very disappointed if this is the case.

I could not agree more, programing wise FM works like a clock but design is very poor if what we have read here is correct

[Law_Man]

Don't want to be boring, but I think we need to make clear distinction between "using" or "wasting" CA points and "achieving" CA points. That is, in the example above player rather "achieved" higher CA as he improved important attribute. On a contrary, a player may "waste" some CA points if they are earned through retraining and improving attributes he does not really need (e.g. MC retrained to DC => his jumping is not "free" anymore and some CA points he could have earned for MC position are "wasted").

UCAPU (undesirable CA points use) and DCAPU (deseriable CA points use) anyone....?

[kolobok]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this works the following way.

Crossing = 20 means player can cross extremely accurate.

"Weak foot score" = 1 for that player means that player can cross extremely accurate only if he uses strong foot.

So, when you go to match, the engine takes into account other variables, such as opposition instruction, quality of defender who will mark that player, pace, dribbling, etc. to determine the effectivness of that player on the pitch.

When player has "either" foot attribute the effect of opposition instruction "show onto weaker foot" will be lower, so, other things equal, player would be more effective.

Player with "either" foot can have crossing 20. Thing is, if he ever reaches point where CA=PA, he won't have all "chargable" attributes = 20, while "one foot" player may potentially have it.

Hence, this feature does not make attributes less informative. Plus, I am pretty sure that the engine works slightly different from the editor. That is, when you manipulate numbers using editor using extreme values, it subtracts points proportionaly. It's like using "total workload" slider in training - you move it a bit and all sliders move. The engine takes into account the current attributes and hidden scores.

In the game you cannot train player with "weak foot" score = 1 into player with "weak foot" score = 15.

So the only thing that actually prevented is creating "all 20 either foot" player using editor

[fefeu]

I preferred that the feet not to influence the attributes (same knowing that the engine corrected that) but visually it is that most compares the players

[Joor]

What a about the freerole position/ability ?.

What I see when one of my players have this option on, he moves into other positions on the pitch - mainly those he have accomplished or natural in.

I was just wondering if this ability take up some CA points...

[Law_Man]

Some more good discussions going on here I like it although I think it will be very very difficult too accurately find out exactly how the match engine deals with weaker feet in terms of actually passing, shooting, crossing etc. What do you think Hawshiels? Is it crackable....?

***ps UPATED 8.02 PATCH anyone....? ***

[kolobok]

Some more good discussions going on here I like it although I think it will be very very difficult too accurately find out exactly how the match engine deals with weaker feet in terms of actually passing, shooting, crossing etc. What do you think Hawshiels? Is it crackable....?

Imo we cannot crack it exactly as there is a probabilistic element in the engine. Even perfect player can make stupid mistake, it's just less likely than for rubbish one. We don't really need to crack anything completely - just understand better why some "strange" things happen and how to minimize (or maximize) their effect. We can significantly improve our logic of creating tactics and forming squad, choosing 11 players for a particular match, etc. It could be as simple as this:

despite passing = 18 a "one foot only" MC with first touch 12 may be not effective in a quick game, especially if scout reports says "opposition midfielders work hard for each other", because he won't have time to put ball onto his strong foot. But he might be superb choice if I expect opposition to give him some space (e.g. they play defnsive whilst I play slow attacking).

[Grokaer]

This is one of the best football manager topics I have ever read.

Thanks to all who have positively contributed and invested much time and energy to make this such a fascinating discussion so far.

Hawshiels - very clever investigation and observation and some very interesting conclusions.

You have started a ball rolling in my mind which may seriously alter my future approach to the game.

I noticed you play the game with your young son - a crafty way of getting game time! I just wish my young daughter was into Football Manager 2008!

I think I pretty much understand what you have posted so far (so please don't be so self critical of your delivery of this information. I think you have related it very well).

I have one question to ask if I may - Say I have 2 players that play in the same position e.g. MC and both have equal two footedness, the same for attributes that are important to speed and ultimate amount of attribute improvement (e.g. Ambition, Professionalism etc), one has a CA=150 (PA=165), the other CA=175 (PA=180). If the player with CA=150 has a better representation of attributes relevant to his position compared to the player with CA=175 and retains this throughout his playing career even though he always has a lower CA value and PA value (which isn't changeable as far as I know) than the CA=175 player then the CA=150 player is the better player to have in your team?

Law_Man - Having just read through this post for the first time tonight I would like to wish you luck in your exams or if they have passed I hope they went well for you.

Happy football managing to all.

[Hawshiels]

I'll try to take on each of these points in order.

1. isuckatmf: I don't think there is any need to feel disappointed because I believe that the engine DOES distinguish between left/right and two-footedness. The only time it takes action by reducing the attributes is when there are not enough CA points to cope with the fact that this player has such high ratings in many different 'chargeable' attributes. So, if a player had 20 for passing but medium for the others (and a decent CA), there would be no reason for the game to alter this player's attributes at all because there would be enough CA to cover it. The reason it takes such a drastic measure on someone like Elano is because he loses ALL of the positional 'free' attributes and he does not have enough CA to justify the high attributes scores he has been given by the researcher. All the game is doing is reducing each of the 'chargeable' attributes by the same amount until it comes back to the CA score he has been given. This is how I/we would expect/want it to work.

Serdar: I agree that there are positions on the field that do not require two-footedness the same. However, I think it happens more on a reducing scale from striker through to goalkeeper (where the goalkeeper needs this the least).

Law_man: Again I agree that the terms I am using may be misleading or confusing. What @ll try to do is to summarise everything shortly and then hopefully we (meaning you) can decide on a way to present the information with consistent terms and terminology.

kolobok: You've got it! I am not sure how much training you can do with a player to develop their weaker foot from a score of 1, but as you'd expect I am trying this out at the moment to work out the maximum, and average development. I now think this is critical in working out training schedules.

fefeu: The feet are as important an attribute as the other values we see in the player profile so we must take them into account when assessing players. This reflects real life relatively accurately so I'm personally pleased it is implemented like this in the game.

Joor: The free role appears to have no impact on CA or 'free' attributes. I have tried every combination (I think). It neither helps or hinders a player's CA for different positions, but what I suspect it does from my own engine experiments is make a player function to a higher level in other positions on the field. There is a real difference here. If a player can play "green" or above in MC, I believe the free role allows him to play to a similar standard if he roams around the field to other areas. It does not mean that you can play the MC as a DC or FC though. It just means that so long as he holds his right position on the formation screen, he can then move to these other positions without any (or much of a) penalty to his attributes.

Law_Man: I will be able to work out how important the feet are within the engine, but depending on what I find out, I may choose to just keep it at a high enough level so that we don't spoil the fun of the engine. Not that I expect this will happen anyway, but we do want to keep some of the mystery to keep the game fun/frustrating/enjoyable/annoying - because that's football. But I'll be able to get us to a stage where we can produce:

- A brilliant player buyer's guide

- The best training schedules available

- Player search filters (?)

p.s. I'm just about to download the updated patch. I just hope they don't make any further changes to the engine or CA/attributes. If they do, you'll hear me scream wherever you are in the world.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Grokaer:

This is one of the best football manager topics I have ever read.

Thanks to all who have positively contributed and invested much time and energy to make this such a fascinating discussion so far.

Hawshiels - very clever investigation and observation and some very interesting conclusions.

You have started a ball rolling in my mind which may seriously alter my future approach to the game.

I noticed you play the game with your young son - a crafty way of getting game time! I just wish my young daughter was into Football Manager 2008!

I think I pretty much understand what you have posted so far (so please don't be so self critical of your delivery of this information. I think you have related it very well).

I have one question to ask if I may - Say I have 2 players that play in the same position e.g. MC and both have equal two footedness, the same for attributes that are important to speed and ultimate amount of attribute improvement (e.g. Ambition, Professionalism etc), one has a CA=150 (PA=165), the other CA=175 (PA=180). If the player with CA=150 has a better representation of attributes relevant to his position compared to the player with CA=175 and retains this throughout his playing career even though he always has a lower CA value and PA value (which isn't changeable as far as I know) than the CA=175 player then the CA=150 player is the better player to have in your team?

Law_Man - Having just read through this post for the first time tonight I would like to wish you luck in your exams or if they have passed I hope they went well for you.

Happy football managing to all.

Thanks for the support Grokaer.

Your question about the two players in your example is a good one. You are right to presume that the CA=150 player is better to have in your team under these circumstances. You see, I get a little frustrated (although sometimes entertained) when I read the 'Good Player' forums or the 'Best tactic in the world' threads, because in FM08 there is no such thing really.

Cleon could make up a brilliant tactic for his team and then someone else tries it and claims it is rubbish. Equally, the reason there is so much debate about who is the best player for each position is because there is no best player.

In your example, depending on how your team plays, you could have a two-footed MC with a CA of 100 that is much better within your tactics than a one-footed MC with a CA of 170. You are spot on that it completely depends on the attributes that are relevant for that player within the system you play.

When I first started to play CM/FM years ago I always looked forward to FM Scout being released because I would use this to search for players to buy. I always filtered the list by searching only for players with a PA of 170+.

Nowadays, my approach has completely changed. I now have filters set up for each position to reflect the way 'I' play. So, sometimes I will buy a player with a CA of 90 for a very specific role and it works wonders.

Funnily enough, I have a game going at the moment where I am only buying players with a CA of below 100 to see if I can still win the league (La Liga). I have made it to 4th place (which means I failed to a certain degree) but when you consider the CA of the other players in the Spanish league .... this is quite good and it helps to prove the point further. If you use the editor to do searches for players with two good feet and with specific skills like passing or crossing (e.g. 20/20 left foot, 20/20 right foot and passing of 18 or over), you'll find players you perhaps never considered buying. But they could turn out to be gems within your team.

[Law_Man]

I don't think the terms/language/what you're writing is misleading or confusing at all! I just think given some time next week, and using structual techniques such as a "definitions" section, tabulation, footnotes etc I can make a little more "easily listening....".

I think we should make a word version of the report (yes I think that's what we should call it) available for download too.

Yes as I mentioned previously I think player search filter will very useful re free attributes by position.

Jolly good

I'm fairly sure the updated patch is just for the Defoe issue and the Turkish finances issue as opposed to real database/match engine things so I wouldn't worry, but thinking of you letting out a massive scream somewhere is making me laugh!

Read above that you play FM with your son? That's cool, but I mean, its a bit of a cop out isnt it.....? "Look son, I've bought you the new release of FM for Christmas........"

[Mitja]

I wasn't able to test it, becouse I had more important things to do like watching arsenal-milan an now I'm on my on line game. but I will even though there's no need. so congratulations for your work guys!!

in my opinoum if this feet theory is true it's a little weird representation. why?

a) becouse if player A has passing 20 and weak (5) weaker foot, you would expect him to be able to pass with his natural foot 20, not 18. but he won't be able to use much of his weaker foot. it's common logic to me. it doesn't make guys like messi worse passers in terms of passing quality, when using natural foot.

b) which is even more important

feet theory shouldn't affect someone's mental or physical stats, right? I meen I met yet to see some player being braver or more agresive or better at jumping becouse he can use his weaker foot better.

great findings anyway. it's just the representation is a mess, if true.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

Read above that you play FM with your son? That's cool, but I mean, its a bit of a cop out isnt it.....? "Look son, I've bought you the new release of FM for Christmas........"

I laughed out loud when I read this, because it is exactly what I do each year. But then, I also buy my wife a subscription to Setanta and Sky Sports for her birthday.

p.s. My son has just turned 7, but for the past two years I have used him as a party trick. I challenge friends and family (that think they know about football) to a 'quiz'. I give them initials and they have to come up with as many players with those initials - including team, and country. Since he was 5 he's been blowing people away with how many players he knows (all through FM). I'm so proud.

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

isuckatmf: I don't think there is any need to feel disappointed because I believe that the engine DOES distinguish between left/right and two-footedness. The only time it takes action by reducing the attributes is when there are not enough CA points to cope with the fact that this player has such high ratings in many different 'chargeable' attributes. So, if a player had 20 for passing but medium for the others (and a decent CA), there would be no reason for the game to alter this player's attributes at all because there would be enough CA to cover it. The reason it takes such a drastic measure on someone like Elano is because he loses ALL of the positional 'free' attributes and he does not have enough CA to justify the high attributes scores he has been given by the researcher. All the game is doing is reducing each of the 'chargeable' attributes by the same amount until it comes back to the CA score he has been given. This is how I/we would expect/want it to work.

I understand the logic of your argument based on your previous posts evidence of how the CA/Attribute system works. But I disagree completely with the last line. I personally don't want the logically constructed code based on a generic interpretation of what a player can or can't have to alter researcher assigned attributes because the logic of this code dictates that those assigned attributes are unrealistic. The researchers put a lot of effort into gathering data and analysing players and I would trust their observed judgement on a player as opposed to what the 'player model' in the game decides is possible.

In any case it might be a moot point since from what PaulC has posted alot of these issues have sweet FA to do with the CA/Attribute model adjusting and more to do with the software used by some researchers being a little buggy so that it was allowing them to assign attributes above and beyond CA restrictions. So with the Elano case if the software worked properly on the researcher's end then the attributes you see in game would probably be those in the database (or vice versa depending on which way the researcher's opinion fell).

Not to be naysayer but do you think this might question the validity of some of your conclusions if as your posts suggest they have been based on creating players in the database and then seeing what they actually look like in game?

Also I know 99% of people reading this don't care about it, but if possible could you post some of the maths of how you came up with the various weightings for positions, CA costs etc?

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by Grokaer:

This is one of the best football manager topics I have ever read.

Thanks to all who have positively contributed and invested much time and energy to make this such a fascinating discussion so far.

Hawshiels - very clever investigation and observation and some very interesting conclusions.

You have started a ball rolling in my mind which may seriously alter my future approach to the game.

I noticed you play the game with your young son - a crafty way of getting game time! I just wish my young daughter was into Football Manager 2008!

I think I pretty much understand what you have posted so far (so please don't be so self critical of your delivery of this information. I think you have related it very well).

I have one question to ask if I may - Say I have 2 players that play in the same position e.g. MC and both have equal two footedness, the same for attributes that are important to speed and ultimate amount of attribute improvement (e.g. Ambition, Professionalism etc), one has a CA=150 (PA=165), the other CA=175 (PA=180). If the player with CA=150 has a better representation of attributes relevant to his position compared to the player with CA=175 and retains this throughout his playing career even though he always has a lower CA value and PA value (which isn't changeable as far as I know) than the CA=175 player then the CA=150 player is the better player to have in your team?

Law_Man - Having just read through this post for the first time tonight I would like to wish you luck in your exams or if they have passed I hope they went well for you.

Happy football managing to all.

What a nice post, thank you What a generally pleasant thread this is turning out to be, and long may it continue.

Hawshiels: haha yeh I bet, I've been like that since I started playing when I was about 11!

You get your wife Setanta and Sky Sports!? Very considerate. I find a new iron every couple of years goes down a treat too....

I have just had a good idea re testing in game things and "control factors". I think we should sort out an online game at some point in the future and then we can (as far as possible) control the things we want to test. That, and, i've NEVER played FM online

[Mitja]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

I understand the logic of your argument based on your previous posts evidence of how the CA/Attribute system works. But I disagree completely with the last line. I personally don't want the logically constructed code based on a generic interpretation of what a player can or can't have to alter researcher assigned attributes because the logic of this code dictates that those assigned attributes are unrealistic. The researchers put a lot of effort into gathering data and analysing players and I would trust their observed judgement on a player as opposed to what the 'player model' in the game decides is possible.

I agree. the game ignores researchers work. it's like saying computor knows better which attributes are more important then humans.

Paul said they were introducing new tool for researcher so they can more accuratly control the db's output into the game, next year. that meens they're not happy with this issue, right?

[Law_Man]

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 isuckatfm:

I understand the logic of your argument based on your previous posts evidence of how the CA/Attribute system works. But I disagree completely with the last line. I personally don't want the logically constructed code based on a generic interpretation of what a player can or can't have to alter researcher assigned attributes because the logic of this code dictates that those assigned attributes are unrealistic. The researchers put a lot of effort into gathering data and analysing players and I would trust their observed judgement on a player as opposed to what the 'player model' in the game decides is possible.

I agree. the game ignores researchers work. it's like saying computor knows better which attributes are more important then humans.

Paul said they were introducing new tool for researcher so they can more accuratly control the db's output into the game, next year. that meens they're not happy with this issue, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It probably actually means that some users aren't happy with the issue so they aren't happy with the issue, as obviously the customer is king and all that....

[Grokaer]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Thanks for the support Grokaer.

Your question about the two players in your example is a good one. You are right to presume that the CA=150 player is better to have in your team under these circumstances. You see, I get a little frustrated (although sometimes entertained) when I read the 'Good Player' forums or the 'Best tactic in the world' threads, because in FM08 there is no such thing really.

Cleon could make up a brilliant tactic for his team and then someone else tries it and claims it is rubbish. Equally, the reason there is so much debate about who is the best player for each position is because there is no best player.

In your example, depending on how your team plays, you could have a two-footed MC with a CA of 100 that is much better within your tactics than a one-footed MC with a CA of 170. You are spot on that it completely depends on the attributes that are relevant for that player within the system you play.

When I first started to play CM/FM years ago I always looked forward to FM Scout being released because I would use this to search for players to buy. I always filtered the list by searching only for players with a PA of 170+.

Nowadays, my approach has completely changed. I now have filters set up for each position to reflect the way 'I' play. So, sometimes I will buy a player with a CA of 90 for a very specific role and it works wonders.

Funnily enough, I have a game going at the moment where I am only buying players with a CA of below 100 to see if I can still win the league (La Liga). I have made it to 4th place (which means I failed to a certain degree) but when you consider the CA of the other players in the Spanish league .... this is quite good and it helps to prove the point further. If you use the editor to do searches for players with two good feet and with specific skills like passing or crossing (e.g. 20/20 left foot, 20/20 right foot and passing of 18 or over), you'll find players you perhaps never considered buying. But they could turn out to be gems within your team.

Many thanks Hawshiels for the valuable advice.

I smiled when you mentioned how you used to use FM Scout and search the database by PA >= 170. That used to be my approach in the old days. PA was still too important a part of the equation for me until I stumbled (got lucky) onto this very valuable thread tonight.

[Joor]

Im going to test how Freerole works, first when my AMC got natural in both AM R/L, Central Striker and central MC position. And then when hes only 20 AMC.

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by Grokaer:-

Many thanks Hawshiels for the valuable advice.

I smiled when you mentioned how you used to use FM Scout and search the database by PA >= 170. That used to be my approach in the old days. PA was still too important a part of the equation for me until I stumbled (got lucky) onto this very valuable thread tonight.

Slightly off on a tangent but this I think highlights the problems with player generation and attribute assignment. A player with high PA should be a top class player if he reaches it but unfortunately if the game doesn't assign attributes well you get a top class CA with not so top class attributes. Strikers with low off the ball, centre halfs with low marking etc.

It's the difference between a researcher watching a player over the course of a season, making observations and assigning attributes and CA; and a player generator that does the equivalent in a nanosecond. But sometimes the randomness goes wrong and the attributes don't fit the CA/PA in the way that other real life researched players would (the same thing happens in the link between cosmetic height and jumping ability).

But that's for another thread

Also just thought I should post this little paragraph from Marc Vaughan's FM 07 Hints and Tips

The values in the Training Levels graph map roughly on to the Attributes graph. His attributes for that training category do not change at the same rate as each other - for example, if the Attacking bar increases by 10% on the Training Levels graph, it might mean that his Creativity increases by 12% and his Passing by 8%.

I think this is important when looking at the training effects of the theories Hawshiels has posted. If the same randomness applies in 08 it does make linking training and attribute distribution per gain in CA more difficult. Is one attribute increasing more because of the random element or because of the 'CA Cost'?

I would say it would be difficult to separate them from a statistical perspective as you don't have control over all of the variables.

@Hawshiels

How long have you been looking at FM in this depth, and why haven't you posted on it before? Have I just missed your threads or have you been hanging onto these little nuggets to give you the edge in online FM network play gambling world

[Mitja]

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 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.

If this is true then I guess the match engine is not as complex as everyone believes it to be. If I understand correctly the game adjusts attributes to reflect two footedness for a single attribute so say a player is assigned a rating of 18 in crossing by a researcher, if that player has a high rating in both feet then the CA/Attribute control equation downgrades the attribute assigned to reflect this? So it is a weighted sum based on the 2 feet ratings and positions?

Like I said if this is true what that means to me is the match engine does not recognise when a player uses his left foot and when he uses his right foot because if it did then this downgrading would be unnecessary. A researched player has been assigned attributes based on what they've been observed to do which they predominantly do with their stronger foot. Just because a player can use both feet shouldn't make this relative attribute lower.

IMO a far better way to do it would be that researchers assign the quality of an attribute based on their stronger foot. This remains the attribute value in the editor and the player profile. Then in match if a player uses their weaker foot for a scenario (crossing, long shot, finishing etc.) the calculation should downgrade the attribute within the calculation to reflect this weaker ability. It should not affect the rating assigned to the player's attribute by the researcher particularly when these observations will be based predominantly on seeing the relevant player perform the task related to the attribute with their stronger foot.

If it works the way your test indicates then if a researcher gives a player a rating of 18 for crossing as that player plays predominantly on the right and crosses with his right foot, that is the researcher's judgement of the players accuracy/quality in crossing. But if said player also happens to have a strong left foot then the CA/attribute control decides he can't have 18 for crossing because it violates it's rules. So suddenly a player who is researched as having 18 for crossing with his right foot now has a lower value.

They should be two separate entities independent of each other. Does a player who could finish/cross with consistent accuracy with his right foot suddenly become less proficient with his right foot just because he can also use his left foot? To me that's essentially what your tests appear to show is happening.

Like I said very, very disappointed if this is the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

exellant post.

I'm sure I would write this if english was my 1st lenguage

just to add, no metter what, mental and physical stats shouldn't be influenced by this.

I don't know for you but in my game I have a comlete mess with this issue. I'm realy ****ed. good player's stats go down bad player' go up, you realy can't judge a player by looking at him. for me this no realistic representation of anything. comlete mess!!

sorry for the rant.

[LSS]

Amazing work!

But...

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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.

I'd consider these regimes as 'cheat' regimes as you are using out-of-the-game information to build them. But this is just my opinion, so don't let it stop you.

[LSS]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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!

If I stop the training and as the result the player loses the learned position, will he then get back the lost CA points?