Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[eatontj]

Originally posted by LSS:

From the results thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

We know how and why the game increases/decreases certain attributes. The game increases and decreases attributes (that have been set using the database editor) in an attempt to stabilise the quality of a player based on his CA. If a player has not been allocated enough attribute points within the editor, the game will add more to the appropriate attributes. If a player has been allocated too many attribute points in the editor, the game will reduce these accordingly.

To me this sounds like a backward way of handling this attribute/CA thing. Isn't it easier for a researcher to assign specific attributes for a player than to evaluate how good he is in general (CA)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I suppose it's a bit of a you say "tomato" I say "tomato" situation... but I think trying to compile so many researcher's scouting information into one database is easier done by making sure the attributes are indexed to the CA instead of vice-versa.

I imagine it's much easier to give the researchers CA guidelines (190+ are players you would compare to C.Ronaldo, Messi, Ronaldinho, etc.; 180+ is Gerrard, Alonso, etc., and so on) than it is to try and give guidelines for each specific attribute.

This also works for any instances of being able to tell that one player is definitely better than another player, but not being able to say exactly why. This allows SI (who, for gameplay quality purposes, have the final say on attributes in game) to "fix" (or "break" for Mitja) players attributes that are not in alignment for the Football Manager virtual world.

This certainly sounds more reasonable not that Hawshiels has demonstrated how attributes are not the sum total for success in the match engine.

By the way, as a frequent lurker of these boards I appreciate the terrific quantity of quality posts. Nearly every post contains an insightful question, answer, or relevant tangent for exploration. Even Mitja helped by forcing (albeit sans diplomacy) Hawshiels to explain certain players' discrepancies... which no doubt led to more understanding on everyone's part.

Look forward to more results, although Hawshiels may be coming closer to breaking the game engine for himself than he thinks. Not to say there will be the discovery of such flaws leading to a "Diablo" but moreso that with continued statistical analysis of how attributes effect the outcome of various game scenarios just about any tactic will be a plug-and-play matching attributes with position.

That still sounds fun though, so... oh well.

[Powermonger]

Excellent thread guys.

All the non-free attributes that go torwards the CA for each position, has anyone found these to be weighted equally or are there tiers to them in how much they affect the CA?

I wish there was a working FM Scout for FM08, then I could redo my spreadsheet I used to analyse positions and attributes in FM05 and help contribute to this ongoing research.

I did end up finding my old printouts I made for the original research I did but unfortunately I only have the results and not the conditions used to generate them.

Basically I exported all players from the database per position into separate spreadsheets and then used a master spreadsheet to link back to this exported data and work out the weighting of each attribute to each position.

The results gave me a snapshot of what attributes tended to have higher values for each position and ones that were largely unused. I used this data to help build better filters in assessing players for each position.

I might have a look through some of the old HDDs I have and try and find the original spreadsheet used and the exported data. If you think it would be of benefit to this discussion, I can post up my original findings but with the knowledge it is based on a older version of FM. I can't see things being much different in FM08 though.

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by Powermonger:

Excellent thread guys.

All the non-free attributes that go torwards the CA for each position, has anyone found these to be weighted equally or are there tiers to them in how much they affect the CA?

I wish there was a working FM Scout for FM08, then I could redo my spreadsheet I used to analyse positions and attributes in FM05 and help contribute to this ongoing research.

I did end up finding my old printouts I made for the original research I did but unfortunately I only have the results and not the conditions used to generate them.

Basically I exported all players from the database per position into separate spreadsheets and then used a master spreadsheet to link back to this exported data and work out the weighting of each attribute to each position.

The results gave me a snapshot of what attributes tended to have higher values for each position and ones that were largely unused. I used this data to help build better filters in assessing players for each position.

I might have a look through some of the old HDDs I have and try and find the original spreadsheet used and the exported data. If you think it would be of benefit to this discussion, I can post up my original findings but with the knowledge it is based on a older version of FM. I can't see things being much different in FM08 though.

If you find the stuff, post away, I'm sure your conclusions will be of use

[Joor]

Powermonger, Genie Scout 08 is working with the new 8.0.2, you just have to untick "compress save games" option in the Preferences and save the game.

[Powermonger]

I found my original spreadsheets and source data, just need to correct all the embedded links and make sure all the forumlas are correct. I had a few different versions of my spreadsheet going trying to perfect the way I was reading and analysing the data, need to make sure the one I'm using is a working one.

I've downloaded Genie Scout and give it a werl but I need to create a savegame with maximum leagues and players in it so I have a better spread of types/quality of players. Hopefully Genie Scout will handle such a savegame.

[Strankan]

This has been a perfect on this extremely slow day at work. Got to try these theories when I get home.

KUTGW!

[Powermonger]

I can't get Genie Scout to work unfortunately, so I can't use the new database data to redo my analysis with. I've looked at my original exports I used from FM05 and they are missing some data, specifically all the hidden attributes.

For the sake of this discussion I'd like to include all attributes but don't really want to revert back to FM05 to do it properly (I don't own FM06 or FM07). Doesn't look like I have much of a choice though.

[Joor]

Powermonger get this version http://www.fmscout.com/page.php?al=fm_genie_scout_2008

[Powermonger]

Originally posted by Joor:

Powermonger get this version http://www.fmscout.com/page.php?al=fm_genie_scout_2008

That's the one I downloaded and used. I see some people are reporting that it has problems if there are a large number of leagues or the savegame is too big. I might try reducing my sample down to fewer leagues (the one I tried had 96 leagues loaded on large database) and see if it will work properly then.

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by LSS:-

To me this sounds like a backward way of handling this attribute/CA thing. Isn't it easier for a researcher to assign specific attributes for a player than to evaluate how good he is in general (CA)?

That may be true for researched players but in a long term game assigning CA then attributes is the best way to maintain the balance of the database when creating regens.

originally posted by Powermonger:-

All the non-free attributes that go torwards the CA for each position, has anyone found these to be weighted equally or are there tiers to them in how much they affect the CA?

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between attributes assigned for a given CA and how attributes consume CA points as they progress in a natural manner. If I interpreted what he posted correctly Hawshiels method for figuring this out he has posted about CA/attributes was to create players in the editor and alter different attributes to see how the game adjusted them and which ones cost CA points. This would show you how CA and attributes are linked at a fixed CA but I am not sure about the concept of 'free' attributes as a player progresses.

For example if you take 20 players, reset their attributes to 1, then assign them a CA in steps of 10 you'll see that in 4 to 5 weeks the game will automatically adjust their attributes so that they match up with this CA. There is no distinction drawn between attributes with respect to position when the game does this adjustment. In fact there are 3 groups of attributes that vary by different amounts. There also appeared to be a base point of adjustment in that the player who I set to 10 CA had his attributes adjusted to the same as the 20 CA player. This was in FM Modifer 38 points increase in all attributes in one grouping of attributes and a 16 point increase in all attributes in another grouping of attributes. From this 20 CA base point all the other CA assigned players increased by specific amounts.

Here are the groupings and the amounts they roughly increased by:-

Group 1: CA independent

Flair, Determination, Aggression, Natural Fitness, Consistency, Important Matches. These do not change at all in adjusting with respect to CA. But strangely they do change organically in game. What controls this I am not at all sure except for Consistency and Important Matches which appear to be linked to appearances.

Group 2: The Inherent Attributes

Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Pace. These changed uniformly by (1/100) per CA point increased. So in FM modifier when I set a player's attributes all to one, and assigned him a CA of 90 all of these attributes were adjusted by the game to (25/100) which is (9/100) from the base point I mentioned earlier of (16/100).

Group 3: Everything else

This group contains all other attributes which increased by roughly identical amounts of (3/100) per CA point increased from the base point. So for the 90 CA player his attributes in this grouping were adjusted from (1/100) to (59/100) which is (21/100) points for the base point of 20 CA and (38/100).

So the question is do these ‘free’ attributes which cost nothing for a fixed CA actually cost CA points as a player progresses in game. I’ll admit that the way I got these figures was very artificial but they do point to a pattern in terms of how the game nominally assigns attribute points per CA point gained. For example with a 10 point increase in CA we get the group 3 increase of 3 points per attribute (on the FM Modifier scale of 1 to 100) which equals a total of (29 x 3) = 87 attribute points plus the group 2 increase of 1 point per attribute which equals (4 x 1) = 4 attribute points. This might mean for a given 10 point increase in CA that you have 91 available attribute points and how these are distributed could be shaped by training.

Here’s an example to illustrate. Player A (based on a real save game player but I’m not naming names as some people prefer not to know) has a CA increase of 27 points over a 2 year period. This implies that based on the above numbers he would have had (27/10) x 91 = 245.7 FM Modifier points available for distribution. Divide this by 5 to equate to the in game visible profile to get 49.14. Thus if the theory holds up about natural progression then you would expect the sum of his increases in Group A attributes plus those for Group B attributes to be roughly equal to 49.14.

In game the sum of his Group A attributes increased by 44 points and the sum of his Group B attributes by 6 points which equals 50 combined. Which is out by just under 1 point which is explainable by me using visible attribute profiles and rounding errors from the increases being scaled from the FM Modifier 1 to 100 scale. I looked at 10 players ( I know not a huge amount but it is a tedious thing to do to extract player data) and all 10 fit into the theory by +/- 1 point.

From this my theory on it is that these ‘free’ attributes do cost CA within natural progression. But once a player gets past the ‘natural progression years’ (which I would hazard a guess is up to 23/24 although it might be based on how close CA is to PA) then you can use these free attributes to shape a player. But what I will say is that this does give an insight into why certain attributes are grouped together in the training module. For example if tackling/marking/positioning were all grouped together then within this model you could set it to zero training and transfer the losses to other attributes for a striker without worrying about loss in performance.

Whether or not you can shape how the natural progression attributes get distributed by shaping training schedules I don’t know. My guess would be that the weightings for how attributes get distributed are based on the slider system in training intensity but with limitations on how far you can do it. But I’m sure many people reading this do use their own position specific training schedules for developing youngsters and have probably seen this in action. Like you put a 17/18 year old regen striker in a training schedule with the bare minimum in defending yet his defending attributes will still increase.

As I said it is just a theory so if you disagree feel free to say so.

originally posted by Powermonger:-

I've downloaded Genie Scout and give it a werl but I need to create a savegame with maximum leagues and players in it so I have a better spread of types/quality of players. Hopefully Genie Scout will handle such a savegame.

Good stuff. I look forward to seeing what you find. By the way, 'maximum leagues and players' Did you steal your computer from NASA? If I was to set up like that on my laptop my grandkids would be playing FM 2050 and I'd still be in the 2007/2008 season

[isuckatfm]

EDIT:-

The everything else group 3 includes the weaker foot value which is also between 1 and 100.

In the Profile Screen:-

0 to 37 = Strong Foot Only

38 to 72 = Strong Foot

73 to 100 = Either

In the Positions section:-

Very Weak: 1 to 22

Weak: 23 to 42

Reasonable: 43 to 57

Fairly Strong: 58 to 72

Strong: 73 to 87

Very Strong: 88 to 100

[isuckatfm]

EDIT:-

The everything else group 3 includes the weaker foot value which is also between 1 and 100.

In the Profile Screen:-

0 to 37 = Strong Foot Only

38 to 72 = Strong Foot

73 to 100 = Either

In the Positions section:-

Very Weak: 1 to 22

Weak: 23 to 42

Reasonable: 43 to 57

Fairly Strong: 58 to 72

Strong: 73 to 87

Very Strong: 88 to 100

[Powermonger]

Good stuff. I look forward to seeing what you find. By the way, 'maximum leagues and players' Did you steal your computer from NASA? If I was to set up like that on my laptop my grandkids would be playing FM 2050 and I'd still be in the 2007/2008 season

Well it didn't like the 96 leagues I asked it to load I re-installed FM05 and kicked off a new game of 90 leagues with huge database, lets just say a Supercomputer would be most welcomed at the moment. My poor PC is grinding to a halt

I'm going to retry my FM08 export using a lot less leagues and see if I have any more success. Just have to wait for FM05 to complete creating a new game, it's been going for about 1hr at the moment.

[Powermonger]

Clicked post to soon. Good summary there isuckatfm too. I'll make sure to include footedness in my new attributes distribution analysis, see if there is patterns or differences.

I'm just looking now at one my printouts from my old analysis. Attributes that are fairly uniform across the positions are Determination, Natural Fitness, Stamina, Teamwork (except strikers) and Work Rate. High Influence however seems to be more prevailent in DMCs, SWs and DCs and is about double what is found in the other positions.

I won't say anymore as I don't have the details about the sample data used or the criteria for analysing it. My FM05 new savegame finally completed (200MB file) and I'll get started on the retry of FM08 so I can get some real data out.

[Powermonger]

Sorry back again. Just wanted to put a request in to Cleon or Rashidi to correct the spelling mistake in this threads subject. It's a shame for such a good thread to be tarnished with a spelling error.

[Hawshiels]

Again, thank you for the great support on this thread. There are times when I could smash the machine in two but when I see the feedback on here it helps to keep going. I'm sure its the same for everyone.

The debate on the thread has been fantastic and we are now seeing additional theories appearing which is great. It goes without saying that others should feel free to post up their own findings here too.

I just thought I'd explain some of the current tests and research I am doing to keep you entertained while I get the results.

I am currently doing the following:

1. Testing the effectiveness of strikers with two good feet against one. The results that came back after the usual 3 seasons test (i.e. 3 times repeating the same season under the same test conditions), were quite impressive. In fact, so impressive that I have decided not to publish them yet and wait to get a much more representative sample (just to be sure). Suffice to say that a striker with 20 on one foot and 11 or more on the other looks to be far more effective in the match engine that in previous versions. Perhaps SI have tweaked the defensive attributes for players and then made strikers more effective to keep up. What you'll find when I post the findings is that a striker with just one good foot (and the other with a score of 5 or less) will tend to miss quite a few 'easier' shots on goal. Now where have I heard this on the forums?

2. I am also testing the attributes relative to position. So, I am testing to see if a DC with tackling of 20 is better at tackling that a DMC, MC, AMC, or FC with tackling of 20. I initially didn't think this was the case, but a few results that popped out suggested this may be happening so I'm checking this also.

3. I am checking the training rate for each of the attributes. I am trying to control this in such a way that I can establish a training rate for each attribute and for each year in a player's development. It is clear that many (in fact most) attributes can be trained quickly in the earlier years of development, but others appear to develop quicker later on. More on this to follow.

4. There is a weighting on attributes and I want to know if this weighting just affects the consumption of CA points or if it is linked to the time is takes for certain training. I have uncovered a few other nice things here but I need more samples before I'll post to be on the safe side.

For those that want to get behind the numbers and do their own tests, can I say that FM Scout (or whatever the equivalent is at the moment) is fine for high level tests, but you will not see much of what goes on because this software only uses the 1-20 scale for attributes. I cannot stress the importance enough of understanding the 1-100 scale as 1-20 is just a presentation layer.

On other threads on the forum I noticed postings making claims about things they have done within the game that have made a sudden impact on certain attributes.

In most of these cases, their conclusions are incorrect because a jump of '1' in an attribute score actually has 5 incremental increases behind it. For that jump to have taken place, FM'ers should consider what they did to get the 5 incremental increases. An incremental increase of '1' can happen over a single second in the game, but it can take weeks for an increase of '5' (and hence weeks to achieve a single point increase on the 1-20 scale) so beware of some false claims like this. I'm not saying that all of these claims are incorrect, but just use your own common sense about what has been done to achieve this increase.

Finally, I am now seeing a direct correlation with attributes (despite being trained at a high level) dropping, and a player developing their weaker foot. What this means is that if you have a player that is undergoing heavy training in a category that contains an attribute that you notice has declined, it could be an indication to you that this player is developing the weaker foot. What you should notice however is that each of these weaker foot developments will take place and then the training for that attribute will then appear to be getting effective again. Note that this is a VERY GOOD thing in the development of your player and will make him more effective even when his attribute score drops. Remember that it is not dropping from 18 to 17 (for example), it is only really dropping temporarily from 18 to 17.8. I hope that makes sense, because if the engine used the 1-20 scale, it may appear to be an issue, but if the engine uses the 1-100 scale (which I now believe it does), then a drop of 0.2 for any individual attribute will not make much of a negative difference to a player anyway, but it will be outweighed by the positive increase in the player's weaker foot.

This last paragraph seems long winded and if it is not clear, please ask questions about it because it is very important (I seem to say that alot in this thread though).

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between attributes assigned for a given CA and how attributes consume CA points as they progress in a natural manner. If I interpreted what he posted correctly Hawshiels method for figuring this out he has posted about CA/attributes was to create players in the editor and alter different attributes to see how the game adjusted them and which ones cost CA points. This would show you how CA and attributes are linked at a fixed CA but I am not sure about the concept of 'free' attributes as a player progresses.

For example if you take 20 players, reset their attributes to 1, then assign them a CA in steps of 10 you'll see that in 4 to 5 weeks the game will automatically adjust their attributes so that they match up with this CA. There is no distinction drawn between attributes with respect to position when the game does this adjustment. In fact there are 3 groups of attributes that vary by different amounts. There also appeared to be a base point of adjustment in that the player who I set to 10 CA had his attributes adjusted to the same as the 20 CA player. This was in FM Modifer 38 points increase in all attributes in one grouping of attributes and a 16 point increase in all attributes in another grouping of attributes. From this 20 CA base point all the other CA assigned players increased by specific amounts.

Really interesting post here!

Can I just clarify how you used FM Modifier though. There are two ways you can set up a test and I'll explain the differences in each one.

You can set up a test by setting the attributes in the editor and then use FMM to make adjustments to these within the game.

Or, you can start the game as normal with the database as it was and then use FMM (or whatever else) to make all of the changes (CA, attributes,etc).

If you do the former, the game will automatically set the attributes to a level consistent with the CA. If you do the second type of test, the game will not make the changes until it reaches a 'player update' stage in the game - at which stage the attributes will be aligned in a similar way to the way they are at the start of the game. This is quite a complex area and it doesn't really need to be detailed here unless you plan to use FMM alot and then track the effects.

Also, just remember when you create a player and apply a CA, the game can assign random values to the free attribute areas and these can sometimes be misleading if you are trying to work out the effect of training on CA. The best thing to do is to remove the free attributes from the equation (or assign them all to be the same in the editor) and then you'll calculate things easier. After removing these attributes, remember that the CA of a perfect 20 out of 20 player for every attribute is 270 (just about). Also, remember that DCs have more free attributes.

And, that the game will adjust 3 groups of attributes at different rates depending on position - as discussed earlier in the thread.

Just to confirm one final point. You ask if free attributes that are assigned at the beginning ever cost CA points. The answer to this is no - providing the player is not trained in a new position that causes him to lose the free nature of these attributes.

p.s. It may be worth looking back at the point in the thread that gives the exact value of the weighings for the 3 areas (Technical points, Mental points, and Physical points). By applying these multipliers, it may save you time rather than applying the weightings to individual attributes - which I fully appreciate takes AGES.

Fantastic work on this.

[kolobok]

Powermonger,

Any chance you could upload spreadsheets once you create them? Or at least raw exported files. I have WWSM08, not FM08, and the Genuie Scout does not work with them. So I struggle to collect data for Left foot - Right foot attributes, as well as hidden attributes. I would greatly appreciate it.

P.S. If uploading is not an option, could you archive them and email to me? Email in my profile.

Tahnks a lot!

[Joor]

Hawshiels, do all youngsters develop the weaker foot automatically ? or is it only when you restrain them in a new position ?

[Leroy1883]

I had a theory about Current Ability not all being used up by attributes.

I just want to elaborate on this a bit more and ask everyone their opinion because it is a fundemental point.

The overall question I put to you is :-

Do attribute levels drive current ability?

OR

Does current ability drive attributes?

In the first case current ability is driven by attribute levels changing, so as attributes increase due to training etc so the current ability of the player rises and falls in relation to the value of the chargable attributes. The limit to this increase is controlled by potential ability. Current ability is simply the sum of the chargeable attributes and rises and fall as the attributes rise and fall.

In the second case where current ability drives attributes, we have the concept that chargable attributes add up to a maximum of current ability and this value can be less than current ability. In the case of unassigned current ability points training will cause these attributes to increase based on the levels the specified by the players training regime. If a player doesn't have any unassigned current ability points left their will be no affect from training in terms of increasing attribute levels, except for those which are not chargable. CA rises and falls based on other factors such as age, exposure to competitive matches, a balanced training workload, personality etc. This causes current ability to rise to the potential ability ceiling. When current ability increases so does the available points available for training. Hence current ability is driving attributes.

Hope that makes sense. My leaning at the moment is certaintly for the second option.

I wondered if I posted the attributes for a player after the pre-season break if Hawshiels or someone could calculate what they expect the current ability to be.

If they get it right then this would point to the first assumption being correct.

If the resulting answer is slightly lower then this would add weight to the idea of unassigned current ability points and the second assumption.

Apologies if this is hard to follow.

Thanks for your help in advance

[Benoit2]

CA is the one defining factor driving everything else. You can mess about with all attributes as much as you want, both in the editor, as well as in game with FMM, but all the game will do is adjust everything and make sure it is in line with the CA, not vice versa.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Joor:

Hawshiels, do all youngsters develop the weaker foot automatically ? or is it only when you restrain them in a new position ?

Weak foot can develop without retraining. Was so in FM07 anyway, havent checked yet in FM08.

[isuckatfm]

@ Hawshiels

What I did was change them in game. So I loaded FMM, reset the players attributes to 1 (except strongest foot), assigned a CA and then holidayed over 1 week periods to check if the game had readjusted their attributes and by how much. And as you suggested it seemed to be an instant readjustment at a particular date, usually between 4 and 6 weeks. So at that point their attributes would jump from 1 to a set value according to a pattern.

I figured this would give some insight into how the game distributes attribute points naturally. It was basically like artificially changing the timeline of development from the games perspective. So instead of taking 5 or 6 seasons the game saw it in 4/5 weeks.

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

Just to confirm one final point. You ask if free attributes that are assigned at the beginning ever cost CA points. The answer to this is no - providing the player is not trained in a new position that causes him to lose the free nature of these attributes.

If they don't consume CA points in a player's developmental years than how exactly does the game assign values for these free attributes as he develops? I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I think the CA model is a combination of your ideas of free attributes plus an overall generic growth across the board like my little test above showed. I think the free attribute aspect affects players when they are past the developmental stage. For example if I take a Natural Striker (no other positions), aged 28 and increase his Tackling by 50 FMM points without changing CA then within the adjustment period the game only downgrades other attributes by a marginal amount. But if I increase a key attribute the game makes very perceivable adjustments in all other attributes.

originally posted by Leroy1883:-

Do attribute levels drive current ability?

OR

Does current ability drive attributes?

In the second case where current ability drives attributes, we have the concept that chargable attributes add up to a maximum of current ability and this value can be less than current ability. In the case of unassigned current ability points training will cause these attributes to increase based on the levels the specified by the players training regime. If a player doesn't have any unassigned current ability points left their will be no affect from training in terms of increasing attribute levels, except for those which are not chargable. CA rises and falls based on other factors such as age, exposure to competitive matches, a balanced training workload, personality etc. This causes current ability to rise to the potential ability ceiling. When current ability increases so does the available points available for training. Hence current ability is driving attributes.

I believe it is a mixture of the two in line with the second option you described. I would add to your description that attributes can be increased beyond their natural level by intensive training but in doing so you violate the CA control, so the game adjusts other attributes down to compensate and maintain the CA/attribute balance.

I think a logical way to do it is have CA drive attributes because in that way it would align with a more efficient way of generating regens in order to maintain a balanced database. So the game assigns CA, and then attributes as it is a one two calculation. To do it the other way would a require a check-recheck-check cycle of attribute and CA assignment to keep a balanced database.

quote: originally posted by Leroy1883:-

I wondered if I posted the attributes for a player after the pre-season break if Hawshiels or someone could calculate what they expect the current ability to be.

If they get it right then this would point to the first assumption being correct.

If the resulting answer is slightly lower then this would add weight to the idea of unassigned current ability points and the second assumption.

I'd like to see that too. Do you have a model where you can estimate CA based on attributes and positions Hawshiels?

[Leroy1883]

Mr A. Player

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

Physical

Acceleration = 56

Agility = 64

Balance = 54

Jumping = 55

Pace = 56

Stamina = 62

Strength = 37

Left Foot = 13

Right Foot = 100

Mental

Anticipation = 61

Bravery = 63

Composure = 50

Concentration = 64

Creativity = 79

Decisions = 62

Flair = 79

Influence = 43

Off the ball = 66

Positioning = 44

Teamwork = 62

Workrate = 49

Technical

Crossing = 56

Dribbling = 70

Finishing = 30

First Touch = 54

Heading = 43

Long Shots = 34

Marking = 27

Passing = 56

Tackling = 30

Technique = 75

Goalkeeping

Handling = 25

Aerial Ability = 20

Command of Area = 10

Communication = 25

Kicking = 15

Throwing = 15

One on Ones = 20

Reflexes = 5

Eccentricity = 5

Rushing Out = 5

Punching = 10

Position

GK = 1

SW = 1

DEF = 1

DM = 1

MID = 20

AM = 20

ATT = 1

WB = 1

Free Role = 1

Right = 13

Left = 10

Centre = 20

New Position

DL = 1

DC = 1

DM = 1

ML = 10

MR = 13

MC = 20

AML= 1

AMR = 4

AMC = 20

ST = 1

WBL = 1

WBR = 1

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

The the challenge is:-

Calculate Mr A. Players current ability

[kolobok]

1. Testing the effectiveness of strikers with two good feet against one. The results that came back after the usual 3 seasons test (i.e. 3 times repeating the same season under the same test conditions), were quite impressive. In fact, so impressive that I have decided not to publish them yet and wait to get a much more representative sample (just to be sure). Suffice to say that a striker with 20 on one foot and 11 or more on the other looks to be far more effective in the match engine that in previous versions. Perhaps SI have tweaked the defensive attributes for players and then made strikers more effective to keep up. What you'll find when I post the findings is that a striker with just one good foot (and the other with a score of 5 or less) will tend to miss quite a few 'easier' shots on goal. Now where have I heard this on the forums?

Hawshiels,

I think you just confirmed my idea that either foot is more important to ST than to anybody else. When STs have a chance, they often have no time on ball, so it's crucial for them to be able to shoot from either feet.

It may be worth looking back at the point in the thread that gives the exact value of the weighings for the 3 areas (Technical points, Mental points, and Physical points). By applying these multipliers, it may save you time rather than applying the weightings to individual attributes - which I fully appreciate takes AGES.

It's data collection that takes ages. I am pretty sure I will find those weights (or very very close approximation of them) once I have enough data, especially using your findings on "free" attributes by positions and foot roles

The thing is that when you create artificial player for research purposes, he is different from players we see. E.g. a ST may have finishing 20 and composure 5, current ability 120. If you artificially increase his CA to 180, I would expect composure to increase significantly, while finishing may even fall. Hence, starting point matter. On the other hand, the attributes themselves could be interrelated. E.g. composure in the game may increase faster if some "free" mental atributes (determination???) are high enough. If that's the case, our attempt to intensively train ST with determination 5 in the shooting category won't be successfull unless we find a way to increase his determination (tutoring???). So it's a very long but extremely interesting shot.

The more I think about it, the more I am grateful to Law_Man for staring this thread. At the beginning I was a bit sceptical: since I don't use third party soft I thought CA research is not important to me. But now I will make a promise: I won't play my saved game until I finish collecting data and see at least preliminary results of my "statistical" analysis. Believe me, it's a serious commitment for someone, who plays on weekends only and no more than 3 hours per day (6 hours a week in total), and as crazy about FM as most people here

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

@ Hawshiels

What I did was change them in game. So I loaded FMM, reset the players attributes to 1 (except strongest foot), assigned a CA and then holidayed over 1 week periods to check if the game had readjusted their attributes and by how much. And as you suggested it seemed to be an instant readjustment at a particular date, usually between 4 and 6 weeks. So at that point their attributes would jump from 1 to a set value according to a pattern.

I'll do a post on this over the weekend to explain the problem with doing tests this way (I have to go out for the rest of the day now though). Suffice to say that there are big differences in doing the test this way in terms of the way a player develops the attributes.

As for the way the free attributes are developed, I have found that they develop through training just like the other attributes but I am not charged for these. Obviously, I am keen to be 100% sure of these points (currently only 99%), so anything you can come up with to prove this right or wrong would be greatly appreciated.

As we both know, it takes a long time to run some of these tests so sharing the load would be welcomed.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by kolobok:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. Testing the effectiveness of strikers with two good feet against one. The results that came back after the usual 3 seasons test (i.e. 3 times repeating the same season under the same test conditions), were quite impressive. In fact, so impressive that I have decided not to publish them yet and wait to get a much more representative sample (just to be sure). Suffice to say that a striker with 20 on one foot and 11 or more on the other looks to be far more effective in the match engine that in previous versions. Perhaps SI have tweaked the defensive attributes for players and then made strikers more effective to keep up. What you'll find when I post the findings is that a striker with just one good foot (and the other with a score of 5 or less) will tend to miss quite a few 'easier' shots on goal. Now where have I heard this on the forums?

Hawshiels,

I think you just confirmed my idea that either foot is more important to ST than to anybody else. When STs have a chance, they often have no time on ball, so it's crucial for them to be able to shoot from either feet.

It may be worth looking back at the point in the thread that gives the exact value of the weighings for the 3 areas (Technical points, Mental points, and Physical points). By applying these multipliers, it may save you time rather than applying the weightings to individual attributes - which I fully appreciate takes AGES.

It's data collection that takes ages. I am pretty sure I will find those weights (or very very close approximation of them) once I have enough data, especially using your findings on "free" attributes by positions and foot roles

The thing is that when you create artificial player for research purposes, he is different from players we see. E.g. a ST may have finishing 20 and composure 5, current ability 120. If you artificially increase his CA to 180, I would expect composure to increase significantly, while finishing may even fall. Hence, starting point matter. On the other hand, the attributes themselves could be interrelated. E.g. composure in the game may increase faster if some "free" mental atributes (determination???) are high enough. If that's the case, our attempt to intensively train ST with determination 5 in the shooting category won't be successfull unless we find a way to increase his determination (tutoring???). So it's a very long but extremely interesting shot.

The more I think about it, the more I am grateful to Law_Man for staring this thread. At the beginning I was a bit sceptical: since I don't use third party soft I thought CA research is not important to me. But now I will make a promise: I won't play my saved game until I finish collecting data and see at least preliminary results of my "statistical" analysis. Believe me, it's a serious commitment for someone, who plays on weekends only and no more than 3 hours per day (6 hours a week in total), and as crazy about FM as most people here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Creating artificial players only serves to help identify the major issues involved in CA improvements, but you are right, the many combinations in the game, make it very difficult to do any exact calculations - as a normal gamer.

What I do want to achieve personally is to create an appreciation for the importance of the various attributes for a player. So, rather than looking for a player to play the FC position and filtering on just composure, pace, and finishing (for example), I'd want to get to the stage where managers know to filter for 'feet' strength, agility, decisions and positioning also. At the moment, I don't think many people use any of these attributes in a player search - never mind appreciate the importance of having them and training them.

The more posts we have like yours and the others will help to achieve this.

p.s. You'll get a lot of fun and satisfaction out of collecting this data though. I find it has made playing the game over the past few years even more enjoyable for me because I get so much more out of the game. It also helps me appreciate what is involved in seemingly simple changes to the game/engine.

[kolobok]

Creating artificial players only serves to help identify the major issues involved in CA improvements, but you are right, the many combinations in the game, make it very difficult to do any exact calculations - as a normal gamer.

I know, it's not about "cheating" arguments - for the research purposes any available information / technique is very useful, and you successfully proved it in this thread.

What I was trying to say is that when we play "what if" research scenario based on artificial players, we may (or may not) miss something that would apply to "unbalanced" players in the game, though I am pretty sure results would be comparable in general.

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

I'll do a post on this over the weekend to explain the problem with doing tests this way (I have to go out for the rest of the day now though). Suffice to say that there are big differences in doing the test this way in terms of the way a player develops the attributes.

I'll be interested to see why you think this is flawed. At the moment I think this shows a 'baseline' for development if you remove all other factors, mainly training, then a gain in x number of CA gives a relatively fixed pool of points available to distribute amongst attributes. That's just my interpretation of it anyway

[Foxetta]

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

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

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

Thanks again to Hawshields,Law Man etc.

[kolobok]

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

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

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

Thanks again to Hawshields,Law Man etc.

You are pretty much right. Moreover, you won't see any negative attribute changes unless you try to retrain a player who has already achieved his PA (i.e. CA=PA) or close to it. The main reason why we see those fluctuations in the research is that guys use extreme values when creating artifitial players + they shift attribute-CA balance to see how the game engine will react. If you do proper retraining, the player will learn new ability gradually, so the engine game shouldn't do any extreme adjustments.

[Foxetta]

Thanks mate.All i needed to know.Its threads like this that make me overlook the frustrations that come along when a new patch comes out and i have restart my game.KUTGW.

[eatontj]

Originally posted by Foxetta:

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

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

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

Thanks again to Hawshields,Law Man etc.

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

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

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

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

[kolobok]

However, having a high DFC "costs" the player development points, so a high DFC player may not develop quite as high attributes as a player with similar PA.

Well, that is "maybe-maybe not" case. So far we do not know the relationship between CA and PA. It could be, for example, that in order to achive assigned PA a player must develop his weaker foot to a certain level, or must be trained in certain areas more than in the orthers. Editor-Modifier tests cannot give the exact answer as changes are imposed outside the game so that the engine should make one time adjustments using, I suspect, some sort of optimization algorithm. That algorithm may have some restrictions on changing input data. E.g. if you change CA of one-foot player, the engine won't change his foot scores because it assumes you want to have one-foot player. Instead it will give him more points in attributes. If you give a player unattainable characteristics (20/20 feet, 20 in every chargable attribute), the engine will make adjustments to create the best possible "balanced" player with 20/20 feet and CA 200 because the engine "thinks" it is what you want.

The only thing we know for sure is that we cannot have 20/20 feet player with 20s in every chargable attribute

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by kolobok:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eatontj]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least that's my understanding of it.

[eatontj]

ration = ratio

[lance101]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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

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

So ...

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

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

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

Hawshiels:

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

My testing framework was the following:

6 different players

- All MC (no other position)

- All Right Foot 20 and Left foot 1

- All CA 100

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

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

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

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

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

2 different players

- Both MC (no other position)

- Both Right Foot 20 and Left foot 1

- Both CA 100

- Both Balance/Acceleration set to 1

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

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

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

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

Hope my explanation was clear (english isn't my first language)

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by eatontj:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kolobok]

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

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

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

Nop, Give a player CA=200 and it won't change his weaker foot score, but increase all other attributes. That's exactly what Hawshiels did for his tests (see previous page of this thread for his explanation). You can have 20 pace and 20 acceleration for one-foot player along with many other 20s anc . You can have 20 pace and 20 acceleration along with some other 20s (but not all) for 20/20 feet. All attributes equal 16 is a player that you create by setting CA = 200 and all other attributes equal 1 => the game will assume you want to have perfectly balanced player. You see, it's not a system of equations with unique solution.

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

Sorry, but there is no such thing as ultimately better (or best player), and this research just proves it. Everyting depends on style, tactic etc. I may need a player with pace, acceleration and dribling = 20, plus my scout should say he is consistent performer, everything else maybe not relevant for my purposes (including btw CA). Ronaldo is great, but if I cannot afford him I will choose based on what I need (or I think I need).

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

And again, it depends. It's an attribute we should consider based on the style and tactic. What I can definitely tell though that either foot ST is almost alays preferable if you play lonely ST formation. Of course it does not mean I would choose either foot ST with fnishing =1, but if the difference important attributes between one foot and either foot is 2-3 points in favor of one fot ST, I would prefer the other one.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by kolobok:

Nop, Give a player CA=200 and it won't change his weaker foot score, but increase all other attributes.

I suggest you try this yourself, because the weaker foot most certainly increases just like every other attribute that counts towards the CA. (this is by editing the database btw, not using fmm to increase someone's CA).

Sorry, but there is no such thing as ultimately better (or best player), and this research just proves it. Everyting depends on style, tactic etc. I may need a player with pace, acceleration and dribling = 20, plus my scout should say he is consistent performer, everything else maybe not relevant for my purposes (including btw CA). Ronaldo is great, but if I cannot afford him I will choose based on what I need (or I think I need).

Thats exactly what Im saying

And again, it depends. It's an attribute we should consider based on the style and tactic. What I can definitely tell though that either foot ST is almost alays preferable if you play lonely ST formation. Of course it does not mean I would choose either foot ST with fnishing =1, but if the difference important attributes between one foot and either foot is 2-3 points in favor of one fot ST, I would prefer the other one.

Again, exactly what Im saying.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

I suggest you try this yourself, because the weaker foot most certainly increases just like every other attribute that counts towards the CA. (this is by editing the database btw, not using fmm to increase someone's CA).

You can scrap the bolded part btw, because whether you edit the database, or the game via fmm, both give the same results.

I dont know exactly what or how Hawshiels tested this, but changing a player's CA changes all attributes that count towards CA and none that dont count towards CA.

[kolobok]

You can scrap the bolded part btw, because whether you edit the database, or the game via fmm, both give the same results.

I dont know exactly what or how Hawshiels tested this, but changing a player's CA changes all attributes that count towards CA and none that dont count towards CA.

Well, we better ask Hawshiels later what he did

As for the rest...

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

I don't agree with bold part . If I play very fast one-touch style and make the MC playmaker, two feet will make a hell of a difference. CA is just (roughly) sum of "important" attributes, which gives us and idea how good player is on average. A player with one foot will have less completed passes than two feet player simply because in many cases he will have to use weak foot - otherwise he won't follow my instructions. It's logical. Your statement could be true only if there is a huge difference in passing attribute.

Finaly, you can compare a few players with the same CA (not high though, as the difference better seen at lower level) and you will be surprised that many "key" attributes are far from each other. E.g. 1 player may have pace 20 and technique 1, another one will have 15 and 13. They still may have the same CA. So saying that CA=200 is equivalent to All Key ATT = 16 is absolutely wrong.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by kolobok:

I don't agree with bold part .

"No more or less" is a figure of speech, dont take it literally

So saying that CA=200 is equivalent to All Key ATT = 16 is absolutely wrong.

What I mean by "A CA of 200 equals 16 for every attribute." is that when you give a player 16 for every attribute, he needs a CA of 200 in order for the attributes to not be dropped down when you create a game. The sentence was used as a quick illustration, not as a discussion point

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

Originally posted by kolobok:

I don't agree with bold part .

"No more or less" is a figure of speech, dont take it literally In addition, you're talking about a specific attribute (passing), whereas I was still talking about the player as a whole (the bossing around part). They will perform specific tasks differently, but on the whole, they'll be equally strong.

[kolobok]

Ok, I am glad we finally understood each other

You see, I think this research turns out to be more about reading attributes correctly, understanding which areas must be trained in order to really develop player, etc. You are right, CA is the best "one number" estimate of player quality, but not good enough to be used solo in the game.

Btw, to your determination example earlier... I have started to apply similar approach recently and what I see is my team scores equalizers or winners in the end of the match much more often. It's not exactly empirical evidence, but something to think about. Plus, there are other aspects of the game, such as media, teamtalks, etc. where determination may play critical role. So I think your intuition makes perfect sense.

[sandbach]

so to find a good player i should be :-

finding two footed players

finding ones with all the essential attributes for the appropriate position

but if a player is not two footed i should train him for the side that his foot is weakest on ie olivier kapo has brill left foot but weak right foot so i should train him to be att mid right?

but if i train him as att mid right i will lose some of his free attributes, and thus he will not be as effective an att midfielder as he could be?

i would be very grateful if somebody who knows could answer me, and i know the answer lies in the thread but i have read it many times and it kinda goes over my head

[eatontj]

It's not that the player has to be two-footed to be a good player, it's more that if you are comparing two similarly attributed players make sure to also compare their DFC (dual foot competence) as well.

It's exact impact on the game is in dispute, but it still seems to be a rather important attribute for most players. From the limited testing so far, it seems that players with only one good kicking foot are significantly penalized whenever using their poor foot in the match engine (which can be a quite a few times per match) it's something to be weary of when comparing players.

The DFC is not the Alpha and Omega of player comparison by any stretch. But it is a significant attribute that seems to get overlooked.

[Powermonger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Powermonger]

I forgot to add the table for footedness by position. Click here to see the data. This is just basic data at the moment, I'll make more detailed analysis when I get some time but just wanted to get this information out there for others to look at.