Has the value attributed to 'two-footedness' been changed for FM09?

[gullit4]

i.e. we'll have world class players in 2030? this is great news!

[Neji]

i.e. we'll have world class players in 2030? this is great news!

It's been addressed - doesn't guarantee it will work

But heres hoping

[Golaxi]

It's been addressed - doesn't guarantee it will work

But heres hoping

well if the testers actually test it properly it should work. it only takes one persons game into the future to see the standard of future players is just wrong.

what are these testers paid to do? tut tut

[IbrahimAliMaher]

Can't agree that this is the biggest failing of the game, though it cetainly is a major one, and I can't say this is a great game compared to other efforts. But yes, this is a ridiculous concept that should be kicked to death and left to rot in a corner somewhere.

[Masenyah]

So how do people suggest SI deal with the reality that two-footed players are, in real life, far more effective than one-footed ones?

[Smac]

Made it 80% of the thread, but am getting loopy, so apologies in the unlikely event this has been mentioned:

Two-Footedness should not affect other abilities.

Actually no ability being high should have an impact on another ability unless you can specifically demonstrate it in reality: EG A high 'unselfish' rating might limit 'shoots often'.

This just points out the weakness in the entire CA/PA system. Why not simply have PA for every attribute? So, Joe Bloggs @ 15 years old can run with 'pace 16', and his pace PA is 19. Given the right situation he can reach 19. Otherwise no.

You can then still summarize the skills with a 'CA' or 'PA', but these would only be nominal. As things stand, with attributes affecting each other, we have reached a particular kind of unreality that diminishes from the game. Footedness is only a particularly annoying example.

[karan316]

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=18848

Somewhere deep in this thread is statistical proof that two-footedness more than makes up for the drop in attributes.

That thread is actually where I found out about the whole two-footedness thing. And I dont recall any proof that two-footedness makes up for the drop in attributes. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a debate between the researchers, with some of them believing that the one-footed players did better and some of them believing the opposite.

My views are only based on my own observations of the game.

[Joor]

The researchers will this year be able to see how much the weak foot is worth.

Hopefully it will make attributes more realistic .

One thing I found out is that strikers weak foot is more expensive compared to defenders, as we see in these pics:

Maldini is a DC/DL in FM 09 db, with 20 right foot 20 left foot but takes up 5.47 CA points.

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=maldavc0.jpg

http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=04658_TREZEGUET_122_374lo.jpg

Trezeguet is a forward with 20 right foot and 16 left foot which uses 16 CA points.

[x42bn6]

That thread is actually where I found out about the whole two-footedness thing. And I dont recall any proof that two-footedness makes up for the drop in attributes. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a debate between the researchers, with some of them believing that the one-footed players did better and some of them believing the opposite.

My views are only based on my own observations of the game.

While statistically they may be better, it still doesn't make up for the fact that it's impossible to tell how good a two-footed player is...

[karan316]

The researchers will this year be able to see how much the weak foot is worth.

Hopefully it will make attributes more realistic .

One thing I found out is that strikers weak foot is more expensive compared to defenders, as we see in these pics:

Maldini is a DC/DL in FM 09 db, with 20 right foot 20 left foot but takes up 5.47 CA points.

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=maldavc0.jpg

http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=04658_TREZEGUET_122_374lo.jpg

Trezeguet is a forward with 20 right foot and 16 left foot which uses 16 CA points.

That is some very useful information, cheers mate.

Forgive my ignorance, but could I ask where those screenshots are from? Would love to see more of them to get an idea about how the FM09 database is built.

[Mitja]

The researchers will this year be able to see how much the weak foot is worth.

Hopefully it will make attributes more realistic .

One thing I found out is that strikers weak foot is more expensive compared to defenders, as we see in these pics:

Maldini is a DC/DL in FM 09 db, with 20 right foot 20 left foot but takes up 5.47 CA points.

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=maldavc0.jpg

http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=04658_TREZEGUET_122_374lo.jpg

Trezeguet is a forward with 20 right foot and 16 left foot which uses 16 CA points.

cheers for that!!

[isuckatfm]

I just don't get the logic in the weightings of those screenshots Joor posted.

Take acceleration and pace.

1. A 16 year old 'Maldini' will require less CA than a 16 year old 'Trezeguet' to get an equivalent gain in those attributes. Why? The potential to increase those attributes should in no way be tied into position.

2. Those two positions, Striker vs Defender, are directly against each other. The defender having a lower weighting assigned suggests the person who decided on the weightings thinks these attributes are more important for a striker than a defender. What is the logic behind that?

I realise it's complex and needs to be tied into match engine calculations and player performance but I just don't see the real life grounding for any of those.

It is very similar to 08 where strikers seemed to be the players who could see gains in acceleration and pace from aged 16 but defenders rarely did. I just do not get the thinking behind that. I'll go back to Smac's post which I think is overcomplicating things in terms of the level of detail (just my opinion) but I don't see how the principle that could be applied is any different to assigning a value for Natural Fitness which is in itself a complex concept represented by a single number. Why not do the same for player's capability of developing physical attributes or mental attributes like decisions/anticipation? Why is a 16 year old newgen striker likely to gain more points in acceleration/pace than a 16 year old newgen centre back for a similar CA-PA differential?

The same for goes for all the mental attributes and physical attributes.

[karan316]

The extra weighting given to pace/acc doesnt mean that a striker is any more likely to see improvements in those areas than a defender. It just means that those attributes count more towards the strikers CA.

I kinda agree, pace is generally more important for a striker than it is for a centerback. Although I dont necessarily agree with the difference between the weighting given to pace/acc and some of the technical attributes. But I'm sure there's a lot more to it than becomes apparent from a couple of screenshots.

[isuckatfm]

The extra weighting given to pace/acc doesnt mean that a striker is any more likely to see improvements in those areas than a defender. It just means that those attributes count more towards the strikers CA.

It's the same thing. A player gains x number of CA points. Training has an influence on how those points get distributed but because of the weightings above a defender will see less gains in acceleration/pace than a striker for the same CA gain even when both are assigned the same level of aerobic training.

Believe me. I have year on year save games from 2007 to 2019 in FM 08 and newgen strikers always gain more acceleration and pace than a defender for similar gains in CA as they develop.

pace is generally more important for a striker than it is for a centerback.

Since you seem to agree I'll ask you then. Why? A centreback is marking a striker.

- a centreback has to keep up with a striker

- a centreback has to compete with the striker to get to the ball

So how exactly is it more important for a striker to be quick than a centreback in general? In my opinion it's a cultural legacy that leads to players being pigeon holed from a young age based on how tall/good in the air they are or how small/pacy they are.

Football isn't about generalisations, it's about match ups in specific positions and the balance of all attributes. Acceleration and pace are important but they are not the be all and end all. There are plenty of pacy strikers who aren't half the player that slower more intelligent/technically gifted strikers are. The same can be said of other positions.

I just feel it is over emphasised alongside the discrepancies in why it is important in one position but not in the position directly opposing it.

[outlander]

I just think that SI made a massive mistake relying so much on CA. Those who say that there is no problem cos researchers can put whatever skills they think right and whatever rating for weak foot and then put in the recommended(by editor engine) CA too. It doesn't work cos researchers have guides relating CA. So world class have one range of CA, top PL range, mediocre PL player range and so on.

So the researcher's main priority becomes not assigning the skills he thinks are right but putting the "right CA" and then altering skills to the level of that CA.

The prime example for it is Ronaldo. If you will take away CA guides and ask United researcher to put in just the right skills by his mind, the Ronaldo skills will be different. Now Nick has to make lower some of Ronaldo's best skills like jumping and OTB just to make the "right" CA.

We know that ME uses just numbers of skills and not CA, yet SI think that Ronaldo can't have the right skills cos it will make his CA 200 and that will mean that he is better than Maradona or Pele. For me it's just stupid. If your weghgtning system shows that Ronaldo is the best footballer ever it's not the fault of a researcher, it's the fault of your weightning system.

[Smac]

The extra weighting given to pace/acc doesnt mean that a striker is any more likely to see improvements in those areas than a defender. It just means that those attributes count more towards the strikers CA.

I kinda agree, pace is generally more important for a striker than it is for a centerback. Although I dont necessarily agree with the difference between the weighting given to pace/acc and some of the technical attributes. But I'm sure there's a lot more to it than becomes apparent from a couple of screenshots.

True, but wasn't there some problem in FM08 with the 'free attributes not developing'? Perhaps that is what isuckatfm is referring to.

The way thing work now, if I have this correctly:

Player Joe Bloggs starts with a CA/PA, natural position(s), and starting 'footedness'. The development of that player is channeled by restrictions on which abilities cost more/less CA points based on what positions are developed over '10'. Pace as a core striker attribute costs a bit. Pace as a 'free attribute' for a defender (don't know if that's true, but this is an example) perhaps should develop and cost little or no CA. Thus, each attribute is somewhat controlled in its development by the development model, which varies by playing position only.

This seems overly complicated to me compared to having a PA for each attribute, determined 'at birth', and then allowing players to all develop under the same model, or in relation to external factors like certain core personality traits, facilities, tutoring, man management, etc..

If a player is generated who has all the right 'high APAs' (Attribute Potential Abilities) for a given position, he can go on to be a star in that position. But if one or two core attributes have lower APAs then he'd be limited by these.

His total PA would work as it does now: A summary of the 'caps' of all attributes. A player with a PA of 200 could have some really unfortunate APAs, say in pace or work rate or finishing, so the CA/PA system might have to reflect this by bumping up the average PA across the board to balance for unfortunate combinations.

The reasons to have a system like this instead of blanket PA combined with position-dependent-development-of-CA would be to

1. free the development model from problems of having all the attributes depend on each other,

2. to free the development model from reliance on limiting a player based on position, rather than on actual potential in any attribute, and

3. to prevent the tweaking of any particular attribute (in FM08, it is footedness) from having a somewhat devastating effect across the board on other attributes.

...........

To nuance this a bit, APAs (Attribute Potential Abilities) could be soft caps. IE, as a player develops towards his soft cap in a given ability, it gets more and more difficult to improve it, but hardly ever impossible. Thus the APA could act more like a 'steepness of curve' for development, rather than a hard cap. A low APA will mean that a player is always going to find developing that particular attribute quite difficult.

But the main idea is to free the development model from unreality like we see here (this thread) in footedness. I think it can be done.

[Mitja]

I just think that SI made a massive mistake relying so much on CA. Those who say that there is no problem cos researchers can put whatever skills they think right and whatever rating for weak foot and then put in the recommended(by editor engine) CA too. It doesn't work cos researchers have guides relating CA. So world class have one range of CA, top PL range, mediocre PL player range and so on.

So the researcher's main priority becomes not assigning the skills he thinks are right but putting the "right CA" and then altering skills to the level of that CA.

The prime example for it is Ronaldo. If you will take away CA guides and ask United researcher to put in just the right skills by his mind, the Ronaldo skills will be different. Now Nick has to make lower some of Ronaldo's best skills like jumping and OTB just to make the "right" CA.

We know that ME uses just numbers of skills and not CA, yet SI think that Ronaldo can't have the right skills cos it will make his CA 200 and that will mean that he is better than Maradona or Pele. For me it's just stupid. If your weghgtning system shows that Ronaldo is the best footballer ever it's not the fault of a researcher, it's the fault of your weightning system.

I think researchers defenetly need to have those guidelines to keep the whole db balanced. there must be control with setting player stats and from what I know about those guidelines, I think they work just as they are supposed to. the other question is how researchers follow it -> italian or argentinian db for example, compared to english.

- 'If your weghtening system shows that Ronaldo is the best footballer ever it's not the fault of a researcher, it's the fault of your weightning system.' -

the problem with Cristiano was his unfortunate combination of stats that 'weight' too much: two footdness, pace and acceleration plus the whole physical department. exactly what isuckatfm is talking about. I also fail to see 'real life foundations' for this. eventhough I believe all stats shouldn't be equal in weghtening system and that physical stats are getting more and more important in football today, they are far from being alfa and omega. but as we know all fm MEs favoured pace, maybe this works as some kind of controling system. I know, it sounds strange.

[Terry85]

The problem with Ronaldo... Why don't SI just include a second model of the CA for stats model. Call it world class. These players who are world class would maybe have different attribute weightings so they could truly be world class.

SI always stated that they wanted to see the world class players stand on the 2D Match Engine...

[outlander]

I think researchers defenetly need to have those guidelines to keep the whole db balanced. there must be control with setting player stats and from what I know about those guidelines, I think they work just as they are supposed to. the other question is how researchers follow it -> italian or argentinian db for example, compared to english.

- 'If your weghtening system shows that Ronaldo is the best footballer ever it's not the fault of a researcher, it's the fault of your weightning system.' -

the problem with Cristiano was his unfortunate combination of stats that 'weight' too much: two footdness, pace and acceleration plus the whole physical department. exactly what isuckatfm is talking about. I also fail to see 'real life foundations' for this. eventhough I believe all stats shouldn't be equal in weghtening system and that physical stats are getting more and more important in football today, they are far from being alfa and omega. but as we know all fm MEs favoured pace, maybe this works as some kind of controling system. I know, it sounds strange.

Yeah, I understand all this. Yes, those guidelines are needed to make the overall situation with players from different leagues rather realistic. Also such system is needed for the right development of regens. If the weight of certain skills will be lowered we will se mediocre players developing in stars and it won't be right.

But I'm prettys sure that with world known players it can be different. I mean there are players who are seen regularly by many people including head researchers. And in Ronaldo case I thing it's absolutely wrong not to allow make him 200 ca player to make his skills realistic. That will make him look realistic and will make his play in ME more realistic too.

Also we can look at it from different side. If we make Ronaldo 200 ca we will still have 10+ players with 190 CA. Does it make Ronaldo too good if there is at least 10 players who are just 5% worse than him?

[u]

From what i see on those screens, is determination removed?

[Neb]

From the other thread about the limitations of CA/PA, I've kinda come to the conclusion that its not having a PA that is the problem, its that the development model of CA that needs work.

The way I see it is that a player should perform according to his attributes, if he's young and gains some experience in the match, that should go some way to improving his CA, which coupled with training should improve his attributes for the next game.

Surely having a development model for each position is confusing things too much? the training aspect of the game should take into account how each player develops their attributes, the attributes should determine how well he plays. I'm not saying get rid of CA as it is supposed to be hidden and only for the game to use. If we didn't know it was there, we might not have so much of a problem with it (same for PA, but thats for the other thread.....)

Moving a development model into the training module doesn't sound like it would make much difference, but it would allow managers (human and AI) to build up their players as they want them, not as the game says they should be built up. but any change would affect something else developing.

It could be said that removal of the development models would mean any player could be 20 at anything if trained the right way. but thats not right, a player can has only a certain amount of time to improve, so a player with passing of 1 will never get to passing of 20 as he doesn't have enough time to develop but if he did have time, he would have to sacrifice the attributes in other areas to get there.

Researchers would only need to say how good each attribute is at the moment and those attributes would define not only how good he currently is, but the mental attributes would define how much he would improve. if a manger could improve a players work rate at 16, it stands to reason that the players overall ability when he is 25 would be increased as he'd have worked harder in the 9 years up to the age of 25. (crossing over threads into the CA/PA thread a bit, sorry!)

It frustrates me a little at how amazing the world of FM is, but at the same time, there are aspects of the inner workings of the game that haven't changed for the past 10 years. The development of players is one of these, training and scouting are others, but all effectively linked to the same issue, the use of CA in the game calculations.