Attributes that aren't always good when they're higher

[alanschu14]

For the most part I consider a higher attribute to be a good one. Like, even if a player doesn't typically cross the ball, it's never bad for them to have high crossing or finishing or especially those types of technical skills.

The mental ones, though, I've heard some people say suggest that sometimes they like one a bit lower for a player depending on circumstances. Too much aggression might not be good for a dirty centerback that chases out of position, or super high bravery on an otherwise talented star that is injury prone can keep them out of harms way and their overall skill makes up for it.

Eccentricity also one that I probably prefer a bit on the lower end as well.  Is there any other attributes that people would prefer to be low in some circumstances? Another one that I am thinking of would be flair when combined with a player with low decisions (or perhaps some lower technical skills).  That a player is super creative could be super risky if the player does it at boneheaded times!

[herne79]

Low Team Work for a striker that I want focussed purely on goal scoring.

Low Work Rate if I want a "fantasista".

Low Aggression for central defenders especially when not playing with a DM.

Low Injury Proneness and Dirtiness for everyone.

[Cleon]

Low team work can be good on a number of roles. I actually started writing about low attributes last week when someone on Twitter noticed that my DLP who had lower team work, had almost double the goals that my other DLP, who was better team player. I decided to write about it to explain why on this occasion and for this role it benefited my system. It's still not complete yet though. 

For strikers, depending on what I want from them, I find less composed players can be very useful if you want someone to always 'rush' their shots without over thinking it.

[NabsKebabs]

2 hours ago, Cleon said:

Low team work can be good on a number of roles. I actually started writing about low attributes last week when someone on Twitter noticed that my DLP who had lower team work, had almost double the goals that my other DLP, who was better team player. I decided to write about it to explain why on this occasion and for this role it benefited my system. It's still not complete yet though. 

For strikers, depending on what I want from them, I find less composed players can be very useful if you want someone to always 'rush' their shots without over thinking it.

When would you want a striker to rush a shot? For me. composure is extremely important for any striker

[craiigman]

1 hour ago, NabsKebabs said:

When would you want a striker to rush a shot? For me. composure is extremely important for any striker

I was thinking like Bas Dost where he had 45 goals in a row with first time finishes, but he's got like 18 in game, so I'm not overly sure on this one either lol

[FlairRA]

1 hour ago, craiigman said:

I was thinking like Bas Dost where he had 45 goals in a row with first time finishes, but he's got like 18 in game, so I'm not overly sure on this one either lol

The PPM 'First Time Shots' is perfect for a typical goal poacher, if you're looking to replicate first time finishes. In the game the likes of Cavani, Immobile, Falcao and Hernandez, all high scoring poacher-esque players have it. 

[Cleon]

3 hours ago, NabsKebabs said:

When would you want a striker to rush a shot? For me. composure is extremely important for any striker

For me it's not the be and end all, in fact in certain systems composure doesn't really matter to me at all. I've had players with 8-11 composure regular score 40+ goals a season along side my other striker who might have 18+. Neither score anymore of any less, the key point is the type of goals they score. These differ drastically because of composure. I tend to devalue composure and make a player rush his decision making when he's having lots of low crosses across goal and is running in from the backpost constant. High composure can see the player take an extra touch, or control the ball. I prefer it when they just smash it into the goal instead. Another example would be not caring about it for players who run into the box very late, I find it helps them take the shop rather than passing/controlling the ball.

Composure is just a stat that impacts decision making, it  basically makes decision making more rushed the lower it is. Which isn't always a bad thing.

Just depends what you want from a player and the decision behind it.

[FlairRA]

Well explained, I suppose you mean something like this? Rooney would have been better off sweeping it into the net first time then taking a touch.

 

[alanschu14]

That's interesting because I would have figured that both teamwork and composure are better if you have it.

My thinking being that a player with high teamwork will still recognize "it's better for me to shoot than make the extra pass." I could see them scoring more (by shooting more), but not necessarily being "best for the team" in that sense. Composure too, at least when compared with high decisions. I would think that higher composure would help ensure that the correct decision is made when under pressure (and that sometimes that correct decision is indeed to one time the ball rather than take a touch).

That said, if you're looking to create a goal scorer (and maybe you do always want him shooting because he has 20 finishing and no one else comes close) I can see lower teamwork making sense for that particular goal.

[Dark Demon]

10 hours ago, Cleon said:

For me it's not the be and end all, in fact in certain systems composure doesn't really matter to me at all. I've had players with 8-11 composure regular score 40+ goals a season along side my other striker who might have 18+. Neither score anymore of any less, the key point is the type of goals they score. These differ drastically because of composure. I tend to devalue composure and make a player rush his decision making when he's having lots of low crosses across goal and is running in from the backpost constant. High composure can see the player take an extra touch, or control the ball. I prefer it when they just smash it into the goal instead. Another example would be not caring about it for players who run into the box very late, I find it helps them take the shop rather than passing/controlling the ball.

Composure is just a stat that impacts decision making, it  basically makes decision making more rushed the lower it is. Which isn't always a bad thing.

Just depends what you want from a player and the decision behind it.

Wow, I never actually thought about that and how composure might be better in certain situations. 

 

Always learn something new from you Cleon! 

[Cleon]

4 hours ago, alanschu14 said:

That's interesting because I would have figured that both teamwork and composure are better if you have it.

My thinking being that a player with high teamwork will still recognize "it's better for me to shoot than make the extra pass." I could see them scoring more (by shooting more), but not necessarily being "best for the team" in that sense. Composure too, at least when compared with high decisions. I would think that higher composure would help ensure that the correct decision is made when under pressure (and that sometimes that correct decision is indeed to one time the ball rather than take a touch).

That said, if you're looking to create a goal scorer (and maybe you do always want him shooting because he has 20 finishing and no one else comes close) I can see lower teamwork making sense for that particular goal.

Basically teamwork is selfishness modifier, so high team work can see a player not be ruthless enough in certain situations which is why depending on what I want from the player, it might not be the best thing to have. The DLP article I am writing will highlight this more though and will have lots of examples explaining what I mean

[mikcheck]

22 hours ago, Cleon said:

Low team work can be good on a number of roles. I actually started writing about low attributes last week when someone on Twitter noticed that my DLP who had lower team work, had almost double the goals that my other DLP, who was better team player. I decided to write about it to explain why on this occasion and for this role it benefited my system. It's still not complete yet though. 

For strikers, depending on what I want from them, I find less composed players can be very useful if you want someone to always 'rush' their shots without over thinking it.

Cleon, did your really mean a DLP or DLF? I've never thought of having a DLP with a low team work. That's interesting. It's an attribute that I always value in any position, but I guess it can be effective in certain roles, like a true Poacher.

Looking forward to read your article.

[craiigman]

4 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

Cleon, did your really mean a DLP or DLF? I've never thought of having a DLP with a low team work. That's interesting. It's an attribute that I always value in any position, but I guess it can be effective in certain roles, like a true Poacher.

Looking forward to read your article.

My guess is.. DLP is a ball magnet, but by default doesn't have risky passes on, so really not much of a playmaker unless of PPM's. So a ball magnet with low team work would be someone you want to get the ball often and drop a bit deeper, but keep the ball?

[Cleon]

32 minutes ago, craiigman said:

My guess is.. DLP is a ball magnet, but by default doesn't have risky passes on, so really not much of a playmaker unless of PPM's. So a ball magnet with low team work would be someone you want to get the ball often and drop a bit deeper, but keep the ball?

Aye it's the DLP. However risky passes doesn't equal a playmaker. The DLP role is very much a playmaking role, it's no less of a playmaker than the other playmaking roles. So not sure why you're making it out like it isn't one. 

[narkishadow]

does it mean if i want my Poacher/Winger to dribble past opponent defender as fast as he can without "can i do it or i can't?" i should choose player with low composure? and if i want my defender to tackle the ball asap i should focus player with low composure? lol, this is insane.

all we know Cleon FM guru, but i dont trust this theory, because this is just neglect 'decision making' attribute.

There should be: determination  > decision making > composure > physical/technical attributes. 

Also this should override 'time wasting' slider, what worked as Cleon writed about 'composure':

Цитата

Composure is just a stat that impacts decision making, it  basically makes decision making more rushed the lower it is. 

just replace 'composure' on 'time wasting' in this post.

you also can see how little time players will use on the ball when playing with very risky mentality.

[Cleon]

Quote

does it mean if i want my Poacher/Winger to dribble past opponent defender as fast as he can without "can i do it or i can't?" i should choose player with low composure? and if i want my defender to tackle the ball asap i should focus player with low composure? lol, this is insane.

No, you read wrong. I said this is what I do not what you should do, in certain situations depending on what I am needing. Hence why I categorically stated above in certain situations and not all, that lower composure can be a good thing for me. There is no denying that rushed decisions can be bad. But they can also be a good thing.

Note the emphasis on the bolded bits. 

Quote

all we know Cleon FM guru, but i dont trust this theory, because this is just neglect 'decision making' attribute.

Decision making is the ability to make a decision. Composure is a decision modifier that determines how rushed that decision is. The two go hand in hand. It's you who has this wrong and doesn't know what decision/composure actually do. Composure does not make the decision, it just determines who rushed/composed it is. The lower the rating the more rushed. The higher the rating the more time the player will take to make a decision.

Quote

just replace 'composure' on 'time wasting' in this post.

No they're completely different things.

Quote

you also can see how little time players will use on the ball when playing with very risky mentality.

All of this is dependant on other factors. Don't confuse risky play and moving the ball around more quickly on higher mentalities with individual composure. They are completely different things and here lies your issues. You can't differentiate between what all the individuals things are or what they do.

You've just jumped to massive conclusions from not reading properly and adding 1+1 and getting 5.  Please read my words carefully, all I am saying is that in certain situations based on what the player has to do, then a lower attribute threshold isn't the end of everything and can actually help.

[mikcheck]

Cleon, so in theory and based on what  I've read from your posts here, low team work and composure may not be a bad thing for a player whose job is to finish chances without too much thinking?

[Cleon]

22 minutes ago, mikcheck said:

Cleon, so in theory and based on what  I've read from your posts here, low team work and composure may not be a bad thing for a player whose job is to finish chances without too much thinking?

Kind of but it's more about the type of chances the player is getting that determines if low composure is a good/bad thing, for me.

[herne79]

25 minutes ago, Cleon said:

it's more about the type of chances the player is getting

 

On ‎28‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 18:02, Cleon said:

I tend to devalue composure and make a player rush his decision making when he's having lots of low crosses across goal and is running in from the backpost constant. High composure can see the player take an extra touch, or control the ball. I prefer it when they just smash it into the goal instead. Another example would be not caring about it for players who run into the box very late, I find it helps them take the shop rather than passing/controlling the ball.

I think this may be what some are missing.  Cleon isn't generalising that "low composure always equals good", it's about specific set ups and/or specific actions for players to undertake in certain circumstances.

@Cleon  To put things another way, generally speaking low Composure may prevent players dwelling on the ball and therefore not properly assessing their options before making a Decision - which in that case might lead to poor decisions being made.  But in certain circumstances low Composure may actually help a player take the quick, decisive action that you want him to - for example (and as you say above) the striker constantly running in on the back post may be more likely to focus on taking a shot than deciding to pass the ball. 

From that perspective and to follow that train of thought through, I guess it leads into a different "priority" of choices for different types of roles and how far each choice is explored is determined (at least in part) by Composure.  So for example, perhaps a Striker's list of priorities goes Shoot > Hold up Ball > Pass it, and so if he has low Composure his decision making process doesn't really get beyond "Shoot" and thus the shot is taken.  That's probably over simplifying as other factors will come into play, but interesting to categorise it almost as a flow chart:

Striker gets ball --> low composure yes --> doesn't think, decides to shoot.

Striker gets ball --> low composure no --> thinks about options before taking action.

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

Striker gets ball --> low composure yes --> doesn't think, decides to shoot.

Striker gets ball --> low composure no --> thinks about options before taking action.

Lazy... do a proper flow chart!

TBF if you are going to this complex situational granularity ... then any attribute could be deemed good if low.

I managed an u16 team a few years back... my star striker got injured, he was pacey and I replaced him with an overweight slug. The team improved because they could all keep up with the striker so he wasn't isolated. p.s. I made this up.

[HemHat]

so composure could be called 'speed of thought'? From what I'm reading, someone with high composure and good decisions is basically an Ent.

 

[herne79]

44 minutes ago, HemHat said:

so composure could be called 'speed of thought'? From what I'm reading, someone with high composure and good decisions is basically an Ent.

 

Don't take it to such extremes .  Re-read Cleon's posts, it's situational not all encompassing.

[felley]

1 hour ago, westy8chimp said:

TBF if you are going to this complex situational granularity ... then any attribute could be deemed good if low.

I managed an u16 team a few years back... my star striker got injured, he was pacey and I replaced him with an overweight slug. The team improved because they could all keep up with the striker so he wasn't isolated. p.s. I made this up.

I know you're half making a joke, Westy - but this is pretty much nail on the head for me.

IF you want to look into things in greater detail, then you could draw up the ideal attribute levels (low or high) for every possible type of player you'd want in every possible situation.

It's just not really necessary unless you really want to make things complex.

Don't know about you guys, but I like to make things a bit more general for the most part. Obviously I look at the exact attributes from time-to-time, but I prefer to get a 'feel' for a player... so with strikers I'll know one is the pacey lad who smashes them in, one is more intelligent and likes to take his time and one is a brick shedhouse who's 6'8" and bullies defenders. Makes it more manageable for me anyway.

[westy8chimp]

Cleon is absolutely spot on in what he's saying ... I understand it and sometimes use that kind of thinking in my team building.

But I cringe when it gets mentioned in a topic like this ... because it will be taken the wrong way by 99% of the audience  

It'd be like the late great Hawkins explaining complex quantum mechanics to me ... I know he is right, but I'm just not going to understand enough to apply those principles logically.

[HemHat]

I have seen an example of this in my Luton save. Elliot Lee is outscoring a regen who is similar to him stats wise, but has much better composure, although he misses the target a lot more as well.

[yau]

Sometimes I like to have CB with low teamwork.

[phnompenhandy]

44 minutes ago, yau said:

Sometimes I like to have CB with low teamwork.

For a Limited CB you want to intercept and hoof it up the field, yes. For playing the Offside Trap , um ....   

[RodentofDoom]

Eccentricity & Punching

aren't always great at high values

[yau]

11 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

For a Limited CB you want to intercept and hoof it up the field, yes. For playing the Offside Trap , um ....   

I just hate to see both of my CB compete for header 

[Rash-forwards]

What about consistency? Not sure how this works as obviously it's a hidden attribute, but had a fantastic time using Andreas pereira on fm17. Coaches said he lacked consistency yet got 20+ combined goals and assists 3 years on the trot. Granted there were games he wouldn't perform and some he seemed unstoppable, but I have found that to be the case with the advanced playmaker role - regardless of who plays there. 

To be honest I often ignore what my coaches say about consistency for attacking players because, in my head anyway, if the attributes I CAN see tell me they're a good fit for the role I want to play them in then that is all I need. Ive also wondered whether high consistency necessarily constitutes a good player, what if they're consistently bad? Or at most average? If anyone can clear this up I'd be grateful just so I know, but I've always thought an inconsistent player (with good attributes) will be more capable of a world class display in a one off game than a more consistent player might be.

[Cleon]

1 hour ago, Rash-forwards said:

What about consistency? Not sure how this works as obviously it's a hidden attribute, but had a fantastic time using Andreas pereira on fm17. Coaches said he lacked consistency yet got 20+ combined goals and assists 3 years on the trot. Granted there were games he wouldn't perform and some he seemed unstoppable, but I have found that to be the case with the advanced playmaker role - regardless of who plays there. 

To be honest I often ignore what my coaches say about consistency for attacking players because, in my head anyway, if the attributes I CAN see tell me they're a good fit for the role I want to play them in then that is all I need. Ive also wondered whether high consistency necessarily constitutes a good player, what if they're consistently bad? Or at most average? If anyone can clear this up I'd be grateful just so I know, but I've always thought an inconsistent player (with good attributes) will be more capable of a world class display in a one off game than a more consistent player might be.

Consistency is a current ability modifier. So a player with 20 consistency will be more likely to play at his full potential most of the time. A low consistency attribute means the player will play lower than what his actual current ability is more often than not (is we are speaking about really low attribute)

[Jean0987654321]

High Eccentricity for GK?

[miteymcgrath]

 

On 28/04/2018 at 18:02, Cleon said:

For me it's not the be and end all, in fact in certain systems composure doesn't really matter to me at all. I've had players with 8-11 composure regular score 40+ goals a season along side my other striker who might have 18+. Neither score anymore of any less, the key point is the type of goals they score. These differ drastically because of composure. I tend to devalue composure and make a player rush his decision making when he's having lots of low crosses across goal and is running in from the backpost constant. High composure can see the player take an extra touch, or control the ball. I prefer it when they just smash it into the goal instead. Another example would be not caring about it for players who run into the box very late, I find it helps them take the shop rather than passing/controlling the ball.

Composure is just a stat that impacts decision making, it  basically makes decision making more rushed the lower it is. Which isn't always a bad thing.

Just depends what you want from a player and the decision behind it.

Hang on, why on earth would composure mean ‘speed of decision’? There is no positive to having high composure then, if decisions is the stat that ultimately decides what action the player takes, and composure is a mere time modifier, surely a high decisions + low composure combination would always ensure the fastest, most efficient decision making? 

You can state the case for needing  a player to “rush” a decision all you want (like shooting from certain crosses) and why low/high composure is relevant for that, but ultimately what a player does is decided by his decisions stat, so why would it ever be benificial for him to come to that decision slower than he could?

A player with high composure then, and attempting to take an extra touch (in this example), isn't being ‘more composed’, he's simply not making the correct decision. 😂

In my anecdotal experience composure has just effected the rate at which (example) strikers bury clear one on ones, in relation to their finishing stat.

You cant argue, especially without any evidence, that composure doesn't affect the ultimate decision a player will make and use this as example, its just doesn't track logically at all.

[Cleon]

So you can't understand the difference and see the benefits of someone taking their time to make a decision and someone who rushes his decision making? In some scenarios a rushed decision can be a good thing for me. Note the word some and not all. 

Your making out that high decision making guarantees that the player always chooses the best options. You do know this isn't how things work right? You're trying to separate decision making from composure when you can't. They're both linked and impact each other. 

Also the burying clear one on ones example, you do realise there's a lot more happening right? As you've left some vital attributes out of the example to make it fit your agenda. Carry on taking stuff out of context and making wild assumptions though. 

This forum is something else these days. This is why I don't really post and help anymore as people twist stuff and take things out of context and read between the lines constantly. Rather than reading what's actually put. 

No-one is forcing you to play this way or to agree with it. It's just another way of seeing the game and a different spin on playing it. You don't have to conform to the normal you know, you can step outside the boundaries of what people class as 'normal'.

[miteymcgrath]

Hang on, when exactly did I profess to have any knowledge about attributes? I literally stated that my own experience was purely anecdotal, as in, purely speculative and open to change based on evidence. I’m simply saying that I find your own theory behind composure wholly unpersuasive. 

And, you can be as exasperated as you like cleon but your explanation of composure and decisions doesnt track with any logical coherence, I don’t need any knowledge of attributes to point out an obvious logical fallacy.

[miteymcgrath]

Oh, I see you deleted your previous, somewhat condescending post then @cleon 

now my second response makes no sense :-(

[Cleon]

I've not deleted anything, the post is still there. I just added to it long before you replied. 

[Cleon]

And to be clear on what decisions/composure is;

Decisions - The ability to pick which action he takes. It's the how/why/when of a players brain. How successful this is though depends on the rest of his mental attributes and then his technical's to be to able to actually pull off the action.

Composure - How much he panics/is calm when making a decision and performing the action that was selected when making a decision. 

If I wanted to be really argumentative, I could make a case for low decisions to be okay too if you have a striker who doesn't really have many options to assess. So in my case of balls pulled back across goal and the striker having limited options with what he could do, then low decisions wouldn't matter as he doesn't need to process a whole host of actions. But again it's tied to composure and other attributes too.

This is why it's complex. 

[miteymcgrath]

43 minutes ago, Cleon said:

So you can't understand the difference and see the benefits of someone taking their time to make a decision and someone who rushes his decision making? In some scenarios a rushed decision can be a good thing for me. Note the word some and not all. 

Your making out that high decision making guarantees that the player always chooses the best options. You do know this isn't how things work right? You're trying to separate decision making from composure when you can't. They're both linked and impact each other. 

Also the burying clear one on ones example, you do realise there's a lot more happening right? As you've left some vital attributes out of the example to make it fit your agenda. Carry on taking stuff out of context and making wild assumptions though. 

This forum is something else these days. This is why I don't really post and help anymore as people twist stuff and take things out of context and read between the lines constantly. Rather than reading what's actually put. 

No-one is forcing you to play this way or to agree with it. It's just another way of seeing the game and a different spin on playing it. You don't have to conform to the normal you know, you can step outside the boundaries of what people class as 'normal'.

Of course I can see the pros and cons of taking your time on a decision or not @Cleon dont be ridiculous, my point has nothing to do with that. You're saying composure is purely a measurement of speed of decision making though, that low composure players make rushed decisions, but that doesnt even describe composure. Composed players dont do things more slowly than non composed players. The game itself descrobes it as “steadiness of thought”. Being calm under pressure is not simply a measurement of speed of thought, and hitting a ball first time and not taking an unnecessary extra touch is actually an example of a player being composed. Taking a touch in the case you yourself laid out would be a mistake, a sign of a lack of composure, or just straight up bad decision making, not the other way around. God knows I watched enough of Nicklas Bendtner to know.

I’m not separating the two at all! I literally just explained back to you how your definition of the two makes no logical sense and nothing more.

The one on ones example was quite clearly leaving an awful lot out of the equation for the sake of convenience.  I was clearly misguided in expecting some charity from you on that. I was simply making a small point that what I had interpreted composure to mean was different to you. 

I’m not even sure what you're on about with regards to conformity. You can be as conformist/ non conformist as you like, but what you said doesn't make basic sense cleon.  

[Cleon]

Quote

and hitting a ball first time and not taking an unnecessary extra touch is actually an example of a player being composed.

 

Quote

Taking a touch in the case you yourself laid out would be a mistake, a sign of a lack of composure, or just straight up bad decision making, not the other way around

Unless you see the action being took and take the whole scenario into consideration you can't actually know its either without seeing a visual for the move. Not every first time hit is a player being composed, not every extra touch is a player being composed and so on. The reverse is also true too, not every extra touch is a bad decision/less composed action, not every first time hit is either. That's the whole point I've made throughout the thread. You're speaking like every first time hit is a composed player and that is wrong. It's not that black and white at all.

I still think you're reading between the lines and making out I've said something I haven't though. 

 

[herne79]

@Cleon  To put things in a different manner, would it be correct to say that when making a decision each type of role has a different set of priorities as to what course of action should be taken.  So as I mentioned above, a striker might have a priority list which goes shoot > hold up ball > pass.  Of course that list might be dynamic and change depending on the scenario.  That being the case, is it fair to say that the Decisions attribute helps the player make the right choice whereas Composure helps determine how far down that list he gets?  Thus a low Composure striker may only get as far as "shoot" on the list and so takes a snap shot (which is desirable in your specific set up), whereas a high Composure player may get all the way down to "pass" before deciding to shoot (ie., "steadies" himself before shooting).  All things being equal of course without other influencing factors.

This would then differentiate things from Tempo for example, where Tempo helps set how quickly players make a decision.  It seems to me that some might be confusing Composure and Tempo...?

[miteymcgrath]

3 minutes ago, Cleon said:

 

Unless you see the action being took and take the whole scenario into consideration you can't actually know its either without seeing a visual for the move. Not every first time hit is a player being composed, not every extra touch is a player being composed and so on. The reverse is also true too, not every extra touch is a bad decision/less composed action, not every first time hit is either. That's the whole point I've made throughout the thread. You're speaking like every first time hit is a composed player. It's not that black and white at all.

I still think you're reading between the lines and making out I've said something I haven't though. 

 

Im not reading between the lines at all, I'm using the literal example you used. Which you're now criticising me for citing without there being a visual.

Your point about wanting players with low decisions or low team work to shut them off from making certain decisions makes some sense I will say. Well, not decisions, a player with bad decision making isn't shut off from anything except from making good decisions, but team work certainly. 

And where did I say anything about all first time hits being a sign of composure? Again, I'm talking specifically in the example you used where an extra touch would apparently be a sign of a composed player, but one that would ultimately cost the team a goal. This is a paradox. In that scenario it would behove a composed player capable of good decision making to just simply finish, and avoid the extra touch.

[westy8chimp]

2 hours ago, Cleon said:

This is why I don't really post and help anymore as people twist stuff and take things out of context and read between the lines constantly. Rather than reading what's actually put. 

Agree. The bold part in particular... we are communicating in written form, not an ambiguous conversation in different language over a poor phone line.  I also wish people would just read what's in front of them.

Your take on composure is understandable and helpful to some of us. I fully appreciate that for a specific situation (i.e. the near post drilled cross) for a specific player in a specific setup -> to achieve your specific aim ... a set of attributes, characteristics and traits will be more valuable to you, than to another player working to their own setup/situation.

But when you go to that level, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think you will lose the majority of the audience... so best to just ignore those that didn't understand or appreciate your feedback, rather than let it get to you or affect your future input  

I found your input interesting - and I fully believe there can be an argument for pretty much every attribute to be useful when low/or high if it works for your setup.

i.e. maybe you don't play a DM and you are sick of your CBs winning the first aerial battle, only to head it down for their on rushing AMs who snap up the second ball... so you have CBs who are LOW aggression LOW jumping LOW heading LOW bravery... they never win a header, the AI strikers do and it trickles through to your GK or your defenders having not challenged for the high ball are better set to press the second ball.

 

[Cleon]

Before I answer a few people 

Let me be clear - I am NOT trying to argue that a low composure attribute is better than a high one. However, I do believe there is an argument to be made for individuality and that this individuality is created by deliberately selecting a player with a low attribute. In other words, higher is not always better.

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

@Cleon  To put things in a different manner, would it be correct to say that when making a decision each type of role has a different set of priorities as to what course of action should be taken.  So as I mentioned above, a striker might have a priority list which goes shoot > hold up ball > pass.  Of course that list might be dynamic and change depending on the scenario.  That being the case, is it fair to say that the Decisions attribute helps the player make the right choice whereas Composure helps determine how far down that list he gets?  Thus a low Composure striker may only get as far as "shoot" on the list and so takes a snap shot (which is desirable in your specific set up), whereas a high Composure player may get all the way down to "pass" before deciding to shoot (ie., "steadies" himself before shooting).  All things being equal of course without other influencing factors.

This would then differentiate things from Tempo for example, where Tempo helps set how quickly players make a decision.  It seems to me that some might be confusing Composure and Tempo...?

Kind of. I'd not say decisions makes the player make the right choice but it makes him pick the choice the player thinks is best based on the current situation. This can still be the wrong choice though. What low composure does is rush/dwell on the mental side of things and force the thought process to be quicker/slower than normal, or for a better word panic. For example if a player has made the decision to shoot, then you might see composure impact the technical side of the shot as well as the original decision. So you might see a player strike the ball but he scuffs the shot, slices it, under hits it and so on despite having good first touch, technique and so on. Because composure has undermined the whole process of the action due to not being calm. It's more noticeable seeing composure kick in when a player has the ball at his feet as opposed to without it.

This is why I said it's useful in certain situations and I needed to release an article to clarify stuff, so it didn't get took out of context. It's also why further above it all depends on the type of chances my striker is getting regularly. Because then you can limit decision making, you can limit the amount of available options a player has and so on. Which again isn't a bad thing. This is why I value the type of chances over everything else. You still need balance throughout the actual first team though and you'd be punished if everyone was focusing on low attributes all the time. It's why an article will eventually give all of what I'm saying context and substance. 

Quote

Agree. The bold part in particular... we are communicating in written form, not an ambiguous conversation in different language over a poor phone line.  I also wish people would just read what's in front of them.

Your take on composure is understandable and helpful to some of us. I fully appreciate that for a specific situation (i.e. the near post drilled cross) for a specific player in a specific setup -> to achieve your specific aim ... a set of attributes, characteristics and traits will be more valuable to you, than to another player working to their own setup/situation.

But when you go to that level, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think you will lose the majority of the audience... so best to just ignore those that didn't understand or appreciate your feedback, rather than let it get to you or affect your future input  

I found your input interesting - and I fully believe there can be an argument for pretty much every attribute to be useful when low/or high if it works for your setup.

i.e. maybe you don't play a DM and you are sick of your CBs winning the first aerial battle, only to head it down for their on rushing AMs who snap up the second ball... so you have CBs who are LOW aggression LOW jumping LOW heading LOW bravery... they never win a header, the AI strikers do and it trickles through to your GK or your defenders having not challenged for the high ball are better set to press the second ball.

I get this. But then we have to remember what the actual topic of the thread was asking, so people should be expecting to see something 'different'. But yeah I get your point

Your lack of a DM and CB example is a really good one actually (even if it was in jest)  as you highlight how you'd manipulate the CB's to play very differently and to cut out a specific issue you was having. Obviously everything has a knock-on effect but I like this example. 

[enigmatic]

I was under the impression that Composure affected quality as well as speed of execution (e.g. low composure would make a striker hit shots much worse than their technical ability would suggest as well as be more likely to take them on earlier). I'd definitely prefer the "first time shots" PPM, or even "dictates tempo" to allow them to seed things up. Could see the logic more clearly with defenders who I'm happy to prefer hoof under pressure because they don't have the technical ability anyway (but I actually find low-skill defenders asked to pass the ball out slowly are usually OK at it)

That said, I'm going to propose a possibly even more controversial one for sides that have limitations on the quality of player they are usually able to sign: Decisions, especially for midfielders. Not because I think it makes players perform worse in the match engine, but because I haven't seen much evidence it makes them much better whilst it uses up an enormous amount of "CA" that (indirectly) affects whether the AI tries to sign or sell a player.

Strictly speaking I'm not valuing it much, especially not very high values rather than actively searching for players with weak decision making, but I'd much rather have a player other clubs don't rate because he has below average decision making than one who has below average passing or well below average work rate. Same goes for positioning for non-defenders (more likely to be out of position because I'm instructing them to make attacking runs than the attribute, and more likely to make it up with an extra point or two of speed/stamina) and finishing, long shots and positioning for players I don't expect to take them (especially defensive minded CMs) and first touch (beyond double digit level) for players that don't play in congested areas.

Counter intuitively I really like Aggression for anyone that's not a central defender and the also supposedly neutral "flair" is one of my favourite attributes.

Work rate (and aggression) is probably bad thing for an ancient deep lying playmaker type who's supposed to receive the ball under no pressure and do amazing things with it, and doesn't want to waste their limited energy unsuccessfully trying to catch up with other players or make tackles.

Non obvious potentially unhelpful hidden attributes include ambition (except when the player is developing) and possibly even dirtiness/sportsmanship for players higher up the pitch though I don't think the ME places as much emphasis on clever tactical fouling as real football.

[kingjericho]

High aggression, if paired with low decisions, is a red card magnet.

[enigmatic]

17 hours ago, kingjericho said:

High aggression, if paired with low decisions, is a red card magnet.

Think it's more the hidden dirtiness/sportsmanship attributes affecting that behaviour in the ME (in practice, players researchers rate as being aggressive and bad at decision making usually are also rated as much dirtier than average) . Played a season with custom offensive players with high aggression, average decisions and nonexistent tackling ability and they pressed like champs, won more challenges than they should do and rarely ever got booked. Admittedly I rarely set hard tackling except on specific opposition players.

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

Think it's more the hidden dirtiness/sportsmanship attributes affecting that behaviour in the ME (in practice, players researchers rate as being aggressive and bad at decision making usually are also rated as much dirtier than average) . Played a season with custom offensive players with high aggression, average decisions and nonexistent tackling ability and they pressed like champs, won more challenges than they should do and rarely ever got booked. Admittedly I rarely set hard tackling except on specific opposition players.

you should because my experience is role based i.e. a bwm whoever it is will get more yellows than a cm-s ... even if you have your 'dirty' player as cm and teachers pet as the bwm. Hard coded high pressing hard tackling provides more yellow than the roads to Oz.

[Pav_Makarov]

19 часов назад, kingjericho сказал:

High aggression, if paired with low decisions, is a red card magnet.

More like bad positioning, paired with high aggression. I remember having an agressive WB with 10 positioning - 3 reds and accumulated ban in a season. Once it got up to decent 12 it got better

[enigmatic]

4 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

you should because my experience is role based i.e. a bwm whoever it is will get more yellows than a cm-s ... even if you have your 'dirty' player as cm and teachers pet as the bwm. Hard coded high pressing hard tackling provides more yellow than the roads to Oz.

That's why I don't use the BWM role and don't understand why it's so popular. My DLP(D)s win the ball back loads without giving away stupid free kicks and missing matches.