Just found something amazing!!! Must see!!!

[Majkee]

Why is it illogical? A striker with high tackling is not that much better than a striker with low tackling, whereas a defender with hig tackling is much better than a defender with low tackling.

Are you trying to convince me, that ST with TACKLING 20 is worse tackler as DC with TACKLING 20 in case of tackle the ball (abstract from other attributes like marking, positioning etc.)?

[bigdunk]

Are you trying to convince me, that ST with TACKLING 20 is worse tackler as DC with TACKLING 20 in case of tackle the ball (abstract from other attributes like marking, positioning etc.)?

No I'm not. I'm trying to convince you that a striker with good tackling is not massively better at playing striker than a striker with poor tackling. If Michael Owen could tackle like John Terry it wouldn't significantly improve him as a player.

[Majkee]

This way of balancing the attributes for each position helps to balance the game. If we had just an attribute average in place like I guess we had during CM2 and CM3 times (CA 140= avr attr of 14.0, 168=16.8 and so on) we would have players with good attributes all the way, just like the guy the OP created to test the issue. That would be very unrealistic.

Now, the avr attributes are lower because high specialist attributes restrict the possible improvement in other areas, while good allround attributes restrict the specialist ones. That's overall quite fine at the moment imho. That's also why I cannot come up with a witty solution how to solve the problem of the possible exploit without creating negative effects on the player balance. If you have one, everyone will be happy .

If I was to choose between having this issue in the game (that was there in FM08 as well and nobody complained) which can be exploited by a few and having the old, dodgy player attribute balance back, I'd opt for the former.

Of course, this issue can actually become a massive one for FML

I do not want balanced attributes as you have mantioned, I agree with you in this point. Current attribute spreading is ok, but I can see much better translation of player attributes into the CA - take in mind preffered leg, PPM, mental attributes, position on the pitch vs. player positions, hidden attributes, morale etc.

[CaptainPlanet]

I don't know about significantly, but if you had two identical players and one could tackle well and the other couldn't, which would you pick?

[Majkee]

No I'm not. I'm trying to convince you that a striker with good tackling is not massively better at playing striker than a striker with poor tackling. If Michael Owen could tackle like John Terry it wouldn't significantly improve him as a player.

Why not? Imagine it related to closing down option...this could be much more successfull in this case (less fouls, more takeovers).

[bigdunk]

I don't know about significantly, but if you had two identical players and one could tackle well and the other couldn't, which would you pick?

If all other attributes were equal, then obviously you'd go for the better tackler. But if you had two identical strikers, one with tackling 15/finishing 10, the other with say tackling 10/finishing 12, it's obvious that the second player is a better striker than the first, so should have a higher CA, even though the first has a higher attribute total.

[CaptainPlanet]

If all other attributes were equal, then obviously you'd go for the better tackler. But if you had two identical strikers, one with tackling 15/finishing 10, the other with say tackling 10/finishing 12, it's obvious that the second player is a better striker than the first, so should have a higher CA, even though the first has a higher attribute total.

Depends what sort of striker you're after, but I get your point.

[Majkee]

In the grand scheme of people playing, I'd love to know how few people ever re-train someone in a new position.

I have been retraining my players frequently, but I did not know that this is bug or exploit. Seems strange. Now I know, that every retraining is cheat

[Ljuba82]

Anyway, big kudos for posting such a thread of such importance and wit so early on in your membership on here

Hehe...actually, I'm here since 2005, but read posts even earlier...and played CM since CM2

Also...by reading your posts, it seems to me that you and outlander have best understandings of this!!!

Even Paul C couldn't clearly understand what I told...

Majkee I really wouldn't comment

The problem is that it's not just an exploit like corner-bug for example. You could always not use tthose corner instructions.

Here I'll give you a prime example.

In another thread Ljuba82 posted very interesting information.

So for example you have an ARM who is 20 with right foot and 18 for left foot. He also is "awkward" at AML(it's less than 11 rating). It's pretty natural that many managers will re-train him for AML position cos he is left-footed and should be as good at left flank. But the weightning for weaker(left) foot for AML is the highest.

So by re-training such player you will end up with a worse/less talented player in skills.

It didn't fell on my mind, but you are right. I tested it now and yeah, it's true...but it's not so significant. Because if player can play both on MR/AMR, but also on AML/ML...weight for his weaker foot is no longer 15 (15 would be if he plays only as AML, ML as right footed player). Weight is somewhere in middle beetween those 2 positions, or exactly 10.37

So yes, you will loose up to 3 CA points (and only if you manage to retrain him fully to AML/ML, so it's probably like 2 CA point), but it's not so big if you have a player who can play on both sides.

Tnx for idea

Yes, I thought about it after I posted.

It looks like another very big data bug with two-footedness. I mean a two-footed(with right primary one) AMR will be much better than the same AML player. It's just crazy.

I think about that...and yes it looks like bug...but maybe they did it intentionaly....because after all, it's a problem if left winger can't use his left leg, so the game have to reflect this by increasing a weight of his weaker foot and scaling down his other attributes a bit.

I mean I agree it's a bug, but I just can't find a way to solve this in different way.

Are you trying to convince me, that ST with TACKLING 20 is worse tackler as DC with TACKLING 20 in case of tackle the ball (abstract from other attributes like marking, positioning etc.)?

No he is trying to tell you that striker with 1 tackling is allmost same like striker with with tackling of 20, but striker with finishing of 20 is much, much better then ST with finishing of 10.

[Ljuba82]

I have been retraining my players frequently, but I did not know that this is bug or exploit. Seems strange. Now I know, that every retraining is cheat

It doesn't have to be exploit...maybe you will get worse player (just example above with retraining right footed AMR to AML).

But if you are wise you can see what you can exploit...(for example ba seeing that your ST is versatile, have reasonanble DC position rating and low defensive attributes).

[Majkee]

Based on this discussion, I would like to stick back to the basics:

1. What is the purpose of CA?

2. Is the match calculated on CA or CA has only information character?

3. What is the role of attribute values in calculation of match?

4. Are the values for one attribute representing the same added value for all posistions and players with the exact same value of that attribute? (e.g. tackling 20 for player X (ST) and player Y (DC), these players are equal in added value of attribute and tackling equally).

[Themistofelis]

Smells FMM ...

Can you post a screenshot with his training results ( arrows going up / down ) ?

[bigdunk]

As I understand it...

Only attributes are used in the match engine (plus form, condition, morale etc). Attribute values are the same for all players, tackling 20 is tackling 20, whether it's a forward or defender doing the tackling. If you are playing a player out of position, then I would guess that the attributes are scaled down somehow - probably related to how 'positional' the attribute is (i.e. influence probably doesn't change if you play a player out of position, whereas positioning almost certainly does).

CA serves two purposes, it regulates the development of players (so stops players attributes developing too quickly, stops players improving when they reach peak etc). It also serves as a shortcut for rating players, so the AI can compare players quickly, without having to compare 36 different attributes.

[Ljuba82]

Smells FMM ...

Can you post a screenshot with his training results ( arrows going up / down ) ?

AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...some people will never learn...

FIRST read all the thread....

SECOND...I posted a way in which you can make such a player in some previous post.

[Majkee]

It doesn't have to be exploit...maybe you will get worse player (just example above with retraining right footed AMR to AML).

But if you are wise you can see what you can exploit...(for example ba seeing that your ST is versatile, have reasonanble DC position rating and low defensive attributes).

Yes I can see it, but it is strange

Some of you are really skillful players of FM may be it will be better to hire you for SI to do this game even better

[Ljuba82]

As I understand it...

Only attributes are used in the match engine (plus form, condition, morale etc). Attribute values are the same for all players, tackling 20 is tackling 20, whether it's a forward or defender doing the tackling. If you are playing a player out of position, then I would guess that the attributes are scaled down somehow - probably related to how 'positional' the attribute is (i.e. influence probably doesn't change if you play a player out of position, whereas positioning almost certainly does).

CA serves two purposes, it regulates the development of players (so stops players attributes developing too quickly, stops players improving when they reach peak etc). It also serves as a shortcut for rating players, so the AI can compare players quickly, without having to compare 36 different attributes.

Yes...it's like that...attribute counts in game and they are probably scaled down if player is out of position, but for developmnet and rating it's CA.

...but with this finding you can see that player with same CA can behave on pitch like one is 40 CA point better then other.

...and I just realised that in FM08...when I used Maxwell more than Abidal even if Abidal had 10 CA points more...and was totally indifferent who will play as MR, Ilsinho or Messi...who had 30 CA points bigger CA!!!!

[Themistofelis]

AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...some people will never learn...

FIRST read all the thread....

SECOND...I posted a way in which you can make such a player in some previous post.

And because i never learn can i have 2 screenshots of the same player showing his training results over a period of 2 months ?

[Ljuba82]

Yes I can see it, but it is strange

Some of you are really skillful players of FM may be it will be better to hire you for SI to do this game even better

Actually I just studie statistics and enjoy playing with all those things. In terms of playing...I'm just one of thousands of people who eventaully sooner or later wins everything.

Just lost a game with Barcelona against Vilareal 1:0

[Ljuba82]

And because i never learn can i have 2 screenshots of the same player showing his training results over a period of 2 months ?

No you can not, cause in purpose of testing I just edited the player in simple editor (that comes with game) just to see if his stats are going to drop in game. And they just didn't.

But if you want to do that you can find a post in which I described how to make him...and you can play 5 years with him if you like...and you'll see that his att will'n drop.

Now read all or stop commenting...

[jayahr]

Based on this discussion, I would like to stick back to the basics:

1. What is the purpose of CA?

2. Is the match calculated on CA or CA has only information character?

3. What is the role of attribute values in calculation of match?

4. Are the values for one attribute representing the same added value for all posistions and players with the exact same value of that attribute? (e.g. tackling 20 for player X (ST) and player Y (DC), these players are equal in added value of attribute and tackling equally).

Of course I'm not SI and might be wrong, but I'll give it a try...

1. CA ist the current overall ability of a player. This stat is used to set the attribute max to players. Of course, it is also rekated to reputation and causes the value and valuation to be higher/lower and this is the figure which increases due to training or personal development.

2. CA has no info character as it's invisible in the game. The ME does not use the CA at all as far as I'm aware.

3. I guess the attributes (both visible and hidden ones) and tactics are the sole values which impact the outcome of a match in the ME.

4. Clearly not. The more versatile a player is, the higher will be the added number because unimportant attributes don't cost as much. A striker with finishing 20 pace 20 will have to 'sacrifice' more than 12 attribute points on other attributes than a fin 14 pace 14 striker of the same CA, due to the different weight of the specialist attributes for each position. Just adding up attributes to a certain figure to evaluate a player is part of the past.

hth

[Majkee]

Of course I'm not SI and might be wrong, but I'll give it a try...

1. CA ist the current overall ability of a player. This stat is used to set the attribute max to players. Of course, it is also rekated to reputation and causes the value and valuation to be higher/lower and this is the figure which increases due to training or personal development.

2. CA has no info character as it's invisible in the game. The ME does not use the CA at all as far as I'm aware.

3. I guess the attributes (both visible and hidden ones) and tactics are the sole values which impact the outcome of a match in the ME.

4. Clearly not. The more versatile a player is, the higher will be the added number because unimportant attributes don't cost as much. A striker with finishing 20 pace 20 will have to 'sacrifice' more than 12 attribute points on other attributes than a fin 14 pace 14 striker of the same CA, due to the different weight of the specialist attributes for each position. Just adding up attributes to a certain figure to evaluate a player is part of the past.

hth

Thanks.

2. CA has info character for computer AI in order to evaluate, reputate etc. as you have mentioned.

4. So retraining him as ST to DC too will bring him the option of less-expansive gain of important striker attributes that is the exploit discessed here. So this is a bug from my point of view.

Many thanks to all for discussing this issue.

[jayahr]

Thanks.

2. CA has info character for computer AI in order to evaluate, reputate etc. as you have mentioned.

4. So retraining him as ST to DC too will bring him the option of less-expansive gain of important striker attributes that is the exploit discessed here. So this is a bug from my point of view.

Many thanks to all for discussing this issue.

2. Of course, the Ai is influenced by the opposition managers CA too, but that should work via the attributes solely as well

4. less-expensive you mean, I guess. In this case the typo actually has a big importance in meaning Then, yes, that's exactly what I think is the case here, but again, this 'bug' is connected to a thing that works really well and it while it might be possible to close the gap for this exploit, doing that might do much more harm to other things in the game.

[robmontie1965]

What a great thread you have got me curious now. I do not like players with several positions and I end up using FMM to change players positions to just 1 position.

The positions I generally use are GK,DC,DC, DWBR,DWBL,DM,AMR,AML,AMC,AMC,SC.

This tactic has served me well in the past.

But this theory means I may be able to make M West at Coventry a super player, when I normally give him just 1 position.

I will try this with my Coventry team and see what happens.

[Marz]

I really hope that their there is no knee-jerk reaction from SI regarding this. As I and probably other use positional training, not to exploit but to improve players. Apart from the fact that you get players who cover several positions within your chosen formation.

It also stands to reason that if you have a player who plays MC (right footed) and you retraining him to AMR. There should be a benefit as he gains skills, knowledge and experience of playing in different position. Which he can then use in his main position. Thus making him a better player then one who has the same ability/potential but lacks the gained skills, knowledge and experience.

[hozhoz]

It also stands to reason that if you have a player who plays MC (right footed) and you retraining him to AMR. There should be a benefit as he gains skills, knowledge and experience of playing in different position. Which he can then use in his main position. Thus making him a better player then one who has the same ability/potential but lacks the gained skills, knowledge and experience.

Problem is the way I understand it the player would actually lose skills in the things AMRs are good at (and highly valued) so he would become say better at tackling rather than crossing.

[outlander]

I think about that...and yes it looks like bug...but maybe they did it intentionaly....because after all, it's a problem if left winger can't use his left leg, so the game have to reflect this by increasing a weight of his weaker foot and scaling down his other attributes a bit.

I mean I agree it's a bug, but I just can't find a way to solve this in different way.

I gave a better example in data forum.

AML with 20right-19left foot will be much worse than AML with 20left-19right foot when they have the same CA.

Basically those with the same skills should perform equally but the second one will have a higher CA by 9.

That thing you highlighted with this thread is really a bug. If more positions just costed some CA like two-footednes it would've been not a bug but just a developers decision(bad one IMO).

But now it's quite random now, a player can become worse and can become better just by having/learning different positions.

[Majkee]

2. Of course, the Ai is influenced by the opposition managers CA too, but that should work via the attributes solely as well

4. less-expensive you mean, I guess. In this case the typo actually has a big importance in meaning Then, yes, that's exactly what I think is the case here, but again, this 'bug' is connected to a thing that works really well and it while it might be possible to close the gap for this exploit, doing that might do much more harm to other things in the game.

Of course, you are right it should be less-expensive.

I think that it can be invented how to prevent this exploitation without harming any other area or aspect of this great game.

[outlander]

I really hope that their there is no knee-jerk reaction from SI regarding this. As I and probably other use positional training, not to exploit but to improve players. Apart from the fact that you get players who cover several positions within your chosen formation.

It also stands to reason that if you have a player who plays MC (right footed) and you retraining him to AMR. There should be a benefit as he gains skills, knowledge and experience of playing in different position. Which he can then use in his main position. Thus making him a better player then one who has the same ability/potential but lacks the gained skills, knowledge and experience.

THe problem is if that MC is fast, good at crossing and dribbling re-training him to AMR will likely make him worse.

Oh, and I don't know if they already added re-training feature to FML or not but if they did it's a quite a game breaking bug. If there is no re-training yet that feature might be postponed now for a lquite long time and it's a quiote needed feature.

[Majkee]

I gave a better example in data forum.

AML with 20right-19left foot will be much worse than AML with 20left-19right foot when they have the same CA.

Basically those with the same skills should perform equally but the second one will have a higher CA by 9.

That thing you highlighted with this thread is really a bug. If more positions just costed some CA like two-footednes it would've been not a bug but just a developers decision(bad one IMO).

But now it's quite random now, a player can become worse and can become better just by having/learning different positions.

IMHO this has to be recoded by SI, I mean whole area of this issue. As I have mentioned earlier, I believe that the proper solution can be invented.

[outlander]

IMHO this has to be recoded by SI, I mean whole area of this issue. As I have mentioned earlier, I believe that the proper solution can be invented.

I hope this too. I think noone here is saying that it's a great bug and how the hell the testers missed it. No emregency fix is required but I personally just hope that it get noticed by SI cos most of those who post here don't understand the problem and think that it's ok as it is unless you cheat with an editor.

[Majkee]

I hope this too. I think noone here is saying that it's a great bug and how the hell the testers missed it. No emregency fix is required but I personally just hope that it get noticed by SI cos most of those who post here don't understand the problem and think that it's ok as it is unless you cheat with an editor.

You have convinced me too but I understand it now well.

[Mitja]

AML with 20right-19left foot will be much worse than AML with 20left-19right foot when they have the same CA.

that's crazyness if it's true.

[Schotsmannetje]

In my humble opinion, if the above is true, SI really have to reconstruct the attributes system, because that would just be silly. And that's putting it mildly.

[Hamenaglar]

I personally think that weighting attributes differently for different positions is a no, no. Why should striker improve his tackling easier than a defender?

[bigdunk]

I personally think that weighting attributes differently for different positions is a no, no. Why should striker improve his tackling easier than a defender?

So you are happy that two otherwise identical strikers, one finishing 20 tackling 1, the other finishing 1 tackling 20 have the same CA? Because that's what removing the attribute weighting system would mean.

[Majkee]

So you are happy that two otherwise identical strikers, one finishing 20 tackling 1, the other finishing 1 tackling 20 have the same CA? Because that's what removing the attribute weighting system would mean.

It could be. Yes they are same in case of CA, but this striker with FIN 1 should be a CD instead lasting as ST. The match engine is counting not CA but attributes (as agreed before in this thread), so in comparison, better striker is the first player with FIN 20, but better defender is the second striker. Retraining him up to DC must not involve less-expensive gaining of ST attributes in training. That is the issue.

[stevie_G_32201]

i must have read this thread at least 5 times but im still confused by it. how exactly does it work?

you retrain a striker to a DC and his ca would drop because a strikers defensive stats would be worth less to him and the st stats would be worth less as his positional stats would be equal at this point.

you then keep him on his attacking training and his attacking stats would raise faster?

its all confused me

[Majkee]

What is the main reason for attribute weighting system?

Has this system a valid background or purpose?

[bigdunk]

It could be. Yes they are same in case of CA, but this striker with FIN 1 should be a CD instead lasting as ST. The match engine is counting not CA but attributes (as agreed before in this thread), so in comparison, better striker is the first player with FIN 20, but better defender is the second striker. Retraining him up to DC must not involve less-expensive gaining of ST attributes in training. That is the issue.

Forget about retraining him for a minute. If you agree that the player with finishing 20 is a better striker, then surely he must have a higher CA, otherwise what is the point of CA at all?

[Schotsmannetje]

i must have read this thread at least 5 times but im still confused by it. how exactly does it work?

you retrain a striker to a DC and his ca would drop because a strikers defensive stats would be worth less to him and the st stats would be worth less as his positional stats would be equal at this point.

you then keep him on his attacking training and his attacking stats would raise faster?

its all confused me

If I understood it correctly, it basically means that if you have a striker that has reached his maximum potential, and therefore will not develope his attributes anymore, and you make him train for a new position (like DC), but still give him attacking and shooting training, his attacking and shooting attributes like passing and finishing will suddenly increase again as the new position he trains for will make more slots available for PA. Whether he does defensive training or attacking training, doesn't matter.

And this is, in my opinion, not very logical.

[Majkee]

Forget about retraining him for a minute. If you agree that the player with finishing 20 is a better striker, then surely he must have a higher CA, otherwise what is the point of CA at all?

bigdunk, see post #122

As we have discussed it earlier, this is additional info to yours one. For me, why bigger CA for that striker? CA is not related to the position of player, it is related to attributes. I can not see the reason why ST with FIN 20 and TAC 1 should have bigger CA as that one striker with FIN 1 and TAC 20. So send him to the pitch to play as a good DC instead of ST.

Yes of course due to attribute weighting. That is why I am asking about it. What is the purpose of attribute weighting?

[stevie_G_32201]

If I understood it correctly, it basically means that if you have a striker that has reached his maximum potential, and therefore will not develope his attributes anymore, and you make him train for a new position (like DC), but still give him attacking and shooting training, his attacking and shooting attributes like passing and finishing will suddenly increase again as the new position he trains for will make more slots available for PA. Whether he does defensive training or attacking training, doesn't matter.

And this is, in my opinion, not very logical.

i think i see what he means now. seems like a bug that needs fixing imo. this could be very easily flawed and taken advantage of if you know what you are doing.

[jayahr]

that's crazyness if it's true.

From what I've read so far I'd say it's not true though.

[Majkee]

If I understood it correctly, it basically means that if you have a striker that has reached his maximum potential, and therefore will not develope his attributes anymore, and you make him train for a new position (like DC), but still give him attacking and shooting training, his attacking and shooting attributes like passing and finishing will suddenly increase again as the new position he trains for will make more slots available for PA. Whether he does defensive training or attacking training, doesn't matter.

And this is, in my opinion, not very logical.

Not exactly. If you retrain ST to DC, his CA will be recounted based on weights of attributes, CA may decrease, but you can gain additional striker attributes less-expensive in the gain of CA (before retraining: e.g. 1 FIN attribute point cost e.g. 2 CA points and after retraining: e.g. 1 FIN attribute point will cost only e.g. 1 point of CA).

Yes, it is illogical.

[Ljuba82]

I gave a better example in data forum.

AML with 20right-19left foot will be much worse than AML with 20left-19right foot when they have the same CA.

Basically those with the same skills should perform equally but the second one will have a higher CA by 9.

That thing you highlighted with this thread is really a bug. If more positions just costed some CA like two-footednes it would've been not a bug but just a developers decision(bad one IMO).

But now it's quite random now, a player can become worse and can become better just by having/learning different positions.

I just checked...and to be honest...the more I'm checking the more I'm confused I found new things, everything is much deeper, cause I find something that I can't explain...

...but finnaly I think I managed to get out of this...

....read carefully...cause I think that this is even more complicated than it was earlier...

...AML with 20 right foot, 19 left will have 5 CA pts more than AML with 20 left, 19 right if all other attributes are same. It's logic cause right footed AML has 19 pts in left foot * 15.00 weight point for left foot, while left footed AML has 19 pts in right foot * 6.00 weight points for right foot.

So...that means that left footed AML will have aditional 5 CA point to add to his other attributes...and that he will be infact better player when you add him that 5 CA points and when theirs CA equalise.

...but look now what happens...

...if you have AML with 20 right foot, 1 left, and AML with 20 left foot, 1right...results ARE TOTALLY OPPOSITE.

Left footed AML have around 15 CA more points than right footed AML, so that means that this time right footed AML will be better when you add him that 15 pts of CA to other att!!!!

And if you look logicaly it can happen, cause right footed player losses 18 positional point (from 19 to 1) * 15..00 weight point for weaker, left foot, while left footed AML lost only 18 positional pts * 6.00 weight positional points for weaker, right foot.

So in first case left footed AML was better player , while in second right footed AML was better (much, much better).

...next aproach is to find where player are same, cause if in one extreme 1st player is better and in other extreme second player is better, there must be point where they are equal. And I found that that's the case when bout players have weaker foot rating of 15!!!

This is getting more and more interesting...I think thta we just discovered new bug!!!

[bigdunk]

bigdunk, see post #122

As we have discussed it earlier, this is additional info to yours one. For me, why bigger CA for that striker? CA is not related to the position of player, it is related to attributes. I can not see the reason why ST with FIN 20 and TAC 1 should have bigger CA as that one striker with FIN 1 and TAC 20. So send him to the pitch to play as a good DC instead of ST.

Yes of course due to attribute weighting. That is why I am asking about it. What is the purpose of attribute weighting?

If you really can't see that a striker with 20 finishing is better than a striker with 1 finishing then there's no hope. And probably no point even carrying on this argument.

[Majkee]

I just checked...and to be honest...the more I'm checking the more I'm confused I found new things, everything is much deeper, cause I find something that I can't explain...

...but finnaly I think I managed to get out of this...

....read carefully...cause I think that this is even more complicated than it was earlier...

...AML with 20 right foot, 19 left will have 5 CA pts more than AML with 20 left, 19 right if all other attributes are same. It's logic cause right footed AML has 19 pts in left foot * 15.00 weight point for left foot, while left footed AML has 19 pts in right foot * 6.00 weight points for right foot.

So...that means that left footed AML will have aditional 5 CA point to add to his other attributes...and that he will be infact better player when you add him that 5 CA points and when theirs CA equalise.

...but look now what happens...

...if you have AML with 20 right foot, 1 left, and AML with 20 left foot, 1right...results ARE TOTALLY OPPOSITE.

Left footed AML have around 15 CA more points than right footed AML, so that means that this time right footed AML will be better when you add him that 15 pts of CA to other att!!!!

And if you look logicaly it can happen, cause right footed player losses 18 positional point (from 19 to 1) * 15..00 weight point for weaker, left foot, while left footed AML lost only 18 positional pts * 6.00 weight positional points for weaker, right foot.

So in first case left footed AML was better player , while in second right footed AML was better (much, much better).

...next aproach is to find where player are same, cause if in one extreme 1st player is better and in other extreme second player is better, there must be point where they are equal. And I found that that's the case when bout players have weaker foot rating of 15!!!

This is getting more and more interesting...I think thta we just discovered new bug!!!

Ljuba, I am lost now I will try to read your post again

[stevie_G_32201]

ive been lost from the begining...its all too much! *explodes*

[Majkee]

If you really can't see that a striker with 20 finishing is better than a striker with 1 finishing then there's no hope. And probably no point even carrying on this argument.

Oups, misunderstanding between us.

We were talking about CA and not about who is better player as STRIKER. These are two completely different things and approaches.

[Schotsmannetje]

Not exactly. If you retrain ST to DC, his CA will be recounted based on weights of attributes, CA may decrease, but you can gain additional striker attributes less-expensive in the gain of CA (before retraining: e.g. 1 FIN attribute point cost e.g. 2 CA points and after retraining: e.g. 1 FIN attribute point will cost only e.g. 1 point of CA).

Yes, it is illogical.

Okay, so basically I was right about the increase of the attributes but wrong about the way retraining influences your CA and PA?

EDIT: never mind that's even wrong. I get it now though.