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

[bigdunk]

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!!!

I'm not sure that's a bug as such. What the game is saying, is that a left footed AML is more effective playing left wing, presumably because he doesn't have to cut back in to cross the ball. So an equivalent CA right footed AML can have slightly higher attributes elsewhere and be considered as good, because the fact he has to cut back is offset by his slightly better attributes. Obviously the better his weak foot is, the less high the other attributes need to be to balance up that offset. If that makes sense.

[stevie_G_32201]

it makes a little sense in theory but i still dont get the thread tbh

[bigdunk]

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.

They're not though. CA is a measure of how good a player is, but that has to be in terms of his position. You couldn't take a CA 150 player, leave everything unchanged but completely change his position and still expect him to be a CA 150 player. It just doesn't make sense to do that.

[jayahr]

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!!!

I'm cautious because if we kept footedness out of this, we have a good and logical point from which SI can start their inquiries.

Also, any AML who is left-footed should obviously be better than a right-footed AML with the same attributes, because the left foot suits his position. The right-footed one would have to have significantly better other attributes to be considered the same quality as an AML. So right, Í would expect the left-footed one to have the higher CA if I checked the attributes frist and CA thereafter.

What surprises me is this:

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.

This is illogical to me. The 20 right, 19 left should be worse because left costs more than right, true? Then 20 left + 19 right should cost more than 19 left + 20 right. With all other attributes the same I would expect the 20 left one to have a higher CA. Are you a 100% that the quoted observation is true? Could you re-check?

[VMX]

Ohh, I've been reading through all of this and I'm not sure everyone got it right yet... I'll try to keep it simple:

Imagine you have a striker that has reached his max potential and can't improve his attributes anymore (CA=PA). Then you just retrain him as a DC (please note: POSITIONAL RETRAINING. Nothing to do with his regular training schedule).

Once he has been well retrained as a DC (a rating of 11 seems to be enough, according to Ljuba82), his CA will magically drop, BUT HIS ATTRIBUTES WON'T.

This means that he'll now have new additional points to IMPROVE HIS ATTRIBUTES (because his CA is currently below his PA), so he can keep improving his finishing, long shots, etc. and thus become a much better striker. Only because he learned to play in a new position that's he's NEVER going to use!

The only condition for this to work, is that his defensive attributes are low. Otherwise, once he learns his new DC position, his high defensive attributes would take up many of his CA points, and then his CA might not drop so significantly. Or it could even happen the other way around:

If you retrain him to play in a new position and he already has good attributes to play in that new position (which is something very common)... his CA could go ABOVE his PA, and the game would gradually correct this by lowering his attributes... so your player attributes would get worse than before, just because he learned a new position.

Congratulations to Ljuba82 for finding this out, I think it's really good to know it. I'll think twice now before retraining a player to a new position that he might be good at. I'll probably not want to decrease his attributes.

[Majkee]

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

I think that PA is static constant defined when the player is generated. This is the potential max value of future CA.

Retraining does recounting the CA and if you retrain opposite positions like ST to DC or DC to ST you can gain advantage to gain KEY attributes for preffered position less-expansive as it were without retraining.

[stevie_G_32201]

that explained it a lot better thanks VMX.

[Schotsmannetje]

Apparently I was close, but not close enough.

I'm glad though that SI has already said that they will look into this.

[jayahr]

The only condition for this to work, is that his defensive attributes are low. Otherwise, once he learns his new DC position, his high defensive attributes would take up many of his CA points, and then he might not get as many free points to spend anymore.

Keep in mind this could also happen the other way around: if you retrain him to play in a new position and he already has good attributes to play in that new position (which is something very common)... his CA could go ABOVE his PA, and the game would gradually correct this by lowering his attributes... so your player attributes would get worse than before, just because he learned a new position.

Exactly.

[stevie_G_32201]

this is one of the most interesting topics i have seen in a while a nice find tbh

[Ljuba82]

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.

No, player can't increase his PA and he can't be over his CA, but by retraining him to DC position while keeping his defensive attributes low...in game weightening for attributes will change. That means that his defensive attributes weight will increase while his attacking attribute weight will decrease.

You can calculate CA when you multiple every attribute in game with it's weight and then sum them all.

So...when you multiple defending attributes with weight of those attributes (weight is raising now because of retraining to DC position)...CA of your players will increase.

....BUT, because you also have to multiple his attacking attributes with coresponding weights, because weight of those attributes are decresing your CA will decrease.

...and because defending attributes are LOW and attacking are HIGH, decrease of CA will be bigger than increase, and your "real CA" will be smaller than his CA.

But in game real CA have to be same with CA, and that means that game will automaticaly increase all player attributes to reflect his CA.

So that means that once when your player reach some level of positional training for DC, his attributes will just immediately rise, even his CA is same.

[wwfcbrad]

thats zlatan ibrahimovic with modified attributes

[jayahr]

thats zlatan ibrahimovic with modified attributes

Correct The OP admits that

If you bothered to read through the whole thread, you will find out what the thread is about and that it is a very interesting issue and read.

[Majkee]

They're not though. CA is a measure of how good a player is, but that has to be in terms of his position. You couldn't take a CA 150 player, leave everything unchanged but completely change his position and still expect him to be a CA 150 player. It just doesn't make sense to do that.

We should agree that CA 150 is the general measure for player attributes. But if your CA=150 is for natural position ST, you have CA=150 if you play in that position, every other position degrades your CA under 150.

We were talking about:

1. principle: same CA for two strikers

2. principle: 1. striker FIN 20 TAC 1

3. principle: 2. striker FIN 1 TAC 20

We were arguing about:

1. Who is better STRIKER? I can say - the 1. striker (FIN 20 vs. FIN 1)

2. Who is better player? I can say - both are the same in CA point of view (150 vs. 150).

3. Who is better defender? I can say the 2. striker (TAC 1 vs. TAC 20)

Conclusion? Retrain second striker to DC to take full advantages. That is all. Agreed?

[bigdunk]

Once he has been well retrained as a DC (a rating of 11 seems to be enough, according to Ljuba82), his CA will magically drop, BUT HIS ATTRIBUTES WON'T.

Are you 100% sure that his actual in game CA will drop? I've just reread Lubja's original posts and he doesn't mention this.

Lubja, one small request, can you be really clear when you mention your calculated CAs as opposed to the players actual CA, as I think this is confusing some people. Can you call it theoretical CA, or something?

[bigdunk]

We should agree that CA 150 is the general measure for player attributes. But if your CA=150 is for natural position ST, you have CA=150 if you play in that position, every other position degrades your CA under 150.

We were talking about:

1. principle: same CA for two strikers

2. principle: 1. striker FIN 20 TAC 1

3. principle: 2. striker FIN 1 TAC 20

We were arguing about:

1. Who is better STRIKER? I can say - the 1. striker (FIN 20 vs. FIN 1)

2. Who is better player? I can say - both are the same in CA point of view (150 vs. 150).

3. Who is better defender? I can say the 2. striker (TAC 1 vs. TAC 20)

Conclusion? Retrain second striker to DC to take full advantages. That is all. Agreed?

You're sidestepping the question again though - forget the retraining stuff. CA is how good the player is now, not how good he could be if you retrained him. And CA is not a general measure for player attributes, it is an overall measure of how good the player is, factoring in position, attributes, footedness etc.

[jayahr]

Are you 100% sure that his actual in game CA will drop? I've just reread Lubja's original posts and he doesn't mention this.

Lubja, one small request, can you be really clear when you mention your calculated CAs as opposed to the players actual CA, as I think this is confusing some people. Can you call it theoretical CA, or something?

Actually I would rather expect the attributes to rise to maintain the level given by the CA which should remain the same.

[Majkee]

Are you 100% sure that his actual in game CA will drop? I've just reread Lubja's original posts and he doesn't mention this.

Lubja, one small request, can you be really clear when you mention your calculated CAs as opposed to the players actual CA, as I think this is confusing some people. Can you call it theoretical CA, or something?

If we take in mind attributes weighting, CA after retraining must be different to CA before retraining as CA is counted from the attribute values (as we have been discussing it earlier).

[bigdunk]

Actually I would rather expect the attributes to rise to maintain the level given by the CA which should remain the same.

Yeah, that's what I would expect too. With them gradually changing as the player becomes more proficient in his new position. I would possibly expect some attributes to go down too.

[TeeWee]

So, what I think you're saying is, is the following:

I'm taking Finishing and Tackling as my two example attributes; generalizing this to the entire attribute system is left as an exercise to the reader.

For a Striker every point of finishing will be worth e.g. 10 CA points, and every point of Tackling only 1.

For a DC, every point of finishing will be worth 1 CA point, and every point of Tackling 10.

Now, what happens when you retrain a 20 Finishing, 1 Tackling Striker to be a DC?

He starts out having 201 CA (20 * 10 for finishing, 1 for Tackling). But now that he's both a Striker and a DC, you're saying his CA drops! The explanation given is that the CA-cost for each attribute is the average for each position. Thus:

Finishing: average CA cost per point is 5.5. Same for Tackling.

Now the CA of this player is 20 * 5.5 + 1 * 5.5 = 115.5 CA.

This clearly is ridiculous.

What should be happening IMHO is that each attribute should not cost the average over all the position, but the maximum over all the positions! That is, Finishing should cost 10 CA per point (for the Striker), and Tackling too! So, this player now has:

20 * 10 + 1 * 10 = 210 CA! Much more logical. The value of Finishing hasn't decreased for our player, but the value for tackling has increased.

This makes retraining for different positions cost much more in terms of CA points though and needs some additional ironing for it to work, like weighting for the proficiency in which the player can play in the given position...

[bigdunk]

If we take in mind attributes weighting, CA after retraining must be different to CA before retraining as CA is counted from the attribute values (as we have been discussing it earlier).

No, it should be (and I'm pretty sure is) the other way around. CA remains constant, and the attributes change to balance out with the players new positions.

[Hamenaglar]

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.

Assuming finishing and tackling weigh the same. Yes. I'd simply decide to retrain such striker as a defender od defensive midfielder, because he is obviously better suited to that role.

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?

better striker yes. Better player, no.

[bigdunk]

So, what I think you're saying is, is the following:

I'm taking Finishing and Tackling as my two example attributes; generalizing this to the entire attribute system is left as an exercise to the reader.

For a Striker every point of finishing will be worth e.g. 10 CA points, and every point of Tackling only 1.

For a DC, every point of finishing will be worth 1 CA point, and every point of Tackling 10.

Now, what happens when you retrain a 20 Finishing, 1 Tackling Striker to be a DC?

He starts out having 201 CA (20 * 10 for finishing, 1 for Tackling). But now that he's both a Striker and a DC, you're saying his CA drops! The explanation given is that the CA-cost for each attribute is the average for each position. Thus:

Finishing: average CA cost per point is 5.5. Same for Tackling.

Now the CA of this player is 20 * 5.5 + 1 * 5.5 = 115.5 CA.

This clearly is ridiculous.

What should be happening IMHO is that each attribute should not cost the average over all the position, but the maximum over all the positions! That is, Finishing should cost 10 CA per point (for the Striker), and Tackling too! So, this player now has:

20 * 10 + 1 * 10 = 210 CA! Much more logical. The value of Finishing hasn't decreased for our player, but the value for tackling has increased.

This makes retraining for different positions cost much more in terms of CA points though and needs some additional ironing for it to work, like weighting for the proficiency in which the player can play in the given position...

In theory I agree, but you would soon get to the stage where players with more than a couple of positions, especially those with fairly different positions (e.g. D/WB/AM Rs), have so many highly weighted attibutes than they have no room in their CA to have high values in these attributes, and so would be automatically awful players, just because of their multiple positions.

[Majkee]

You're sidestepping the question again though - forget the retraining stuff. CA is how good the player is now, not how good he could be if you retrained him. And CA is not a general measure for player attributes, it is an overall measure of how good the player is, factoring in position, attributes, footedness etc.

I agree with you, in that case of two natural strikers with different finishing, the CA of first one will be higher (FIN 20). I think that we were discussing players with the exact same CA. But this should be done also without attributes weighting. See my reaction in post #138 as I was reacting on attr weighting removal.

Sorry about misunderstanding.

So again, what do you think is the purpose of attributes weighting for positions?

[Ljuba82]

This is illogical to me. The 20 right, 19 left should be worse because left costs more than right, true? Then 20 left + 19 right should cost more than 19 left + 20 right. With all other attributes the same I would expect the 20 left one to have a higher CA. Are you a 100% that the quoted observation is true? Could you re-check?

Yes I also think these are 2 separate things and that 2 footednes should be kept away from this...

But I do believe that we found a new bug...just because that it's illogical to me also...but it just is exactly like I described.

Yes, I tested it several times.

First time when I tested I just thought that in one situation 1st player is better by 5 CA points, while in other that same player is better by 15 CA points...but then I tested again and see that it's just the opposite...

example:

...all other attributes are same.

AML with right foot 20, left 19...........179 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 19............174 CA

AML with right foot 20, left 1..............145 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 1..............160 CA

AML with right foot 20, left 15.............172 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 15.............171 CA

Ohh, I've been reading through all of this and I'm not sure everyone got it right yet... I'll try to keep it simple:

Imagine you have a striker that has reached his max potential and can't improve his attributes anymore (CA=PA). Then you just retrain him as a DC (please note: POSITIONAL RETRAINING. Nothing to do with his regular training schedule).

Once he has been well retrained as a DC (a rating of 11 seems to be enough, according to Ljuba82), his CA will magically drop, BUT HIS ATTRIBUTES WON'T.

This means that he'll now have new additional points to IMPROVE HIS ATTRIBUTES (because his CA is currently below his PA), so he can keep improving his finishing, long shots, etc. and thus become a much better striker. Only because he learned to play in a new position that's he's NEVER going to use!

The only condition for this to work, is that his defensive attributes are low. Otherwise, once he learns his new DC position, his high defensive attributes would take up many of his CA points, and then his CA might not drop so significantly. Or it could even happen the other way around:

If you retrain him to play in a new position and he already has good attributes to play in that new position (which is something very common)... his CA could go ABOVE his PA, and the game would gradually correct this by lowering his attributes... so your player attributes would get worse than before, just because he learned a new position.

Congratulations to Ljuba82 for finding this out, I think it's really good to know it. I'll think twice now before retraining a player to a new position that he might be good at. I'll probably not want to decrease his attributes.

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO...you made this complicated stuff to look easy.

Bravo again and thank you, cause I think that if I have to explain it one more time I would shoot myself

[Majkee]

Ohh, I've been reading through all of this and I'm not sure everyone got it right yet... I'll try to keep it simple:

Imagine you have a striker that has reached his max potential and can't improve his attributes anymore (CA=PA). Then you just retrain him as a DC (please note: POSITIONAL RETRAINING. Nothing to do with his regular training schedule).

Once he has been well retrained as a DC (a rating of 11 seems to be enough, according to Ljuba82), his CA will magically drop, BUT HIS ATTRIBUTES WON'T.

This means that he'll now have new additional points to IMPROVE HIS ATTRIBUTES (because his CA is currently below his PA), so he can keep improving his finishing, long shots, etc. and thus become a much better striker. Only because he learned to play in a new position that's he's NEVER going to use!

The only condition for this to work, is that his defensive attributes are low. Otherwise, once he learns his new DC position, his high defensive attributes would take up many of his CA points, and then his CA might not drop so significantly. Or it could even happen the other way around:

If you retrain him to play in a new position and he already has good attributes to play in that new position (which is something very common)... his CA could go ABOVE his PA, and the game would gradually correct this by lowering his attributes... so your player attributes would get worse than before, just because he learned a new position.

Congratulations to Ljuba82 for finding this out, I think it's really good to know it. I'll think twice now before retraining a player to a new position that he might be good at. I'll probably not want to decrease his attributes.

Perfect explanation.

[jayahr]

Perfect explanation.

With one reservation now, as we would not expect the CA to magically drop but attribute points to be magically awarded, right? Has that been tested by anyone yet?

[jayahr]

Yes I also think these are 2 separate things and that 2 footednes should be kept away from this...

But I do believe that we found a new bug...just because that it's illogical to me also...but it just is exactly like I described.

Yes, I tested it several times.

First time when I tested I just thought that in one situation 1st player is better by 5 CA points, while in other that same player is better by 15 CA points...but then I tested again and see that it's just the opposite...

example:

...all other attributes are same.

AML with right foot 20, left 19...........179 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 19............174 CA

AML with right foot 20, left 1..............145 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 1..............160 CA

AML with right foot 20, left 15.............172 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 15.............171 CA

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO...you made this complicated stuff to look easy.

Bravo again and thank you, cause I think that if I have to explain it one more time I would shoot myself

This observation just puzzles me. I hereby declare my outright refusal to think about this ever again

[Majkee]

example:

...all other attributes are same.

AML with right foot 20, left 19...........179 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 19............174 CA

AML with right foot 20, left 1..............145 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 1..............160 CA

AML with right foot 20, left 15.............172 CA

AML with left foot 20, right 15.............171 CA

This is strange.

It seems that SI's coefficients are wrong for footydness CA calculation.

[jayahr]

So again, what do you think is the purpose of attributes weighting for positions?

I don't know if you have played older versions as well? Back then we had players with an attribute average of 17.x if they had a CA of nearly 200 (the drop was for the attributes which are not related to CA). In that time, for example in CM00/01 my personal assessment of a player was a simple addition of his attributes. To make it easier I took 10 as a default and than added 1+7+5 for 11, 17, 15 and so on. If I reached at a final figure of 150+ it was a world class player which I would buy, otherwise he would go down on my list of potential signings.

That was onviously unrealistic. And imho this was the very point we needed to get rid of and we did by weighing attributes. This results in way more realistic player attributes and at the same time allows for allrounders (in terms of attributes) and specialists, like a striker who is quick but can't head to save his life, while both may be of comparable overall quality in effect. That was not possible before either.

Seeing this as the result of attribute weighing, I confess to be a strong supporter of that.

This is the very point why I am so afraid that getting rid of the issue in here might make us lose the effect of attribute weighing again. Even if that was lost only to an extent, I would be happier to live with the issue mentioned in here than with any comeback of the ridiculous allround-perfects we had back then.

Imho this however IS a serious problem for FML! There indeed the issue is potentially massive if exploited by some. My private save at home, nor even my network game with two of my mates (who will not read this) will not be affected.

[Ljuba82]

Yeah, that's what I would expect too. With them gradually changing as the player becomes more proficient in his new position. I would possibly expect some attributes to go down too.

If we take in mind attributes weighting, CA after retraining must be different to CA before retraining as CA is counted from the attribute values (as we have been discussing it earlier).

CA is always same.

Are you 100% sure that his actual in game CA will drop? I've just reread Lubja's original posts and he doesn't mention this.

Lubja, one small request, can you be really clear when you mention your calculated CAs as opposed to the players actual CA, as I think this is confusing some people. Can you call it theoretical CA, or something?

His CA will not drop, it has to stay same all the time.

Only thing what will drop is his...let's name it "REAL CA"

...so....all attributes have to immediately rise in purpose to increase his "REAL CA" to be equal with his CA.

No, it should be (and I'm pretty sure is) the other way around. CA remains constant, and the attributes change to balance out with the players new positions.

Agree

In theory I agree, but you would soon get to the stage where players with more than a couple of positions, especially those with fairly different positions (e.g. D/WB/AM Rs), have so many highly weighted attibutes than they have no room in their CA to have high values in these attributes, and so would be automatically awful players, just because of their multiple positions.

Agree once agian, highly versatile player in RL who can play on several position will have too much handicapp!

[Ljuba82]

With one reservation now, as we would not expect the CA to magically drop but attribute points to be magically awarded, right? Has that been tested by anyone yet?

Yes, not CA drop, it's more drop of something that we can call REAL CA,

and because CA can't drop, REAL CA have to rise by increasing attributes.

This observation just puzzles me. I hereby declare my outright refusal to think about this ever again

If you just could see me...walking through my room thinking about it, trying to find logical explanation

[Majkee]

CA is always same.

His CA will not drop, it has to stay same all the time.

Only thing what will drop is his...let's name it "REAL CA"

...so....all attributes have to immediately rise in purpose to increase his "REAL CA" to be equal with his CA.

Agree

Agree once agian, highly versatile player in RL who can play on several position will have too much handicapp!

I will be back tomorrow. Interesting thread. Very interesting.

[Majkee]

His CA will not drop, it has to stay same all the time.

Only thing what will drop is his...let's name it "REAL CA"

...so....all attributes have to immediately rise in purpose to increase his "REAL CA" to be equal with his CA.

What do you mean by "REAL CA"? I am lost now completely, I will be thinking about it

[jayahr]

What do you mean by "REAL CA"? I am lost now completely, I will be thinking about it

Don't worry about it.

If I get it right the REAL CA only exist for a logical second, just to vanish again after the attributes have been adjusted.

[Ljuba82]

Don't worry about it.

If I get it right the REAL CA only exist for a logical second, just to vanish again after the attributes have been adjusted.

exactly...

...it's just abstract thing that show you how much you can increase attributes if you have room for that

Forget about it

[VMX]

BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO...you made this complicated stuff to look easy.

Bravo again and thank you, cause I think that if I have to explain it one more time I would shoot myself

Thank you

I know it's hard to make oneself understood when English is not your first language (I'm Spanish so it happens to me sometimes).

I have some ideas about how to correct this, but I'll post them later if I can.

[bigdunk]

Ljuba, this research tool you are using, is it something official (i.e. made by SI), or is it something made by someone else? I just want to know whether we can 100% trust the results you are getting.

[Ljuba82]

Ljuba, this research tool you are using, is it something official (i.e. made by SI), or is it something made by someone else? I just want to know whether we can 100% trust the results you are getting.

Don't ask me how...I think it's real stuff...cause one of my screenshot has been deleted by moderators few days ago...so I will not post screenshots from research tool.

Anyway no matter what program you are using, scouts or modifiers, they are pretty accurate.

CA/PA is CA/PA for all editors, they are same for all editors and even if there are errors they are significatly low (below 1 %).

[bigdunk]

Right, it sounds like the researchers minieditor then, in which case your results are probably fine. I just wanted to be sure, even errors of 1% or so could be significant when you're only talking about a few CA points difference in some cases and if it was an unofficial editor, the attribute weightings would probably be at best educated guesses.

[bigdunk]

I agree with you, in that case of two natural strikers with different finishing, the CA of first one will be higher (FIN 20). I think that we were discussing players with the exact same CA. But this should be done also without attributes weighting. See my reaction in post #138 as I was reacting on attr weighting removal.

Sorry about misunderstanding.

So again, what do you think is the purpose of attributes weighting for positions?

The purpose of attribute weighting, is to ensure that any two players with the same CA, are as good as each other. Obviously the two players can have completely different attributes, play in completely different positions and so on, but by weighting each attribute you ensure that they are as good as each other if they have the same CA. The attributes that make a world class winger are different to those that make a world class defender and so on, so the weightings ensure that the players are judged more on what's more important for thier position.

[Hamenaglar]

The purpose of attribute weighting, is to ensure that any two players with the same CA, are as good as each other. Obviously the two players can have completely different attributes, play in completely different positions and so on, but by weighting each attribute you ensure that they are as good as each other if they have the same CA. The attributes that make a world class winger are different to those that make a world class defender and so on, so the weightings ensure that the players are judged more on what's more important for thier position.

But why should a striker have an easier time learning tackling than a defender. It's not realistic.

[bigdunk]

But why should a striker have an easier time learning tackling than a defender. It's not realistic.

That's the only element of this system that's remotely unrealistic, and it alone is no reason to drop the whole system. Having unweighted attributes is far more unrealistic across the board.

[killakwa]

WOW i read this entire thread, amazing stuff.

[VMX]

Ok, I'll tell you what I believe that should be changed in the CA calculations to solve the flaws it currently has, and also to make it more realistic than it currently is. It's a bit long, but only because I wanted to make it clear, as the concept itself is really simple. Here it goes:

From my point of view, the player's CA should be related only to one of his positions: the one he's currently best at judging by his attributes + his positional ability.

And what about his PA? Well, the only way to reach his full PA should be to play him at his best potential position, even if that requires retraining the player to it. After all, that's how it works in real life, and that's one of the most important tasks of real managers: finding the best position for each of his players.

So how could this be achieved? I think there should be a multiplier (from 0 to 1) used to calculate the CA for each position, which depends on how good a player can play in that position. This means:

If a player position ability for a given position is 20 ("natural") ----> things are multiplied by 1 when calculating his CA for that position.

...

If a player position ability for a given position is 15 ("accomplished") ----> things are multilpied by 0.75

...

If a player position ability for a given position is 10 ("unconvincing") ----> things are multiplied by 0.5

...

like that down to 0 or 0.1 for an ability of 1 ("awkward").

Example 1:

You have a player whose best position is striker (he has 20 at it). He can't play at any other positions, so there are no doubts here: each of his attributes should be multiplied by its corresponding ST weighting (just like it works now), and that number should be multiplied by 1. That's his CA. So things remain unchanged in this case.

Example 2:

You have a player who has a rating of 20 to play as ST and a rating of 15 to play as AMC.

You first obtain his CA as usual, multiplying his attributes by the ST weighting. And you get, say, 160. That's his ability to play as ST.

Then you obtain his CA to play as AMC, multiplying his attributes by the AMC weighting, and multiply them by 0.75, because he has a rating of 15 for AMC. The resulting number is his ability to play as an AMC.

If the result is, for example, 150 then his ST ability (which was 160) is still better, so the ST number is still used as CA and everything remains the same.

But if the result is that his AMC ability is, for example, 170, then his AMC ability is higher than his ST ability (160). In this case, the AMC ability is used as his CA, even though he can still improve at the AMC position to reach a rating of 20, which would improve his CA further. However, it's down to the manager ability to find which position the player is best at (judging by his attributes), and to train him to play at that position.

What if I use the old trick to retrain a ST as a DC?

So what would happen if you have a striker and retrain him to play as DC (which produces a bug in the current FM system)? Well, with this system, his low attributes at the DC position would produce a very low CA value, thus it wouldn't be taken into account and the weighting used to calculate his CA would still be the one for the ST position.

And what if I never find the best position for one of my players?

If a player's natural position is NOT the best one for him (due to his attributes) but you never retrain him to his best position, his attributes would increase as natural, but his CA would never reach his PA. So you would look at his attributes and you would see that the guy is great, but he would still make poor performances because his attributes don't suit him to play any better at his current position.

However, if you started retraining him to his best position, his CA would start to increase (being multiplyed by 0.2, then 0.3, then 0.4...) just at the same pace that he learns his new position. And in the end he would reach his full potential.

This would make it possible to see things such as the typical real life player who, despite being great both technically and mentally, for some reason doesn't perform well at a given team.

Then another team signs him for a cheap price and the new manager finds a position in which he is better, thus making him become a great player despite having paid a relatively low price because his previous manager didn't know how to make the most out of him.

This way, a player with great MC attributes but who can only play as AMC, will only be able to reach a CA which is close to his full potential (because the MC and AMC positions are similar, and so is his attribute weighting), but he would never be able to reach his full PA unless he gets retrained to the AMC position.

What do you think?

[Hamenaglar]

That's the only element of this system that's remotely unrealistic, and it alone is no reason to drop the whole system. Having unweighted attributes is far more unrealistic across the board.

No not unweighted. Concentration surely means more than Corner taking, however attributes shouldn't be weighted according to positions because that isn't realistic.

[Ljuba82]

First of all I have to say that current system of player abilities on pitch are very similar ,like you described...

...so...you have player attributes that are weighted differently for every position + player gets penalty for every point he is away from NATURAL position (so every rating below 20). It will be too harsh to say that he is only 75% of player if his positional rating for that position is 15, but for sure he havs some penalty.

The only difference is that CA is not calculated for every position, so you can, for example, exploit this by increasing attacking attributes of ST because weight of those attributes drops when you retrain him to DC.

If SI implement this what you have told, we wouldn't be able to further increase his attacking attributes cause CA for that ST position is reached.

But that introduce us to new problem. Every player in game has to have pack of CA and PA ratings. He has to have as much CA, PA ratings as there are positions on pitch (cause obviously even if you retrain player to some position where he would have very low positional rating and where he have very big penalty, for example 1, game has to calculate his CA and PA on that position, even it's very low).

So in basic...he has to have exactly 17 different CA/PA ratings (GK, SW, DL, DC, DR, WBL, DM, WBR, ML, MC, MR, AML, AMC, AMR, FL, FC, FR).

And it's not the problem about programmers calculations...it can be done, problem is that researchers would have to give every player 17 different CA/ PA ratings and bearing in ming number of players in DB, it's too complicated.

[lpx88]

I'll start a new game try this whole thing using FMM for convenience sake. Add a few defensive positions to Ronaldo, boost up his attacking attributes. If stats remain after 3 months in game this whole theory is right

[United__FM]

People who are saying this "extra CA boost from being positionally versatile" is an exploit that can be ignored and hence is not a problem are wrong.

First off, good work Ljuba82 in finding this loophole and explaining it quite well.

Players like Ilsinho, Elano, Silva performing extremely well compared to their CA levels makes perfect sense to me now. And such outperformance is the crux of the problem for me.

Elano having DC, DR versatility and Silva having WBL versatility has in effect led to their attacking attribute levels being artificially inflated. So a 1x9 PA Elano and a 1x2 PA Silva are better attackers than their PA-capped CA's indicate on paper.

Having this disjointedness between players ratings and attributes is fundamentally an issue, whether users choose to further exploit it or not. I'm personally not keen on two footedness eating up so much CA either, but I digress.

I've wondered about Elano, Ilsinho, and Silva being beasts in the game. Just didn't quite put two and two together. Again, good work, Ljuba82.

[United__FM]

Oh, I also have a question Ljuba82.

Did you try what editing for the GK position does to outfield players' attributes?

Logically speaking, I'd guess that adding GK versatility should have a huge impact on CA weights.