CGreeson Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I've read a couple of comments recently indicating that 2 footed players tend to perform better than their stats would indicate (or, alternatively, 1 footed players play worse than their stats would indicate), especially in attacking positions. I'm trying to understand how to interpret this and how 2 footed players CA values are impacted. An example I found is MC Hamsik from Napoli vs MC Kuzmanovic from Fiorentina. Looking at the stats, it seems to me that Kuzmanovic is the superior player. Just adding up the scores of their abilities (admittedly far from the best way to compare players) yields something like +31 for Kuzmanovic. Sounds like a massive advantage. Yet when I look up the players' CA values I see that Kuzmanovic has a CA of 152 while Hamsik has a CA of 161. Obviously that's a significant advantage for Hamsik. The wildcard seems to be the strength of their weaker foot. Hamsik is Reasonable while Kuzmanovic is Very Weak. Another example seems to be Tranquillo Barnetta, the 2 footed Swiss winger from Leverkusen. His stats look fairly underwhelming to me, but he has a CA of 153, which is quite strong. The wildcard again seems to be his weaker foot, which in this case is rated as Strong. Does anybody have a good understanding of how the strength of a player's weaker foot plays into their CA value? And with all other things being relatively equal, will a 2 footed player with a higher CA value tend to perform better than a 1 footed player with a lower CA whose general stats appear to be higher? Thanks for your help Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theincrediblehulk Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I had a discussion about this a while back as well. I've always preferred a player with excellent stats even if it means that he's only good with one foot. But it seems that a player whos got 2 strong feet would be just as effective, if not more so. I never really read much into it but in the discussion I had, I was provided with quite a few stats to back that up. Have a read in that thread. Here it is: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=50718 As for the CA's of Kuzmanovic & Hamsik being different, yet Kuzmanovic being a better player, firstly, like you said, the way you counted it is not really a good method. And secondly, there are plenty of hidden stats that would come into play as well which you wont be able to count unelss you see them on Genie Scout or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGreeson Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 Interesting read, thanks Hulk. Unfortunately I'm not sure if it really cleared anything up for me since there doesn't seem to be a consensus. It kind of surprises me that with all the players who spend so much time on the game and in the forums that there aren't definitive answers. I'm not sure if that indicates the programmers did a great job or a poor one since we can't figure out from statistics exactly how the players work... I know what you're saying about hidden stats, and that's one of the reasons I love Genie. Guess I'll just have to keep reading the good player forums to find out who is performing really well for people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welshace Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 to be fair.. the players CA doesnt impact on how he performs .. its just a marker to judge how far along his potential ability is.... a player with CA of 160 doesnt have an advantage over a player with 150 .... that doesnt reflect anything on the player also... two footedness helps just the same in real life also..... being able to pick out the pass/cross/ dribble/ shoot/ side step with both feet could almost, one could argue , double your chances for success in whatever endeavour your attempting this issue is realyl starting to bug me and ca/pa are the devil. and should never have been found out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham_aka_stam Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 CA does influence how the players develop however! A players CA cannot be higher than his PA, so if by having a higher weaker foot he has higher CA, his stats will have a lower limit than someone with a lower weak foot rating Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGreeson Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 to be fair.. the players CA doesnt impact on how he performs .. its just a marker to judge how far along his potential ability is....a player with CA of 160 doesnt have an advantage over a player with 150 .... that doesnt reflect anything on the player Welshace, care to elaborate on this? If CA is just a marker to show how far along he is in his potential ability, it seems to me that it should have just been a scale of 1-100 for everybody. Why would the programmers give someone a really high PA but then make the CA also high if that didn't reflect that he was already a strong player? What I really want to know isn't as much how to interpret CA as it is how much does a strong weaker foot improve player performance vs the numerical stats. But I guess I'm also interested in knowing what CA really means from both a curiosity and editing standpoint. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welshace Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 CA goes from 0-200 ... PA goes from 0-200... PA adds to the game by allowing each player (as irl) to have a top potential... rooney from a young age always had the potential to be great... natural ability, etc etc etc (high pa in game terms) "What I really want to know isn't as much how to interpret CA as it is how much does a strong weaker foot improve player performance vs the numerical stats. But I guess I'm also interested in knowing what CA really means from both a curiosity and editing standpoint. " - I can only speculate on this... but as far as game mechanics go it seems the weaker foot seems to act like a multiplier to the already existing stats... therefore a player taking a difficult pass with a rating of 20 passing (but weak two footedness) is less likely to be successful then a player with 20 passing (but great two footedness). ..... im not aware of this idea thats going around that two footed players seem to have (physically on the game interface) better stats (technical and otherwise) ... cant say ive seen it to be honest... but im sure that the programmers would have made two footedness a multiplier of sorts against the stats as even irl twofootedness impact all technical skills. so again.... CA is just a marker of how far along his path (which is predetermined by 0-200 PA) a player is.. and as such has no effect (directly) how good his stats are the reason for the programmers decision is simple... older players such as say.. le tissier had the potential to be godly... but never made that ... (really high PA to reflect the fact the potential was there... high CA to reflect he managed a lot in his career but not his maximum)... think about it for a second and the data makes sense.... the same method is used in all kinds of programming techniques to mimic human behaviour the simplest form Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulorchard2000 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Is it still possible to retrain players to increase the strength of their weaker foot???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soli Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 CA varies from 0-200. That figure comes up if you take into account all the stats (hidden or visible) together. So it is important that a player should have good stats in the RIGHT areas. This was illustrated by hulk above. It is also dependent on the number of positions a player is able to play and two-footednes. PA is the maximum number the CA can reach that is through the right training a player can reach the max of CA=PA. If you retrain a player in some other position where he is not a natural/accomplished it uses up some of his CA and stats drop. Experienced this when I tried to retrain Matias and Sagna to the MR position. Their stats dropped by 1 point in many attributes. Two- footedness issue is somewhat unclear. Their are many players I have had experience with who have lesser stats than their counterparts but have greater CA/PA. Best example is Pato or Saivet. From my experience I know that being efficient with both feet is an asset for about all attacking players. Saivet proved this right when he was scoring at will for my Newcastle team. I admit though that I am not sure how thsi works for the defenders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braenn Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Put it this way, is it not better to have 17 dribbling on 2 feet then 20 on one and 6 on the other? A player is very very limited if they can only use one foot. And I do think that the AI can "Show onto weaker foot" too, which would totally take that player out of the game offensively. Oh and to Welshace, the reason most real players on the game who are 2 footed have high technique etc. is because that if you are good at using both feet IRL, then chances are you have good technique and dribbling skills. Defensively, I'm unsure whether or not being single footed is a problem, I don't know if it effects tackling or not, I wouldn't say so, but then again I'd argue there's no need for a Tackling stat anyway when it could just be a mix of Balance and Decisions, but I digress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soli Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Put it this way, is it not better to have 17 dribbling on 2 feet then 20 on one and 6 on the other? I agree but if it were (20+6)/2=13 on each foot I would opt for the player with 20 on one feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGreeson Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 CA goes from 0-200 ... PA goes from 0-200...so again.... CA is just a marker of how far along his path (which is predetermined by 0-200 PA) a player is.. and as such has no effect (directly) how good his stats are Thanks for the replies. Most of what you guys are saying makes sense to me. Some of it I knew, some of it I didn't. I understand in general the difference between CA and PA. PA means little to nothing for a guy in the later stages of his career because he's not going to improve much anyway. What I don't understand is how somebody like Barnetta from Leverkusen has CA = 153. I get that CA= 153 doesn't necessarily mean he's going to perform better than a guy with CA= 143 or whatever. My point is that none of the guys stats are very impressive, while a CA of 153 genarally means a player with high skills (whether or not they're the right skills for what you want them to do is a different issue). Does he play like a highly skilled winger because of the fact he's strong on either foot and there's some kind of a multiplier effect with his stats, or does he play like his mediocre stats would indicate? And if he's currently playing like he's poor because of his lowish attribute numbers, why is his CA set within 10% of his high PA# of 170? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suikoden Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Why do some people say that CA isn't directly connected to attributes? From my experience when a players CA goes up his attributes do as well. And if his attributes goes up but his CA doesn't then it drops down to the appropriate level. The players CA and his relevant stats (for his position) is proportional. And the reason why players who can use both feet generally have lower stats then those with 1 is that being proficient in their 2nd foot takes up CA points. So the CA points taken up by the 2nd foot hidden stat (20/20) could have been used to increase the players attributes. But sigames say it is worth it since 2 footed players are far better playmakers. PS. How are you finding out the players CA? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGreeson Posted November 16, 2008 Author Share Posted November 16, 2008 My experience has been the same as yours Suikoden. I'm not really sure if Hulk's original response was saying that he has direct experience with Kuzmanovic being a better MC than Hamsik. But Hamsik's CA is substantially higher, and my ace scout (20 for judging both CA and PA, world class scout, full knowledge of Italy) rates Hamsik a 5* player on current ability relative to my other players while he only gives Kuzmanovic 4*. So it seems to me that the game designers think Hamsik, even with his generally lower numerical skills, is better. I know there are some hidden stats that play into CA, and maybe that has a lot to do with why Hamsik ranks higher. But it still seems to me that his substantially stronger weak foot must be playing into that. And I found the player CA and PA values on a limited use editor that someone released for the demo. Found it over in the Editors section of this forum. Unfortunately I don't recall the name. All the program title says is "FM Demo Editor". I don't recall the thread title in the forum. I believe it was the first editor anyone came out with for the demo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soli Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 CA IS directly connected with attributes but just comparing CA of two players will not tell you which player is better. This is what the people tend to mean. That is if you have two wingers and both their CAs are the same this doesn't mean they are equally good players. You need to see their attributes and decide whose distribution of CA has been good for a winger. The CA points should have been concentrated only in the required attributes such as crossing, pace, acceleration, dribbling, etc. as these are the attributes expected of a winger. On the other hand attributes such as marking, tackling, etc should have lower values as they do not huld much importance for a winger. You can use the data editor to see players' CA and also use softwares such as Genie Scout. EDIT: and as for the weaker foot it is a hidden attribute and the two footedness abllity will take off CA points thus affecting the overall attributes but generally it is considered to make the player better in FM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suikoden Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 It is a given that you do not take the value of the CA to determine how good a player is. The CA determines how good the players attributes are which you use to determine how good he is. By the way with the calculation of (20+6)/2= 13 doesn't really constitute as a 2 footed players so it really doesn't make sense. Maybe if you choose (20+16)/2= 18 then you would take that over a one footed 20 dribbling stat player. Also 16 is the minimum number you need to have the word "either" to come up as preferred foot. Weaker foot as 15/20 would still only show the dominant foot. 15= fairly strong. And not fully 2-footed yet 16=strong. And preferred foot is either Also is genie scout out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGreeson Posted November 16, 2008 Author Share Posted November 16, 2008 To answer Suikoden's ??, Genie Scout is not out yet. Genie's unofficial spokesperson indicated it would take a few more days for the first release. People are raving about screenshots or a video of the new version that they saw someplace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soli Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 suikoden I had said that at that time because in the previous post Braenn had written had written about a player having 20 on one foot and 6 on the other. he then compared that with a player having 17 on both feet. I just wanted to keep the sum of the attributes on both feet the same and that's why had commented like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braenn Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 suikodenI had said that at that time because in the previous post Braenn had written had written about a player having 20 on one foot and 6 on the other. he then compared that with a player having 17 on both feet. I just wanted to keep the sum of the attributes on both feet the same and that's why had commented like that. I just picked random numbers from the air to make a point about having more CA spent in footedness than attributes. And to your point about CA distribution, not every attribute is weighted the same, and different positions get different attributes *free* so they could increase them to 20 and still have their CA unaffected. So even if their stats are better for that position, I'd take a 5* over a 4* player any day, purely because CA shows how effective they'll be overrall in that position. However, if you're looking for a specific TYPE of say, centre midfielder, then of course stats are what you go by. You wouldn't play Pirlo as your defensive midfielder, no matter what his CA, but you would play him as a deep-lying playmaker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.