CA cost of learning a new position

[laurentius82]

I've heard that when player learns a new position by positional training, it "consumes" some CA, therefore limiting the maximum development of his attributes. I think the same is true for learning to be two-footed (how about PPMs btw?).  If this is indeed the case, how big of a CA cost are we talking about? and is the CA freed up if the player forgets a position by not training/playing there? 

Generally speaking, I would not want to think of CA as a finite resource like this, it doesn't feel realistic.  Learning to also kick the ball with your left foot should not limit your capacity to improve your crossing ability, for example. If anything, the opposite should be true. 

[herne79]

33 minutes ago, laurentius82 said:

Generally speaking, I would not want to think of CA as a finite resource like this, it doesn't feel realistic.

Then don't think of it, it's hidden for a reason after all .

But if you do want to get into the technicalities, yes positional awareness does eat into CA although not as much as people seem to fear.  For example, look at any level of players from Messi down to non-league - how many players do you see with the ability to play in multiple positions and still have decent attributes for their level?  Just develop your players as you want to and don't worry about technicalities .

For your other question, Traits don't take up CA.  Developing the weaker foot can contribute, but again it's not as big an effect as some believe.  That's because unless a newgen is "born" with it or a researcher has identified an existing player with it, players cannot develop their weaker foot past "Reasonable".  So if he's already at "Reasonable" you're wasting your (and his) time.  And if he's below "Reasonable" then again, just develop your players as you want to and don't worry about technicalities .

[santy001]

I'm afraid what you have heard is in a lot of ways wrong @laurentius82

Retraining positions does not use CA. It can have an impact upon CA, however, there's no shortcut way to explain just exactly how it works.

There used to be a situation in which you could retrain players to certain points in other positions and it would effectively make a players CA higher. This is no longer possible, that is all. If you want to retrain a player, retrain him. Does it limit his ability to become the worlds greatest centre half if you retrain him as a striker? Well quite likely yes, but then why are you retraining him as a striker? 

It genuinely costs 0 CA to learn a new position, it does have other things in the background that people may have perceived to be a CA cost. They are wrong.

- - -

As for footedness, Herne has covered most bases already. But training the weaker foot is to try and get that crossing ability with your weaker foot as well. If you spend 10 hours in training a week crossing with your week foot, well that's 10 hours that week in training you haven't spent improving the crossing on your stronger foot. It is a bit of a trade-off. A two footed player is more effective than a one footed however.

The gap between 1-20 is not that big either, so the gap between say 15 and 17 is negligible at best. Being two footed would be far more versatile and beneficial.

- - -

Generally speaking, there's not much to be gained from trying to overthink CA. The best indicator for performance in FM is the way in which a player performs in games. He can have a great CA or a terrible CA, he can have good PPM's or bad PPM's, he can be horrendously one footed or a natural two footer. If a player is playing well then they're working in the set-up of the team, 

[herne79]

37 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Retraining positions does not use CA. It can have an impact upon CA, however, there's no shortcut way to explain just exactly how it works.

Yeh just to clarify my post, if someone uses an editor to change a player's positional familiarity there can be a change in CA.  Therefore some perceive this as positions having a direct impact on CA.  That's the perception although technically it's a bit different as it's actually still all related to the attributes - different positions have different attribute weightings thus CA is affected.  Same net effect and to an extent it can be viewed as semantics anyway .

[peter.1986]

In the editor, extra positions and weak foot (even more so) do use CA. 

[santy001]

1 hour ago, peter.1986 said:

In the editor, extra positions and weak foot (even more so) do use CA. 

With a different player it can be lower. I get a much more detailed editor as a researcher. It's entirely possible to give a player a new position and the recommended CA based on his attributes to drop. 

[peter.1986]

47 minutes ago, santy001 said:

With a different player it can be lower. I get a much more detailed editor as a researcher. It's entirely possible to give a player a new position and the recommended CA based on his attributes to drop. 

To give a different position yes. But training as an additional position it does eat into CA right?

 

also weak foot, it does go down if you give a low number, but if you have someone 1 for weak foot, it would only use CA s it rised?

 

regarding PPMs I always thought these didn’t use CA, but unless someone is at full potential, it will always use training time they could be improving. (I always think a certain should give extra attention to the attributes used, eg dictates tempo the player would in real life be training extra in the abilities needed to pull this off)

 

im not saying im right by the way. That’s why the ?.