Two footness needs to be reworked.

[earmack]

Why is footedness based off of CA? Doesn't make a lick of sense. Is there a single player int he world whos two footed and crap? Only the elite few are truely two footed and they are awesome.

[PaulC]

Why is footedness based off of CA? Doesn't make a lick of sense. Is there a single player int he world whos two footed and crap? Only the elite few are truely two footed and they are awesome.

So you are saying two footedness affects a player's overall ability - hence it being linked to CA

[Äktsjon Männ]

He's saying that two-footed players are usually brilliant on their stronger foot as well. Two-footedness needs to act like a bonus, not a hindrance.

[PaulC]

It is a bonus, but if you have 2 players of identical attributes apart from weak foot the one with the better weak foot will have a higher CA. Its entirely logical

[Äktsjon Männ]

For researched players in the initial database perhaps you can say it works fine like that. Regens and players with 0 attributes on the other hand suffer heavily as they don't get the benefit of careful balancing the researchers need to do to minimize the CA hit caused by two-footedness. And re-training is a risky business as players may gain a point or two on their weaker foot causing attribute drops all over the board.

What I'm basically trying to say is that all you're saying would make sense if attributes were assigned first instead of CA. As it actually works the other way around higher WFA is working out to be more of a hindrance than a bonus.

[themoffster]

I have seen a lot of these threads on two footedness over a few months and I can't get my head round one thing - how are you meant to determine what is a good player from a bad player?

Take the screenshots above as an example - I always look for a defender that has good pace and acceleration (because of FM versions before 9.3 where you conceeded all the time to a big punt in behind your defenders), but if the defender has two feet, they have poorer physical stats.

Another example is if you try to buy a winger, you look for dribbling crossing etc. In a one footed player those stats could be exceptional (18, 19, etc) but if the player is two footed, they could be down at 14, 15 etc.

Two footedness affects the stats very much, but the only way a user can tell a good player is by looking at stats.

If we don't have a definitive "this level of footedness means a drop of x% in stats", how are we meant to know who is better between a one footed and two footed player?

FM is all about stats, but as two footedness affects these stats so much we are left guessing as to who is the better player as we can not easily see the effect of the two footedness rating.

[SFraser]

If you cannot see the effect of the two-footedness rating then I advise you to observe full match highlights, where the obvious superiority of two-footed attacking players is clear. Superficial logic would put it at a 2 to 1 advantage but from observing the match engine in detail I believe that the actual impact of two footed players in offensive situations is immeasurably higher, specifically wingers.

[Champion]

It is a bonus, but if you have 2 players of identical attributes apart from weak foot the one with the better weak foot will have a higher CA. Its entirely logical

Could you please tell us which positions in the field benefit from a stronger second foot in the game ?

[Shizzle]

If you cannot see the effect of the two-footedness rating then I advise you to observe full match highlights, where the obvious superiority of two-footed attacking players is clear. Superficial logic would put it at a 2 to 1 advantage but from observing the match engine in detail I believe that the actual impact of two footed players in offensive situations is immeasurably higher, specifically wingers.

Been there done that.

While being two footed IS an advantage, it's like high creativity,to be able to use it to its full potential the player needs also high anticipation,decision,passing,technique etc.

In theory it works fantastic, in the game it's grabage as long as it's not a 170+ CA player.

Two footed players who have not a world class CA tend to have bad- ok mental and physical stats..

Two footness is ONLY useful when your player actually has the STATS to make use of it, but most of them don't.

So great he has twice the options,it's like having two Uzis or one rocket launcher, yeah you can shoot with both of them at the same time,but the possible damage they can do is far inferior to the one big weapon.

He can pass with both feet,but his passing ability is inferior,his decisions,creativity and all of his stats are worse off.

Why do you think that in 9/10 cases the one footed player outperforms the two footed one?

I have seen regens with 1/20 and lower CA outperform players with a CA of 20 higher in the same position easily because they run damn circles around them and are better in every aspect.

What would be better, having someone with 10 for crossing cross 20 times a game or someone with 20 for crossing cross 10 times?

Because that is what it boils down two in your theory it makes perfect sense crossing with 20x20 times is better then 20x10, but in the game the CA used up for the WFA is so high that it doesnt work out.

You might have a player who has 20/20 for both feet and 20 finishing and 20 composure but acc and pace of 8,his chances to make use of his either footness are limited.

He can shoot with left and right but his shooting is worse and his ability to get him in the position to shoot and whatnot.

If you have two identical players and the player with the higher WFA is the better player then that makes sense.

But in the game the one footed pirates outperform two footed players until they reach a ridiculous high CA to get good enough mental and physical stats.

That's why Kaka,Messi,C.Ronaldo and Rooney are better then most definitely any regen in my game, but all other regens who have atleast fairly strong for their weaker foot are outperformed by a mile by players who should be far worse then them.

I don't want to offend anybody,but let me paint the picture.

You trade more options in attack for weaker options plus worse mental and physical skills as less CA is there for it to be raised.

If it was ONLY technical stats then ok,but otherwise I see no sense whatsoever in it.

[voidex]

Been there done that.

You might have a player who has 20/20 for both feet and 20 finishing and 20 composure but acc and pace of 8,his chances to make use of his either footness are limited.

He can shoot with left and right but his shooting is worse and his ability to get him in the position to shoot and whatnot.

If you have two identical players and the player with the higher WFA is the better player then that makes sense.

But in the game the one footed pirates outperform two footed players until they reach a ridiculous high CA to get good enough mental and physical stats.

That's why Kaka,Messi,C.Ronaldo and Rooney are better then most definitely any regen in my game, but all other regens who have atleast fairly strong for their weaker foot are outperformed by a mile by players who should be far worse then them.

I don't want to offend anybody,but let me paint the picture.

You trade more options in attack for weaker options plus worse mental and physical skills as less CA is there for it to be raised.

If it was ONLY technical stats then ok,but otherwise I see no sense whatsoever in it.

I got to say this is one sensible post on the flaw of overly high WFA weighting on CA.

[SFraser]

When all other attributes are equal two-footedness is a vast advantage in the game, effectively doubling or even tripling a players successful options.

When all else is not equal then it is entireally possible to train a player very much in a specific role, utilising his irrelevant attributes within his highly role specific attributes. Perhaps your Messi is being trained to cross the ball for Henry, a common mistake in FM.

These are the two fundamental issues that produce the weighting of the weakfoot, and no quantity of random player generation nor ineffectual training systems will lessen the fact that these issues are vital for balance. The balance may be overwhelming for many but within my training regimes in my team I see WFA as nothing more than a considerable benefit whose sacrifice can be not only managed but welcomed. Twice the offensive effectivity for a cost of 30 CA under a manager that can actually train his players. WFA is a potent weapon amongst almost all positions on the pitch and it is rightfully considered for vastly higher attribute weighting than any other statistic.

[The Hobgob]

Paul, can you give us any information on how it is being changed?

If it is 30CA now for 20 on the weaker foot, then it would seem logical that it should be this (recommendations all based upon 20 weaker foot (divide for CA lose to other foot ratings)):

GK - 5CA

LB/RB - 10CA

CH - 5CA

WB - 152A

DM - 8CA

AMC/MC - 12CA

AMR/L/Winger/R/L - 20CA

ST/FC - 15CA

Strong/Weak foot should not change a players Mental or Physical stats, only technical.

Just ideas.

Hobgob.

[PaulC]

I wont go into specifics but yes the obvious positions will be higher weighted albeit slightly less than in FM2009 - where all took the same fairly high weight.

I dont neccesarily agree that we should only affect technical attributes when re-balancing as imagine what 20CA would do if applied to technical only.

Main thing is - we are listening and making adjustments for FM2010. Those in the beta testing team will have the chance to give us feedback in the near future.

[Mitja]

two players with same attributes abd CA but different WFA should apear the same. the difference between their ability should already be included with their WFA and only by that attribute. it's down to ME to reflect that attribute and 'true ability' (in those 8 technical attributes that deal with foot ability) of those two players.

why should a player with poor WFA have all (technical, mental and phisical) stats higher by four points accros the board but perform worse than his strong WFA clone, is beyond any real life logics..not to mention all other problems we put out in this thread.

[PaulC]

two players with same attributes abd CA but different WFA should apear the same.

You cant have 2 players with identical attributes except WFA and identical CA. It doesnt make any sense. Apologies if I have misinterpreted you!

[PhroX]

My problem with the two footedness issue is not so much how it works - it makes sense, if two players have identical abilities, but one is better with his "weak" foot, then he'll be a better player, so should have higher CA. Maybe the weighting is slightly off, but overall the idea behind it is fine. No, my problem is how it's displayed. When you're comparing players, you can usualy see quite easily which is better from their attributes. Sometimes you have to work it out (eg, is 2 points of tackling better than 2 points of jumping for a DC?), but you can generally get a good feel for it easily.

Two footedness throws this all out of the window. Because it affects so much, it's very hard to work out just how much it's worth. If I'm looking for a creative MC, am I better off getting one with 3 more points of passing and creativity, or should I go for a two footer? Frankly, I don't know.

In all honesty though, I'm not sure what the solution is.

[Mitja]

My problem with the two footedness issue is not so much how it works - it makes sense, if two players have identical abilities, but one is better with his "weak" foot, then he'll be a better player, so should have higher CA.

that player should only be better by the amount he's able to use his weak foot better than the other player. plus it takes more than 30 CA points going from 1 to 20 in WFA?! the only way you can judge his true ability now, is to see his CA (which you're not supposed to).

aperantly the only reason why this guy's not a world class centre back, is his WFA:

http://img12.imageshack.us/my.php?image=salls.jpg

[PhroX]

the only way you can judge his true ability now, is to see his CA (which you're not supposed to).

Which is pretty much my point. There's no way to tell how much "better" WFA makes a player.

edit: and the player you linked to exposes a larger problem - the AI seems to judge players purely on CA/PA, not attributes. I'm at the stage in my game when regens are beginning to become prominent in weaker leagues (such as China, where I currently am) and there's a team who's central defensive partnership consists of two regens. Scouting them says their both leading players for the division, so they clearly have excellent CA (for this level). However, they have one little flaw. Both have jumping below 10. A human player would pick up on this and not use them (maybe one as a sweeper type, as they have good pace, but certainly not both together), but because they have good CA, the AI plays them.

[Mitja]

it's a bit strange system where AI makes all decisions based on CA/PA but humans are only able to use attributes (and scouts and coaches)... combined with WFA issue it makes total mess of a game for me...

[Shizzle]

Maybe some kind of overall rating would be useful, ALL the major attributes of the position plus the WFA, so people have an idea of how good the player truly is.

The WFA bonus would be greater for offensive positions but less important for let's say a goalkeeper.

Otherwise implented the ability to let the layer specifically train his weaker foot would be useful too.

[PaulC]

it's a bit strange system where AI makes all decisions based on CA/PA but humans are only able to use attributes (and scouts and coaches)... combined with WFA issue it makes total mess of a game for me...

AI make decisions based on *perceived* CA/PA.

A subtle but key difference ;-)

[Mitja]

my point was it can't read attributes, which would be (too) hard to code probably. I'm more interested how can we make judgement of a player, based on his attributes (post number 117 for example)? and things like that..

[PaulC]

Well given the amount of analysing of attributes vs CA in this thread I am pretty confident you can judge a player's ability without being spoon fed his CA ;-)

[Ivera]

I have to say I haven't read the whole thread, but I think I got what this is about. I have one question.

How would Ronaldo's stats (just an example, but I wonder how he would be) be if he hadn't been good with both feets?

[Aytumious]

When all other attributes are equal two-footedness is a vast advantage in the game, effectively doubling or even tripling a players successful options.

When all else is not equal then it is entireally possible to train a player very much in a specific role, utilising his irrelevant attributes within his highly role specific attributes. Perhaps your Messi is being trained to cross the ball for Henry, a common mistake in FM.

These are the two fundamental issues that produce the weighting of the weakfoot, and no quantity of random player generation nor ineffectual training systems will lessen the fact that these issues are vital for balance. The balance may be overwhelming for many but within my training regimes in my team I see WFA as nothing more than a considerable benefit whose sacrifice can be not only managed but welcomed. Twice the offensive effectivity for a cost of 30 CA under a manager that can actually train his players. WFA is a potent weapon amongst almost all positions on the pitch and it is rightfully considered for vastly higher attribute weighting than any other statistic.

The problem is that the weighting for WFA is way too high. There are many players that aren't valuable because they are so "crippled" by having a strong weak foot. If you were to cut their WFA in half and distribute the CA amongst all the other attributes evenly, those players would actually play better. That isn't true of any other attribute in the game, and it doesn't make sense that the player would actually go from not being able to cut it in your league to being a valuable player because they are worse with their off foot. The WFA being too high is a detriment even at the championship level for many players, and can make a player nearly worthless in the lower leagues.

Thankfully it appears SI is looking into this so the weighting makes more sense.

[PaulC]

I have to say I haven't read the whole thread, but I think I got what this is about. I have one question.

How would Ronaldo's stats (just an example, but I wonder how he would be) be if he hadn't been good with both feets?

It depends whether his CA would be cut too. If it wasn't, you'd have to assume his weaker left foot would be compensated for in other attributes.

[PaulC]

Ok, I am going to close this discussion now with a statement of what is being done for FM2010.

- We will be weighting the weak foot according too position, instead of equally across the board as in FM2009.

- The highest weight will be for creative players, and a little lower than the weight in FM2009

- The lowest weight, for keepers ( as things stand ) will be significantly lower than in FM2009.

Those interested who are also signed up to beta test FM2010 will have plenty of opportunity to discuss these changes once they try them. We will take things from there.

Cheers,

Paul