• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lance101

  • Rank

About Me

  • About Me
    Washington, DC

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Sporting CP
  1. Kriss, Back in January, I posted this thread in the FM2014 Data issues section of the forum (my post was moved by the moderator to the General Forum), and I posted the exact same thread in the "All other issues section" ( ) and I also never got an answer there. I know that SI staff have other things to do besides reading these forums, but I though the point of some of the sections of the forum was for us to point these issues. I feel that this is a relevant issue and I would care about it if my job was to do attribute research for this game. No need to "educate" me on me "thinking again" about anything.
  2. I'm ok with that definition of balance, Raniel3, although I think that "Definition 1" of my original post makes more sense, and distinguishes balance from strength more. Nevertheless, what I think is more important is that researchers interpret the attribute more consistently, and that the inconsistencies I point to in the original post are fixed.
  3. From my testing, Freakiie's strategy would only work for players that are proficient on a small number of positions. I just tried adding D R to Ronaldo (without removing any of his initial positions) and his RCA jumped to 195! The game seems to have some built in mechanism to penalize players with lots of positions (and thus to contain this exploit). But according to the results I discussed above (post #20 of the thread), the exploit still exists for players with only one or two positions. I don't think you can retrain a outfield player to become a GK I added GK to Ronaldo and he become just a GK outside of the editor screen.
  4. No, attributes are not "free" up until 6. According to my testing, their cost seems similar below and above 6. What happens is that a player with CA = 1 has an allotment for attributes that is approximately 6 x CA cost of all attributes. You don't start with all attributes at 1 when CA is 1. A player with 1 in all attributes and 2 in corners has RCA = -99 (when I put all attributes to 1 the in game editor shows RCA=0 -> this is probably because the editor is not prepared for that extreme).
  5. I agree with you for Determination and Natural Fitness, and for some of the hidden attributes (e.g. important matches and consistency). However, that is not that clear cut for aggression and flair. High aggression could be bad, for instance, for a bad tackler, as it can cause him to keep fouling. High flair can be bad for a player with low technique, because it can lead him to try flair moves that he can't complete.
  6. A player with 6 in attributes has a RCA of 0 with any natural position (also when I changed finishing to 5 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of -1; and when I changed finishing to 7 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of 1). This implies that you cannot just multiply the CA costs I posted originally by the attributes and get a player's CA. You have to subtract from that calculation, approximately, 6 x sum of the CA costs of all attributes. That being said, I still wouldn't expect you could get the exact CA of a player by doing that calculation. As I explained in the original post, there is some quirks in the way the whole CA weighting of attributes works that I couldn't fully figure out. But the number should be in the neighborhood.
  7. The weightings in the original post apply to a player with a single natural position and everything else at 1. I have not fully investigated what happens when players have more than one position, but I have learned some things. I'll illustrate what I have found with Cristiano Ronaldo as an example (CA spoilers for Ronaldo below): - At the beginning of the game, Ronaldo's CA is 192. Ronaldo is natural at AM L; accomplished at S C and AM R; competent at AM C; and unconvincing at M R and M L. - When I change Ronaldo to be natural at S C and every other position to 1, Ronaldo's recommend current ability (RCA) is 195. This means that Ronaldo's ability as a S C is higher than his CA. If I made these changes to Ronaldo's positions and didn't change his CA, within a few days the game would adjust some of Ronaldo's attributes down, so that his RCA would match his CA of 192. - I also tried changing Ronaldo to natural as a D R and every other position to 1. When I do this, Ronaldo's RCA becomes 134. If I changed Ronaldo's positional attributes in this way and didn't lower his CA, within a few days the game would bump up his attributes across the board so that his CA as a DR would reach 192. - Then I made Ronaldo natural at D R and S C. When I do this, his RCA is 178. This is between 195 (RCA as a SC) and 134 (RCA as a D R). However, it is not a simple average. In some earlier games, players with proficiency in many different positions had, often times, very very good attributes. I believe this had to do with the way the game averaged the RCA of different positions to calculate the overall CA. SI seems to have compensated for this potential bug by making the average biased towards the position the player is best at. - When, besides being natural at D R and SC, I also make Ronaldo natural at D C (Ronaldo RCA when he is only a D C is 137), Ronaldo's RCA becomes 170. It seems like the weight given to the RCA in the position the player is less good at becomes even smaller when the player is proficient in many positions. - I also tried starting Ronaldo as a S C only and then, one by one, increase his D R proficiency. Up until D R = 10, Ronaldo's RCA does not change. Starting at 11, Ronaldo's RCA steadily decreases as his DR proficiency increases, reaching 178 when his DR proficiency reaches 20. So, positions are "free" up to 10, and then gradually start to affect the CA weights of attributes. So, my take is that the CA costs of attributes for players with multiple positions are an average of the CA costs of attributes of the different positions. However, this average CA cost is not a simple average (nor even a "simple" weighted average based on the proficiency in the positions). Rather, the CA cost of an attribute is "biased" towards the CA cost of the attribute in the position the player is best RCA-wise.
  8. That is a possible theory, but I'm not sure if that is the case. I guess your intuition is that if it takes less CA to for a certain attribute to increase and a player spends an equal amount of time and effort training it, the attribute should increase faster. I guess that is a possibility, but I have no evidence for it. It may be that when you ask a player to focus on a low weighted attribute, the player actually focuses less time on it than when you ask a player to focus on high weighted attributes. That being said, in a related matter, I know that acceleration, pace and I believe also agility and balance, become very hard to increase when players are no longer teens.
  9. Hidden attributes have no CA cost. I wanted to do the same for coaches, scouts etc, but the in-game editor tool does not show the recommend current ability (RCA) for staff, so it would be a lot harder and less accurate to try to analyze them and find the exact costs of different attributes.
  10. CMdan44, I agree that I'm exaggerating when I say that the weak foot plays no role in a keeper overall ability. But should it be more important than a keeper's anticipation? Than a keeper's balance? I disagree that central midfielders don't have to head the ball. I see some, like Yaya Toure, heading the ball all the time. I think that long throws should have some weight. But I don't think they are on par, in terms of usefulness with corners, free kicks or penalty taking. Only a few teams ever employ them. Are the players in those teams the only players in the world with enough arm strength to send the ball to the area? I don't think so. It just isn't a common soccer tactic. Besides the set piece attributes, I don't think that long throws should be on par with dribbling for a side back (I think dribbling is under rated CA-wise for side backs - lots of side backs play like wingbacks and have large offensive roles); with teamwork for a center back; with jumping and heading for a center midfielder; or with tackling for a striker.
  11. The comments I make below are based in the idea that the CA costs of different attributes reasonably reflect the impact of these attributes in the Match Engine for the different positions (if that is not case, then the issue is why should the attributes be weighted in this way, if they have very different impacts): - Acceleration and Pace - They are crucial, for pretty much all positions, but in particular for Wingers and Strikers. This seems reasonable to me, but it may be a bit of a surprise for most that, especially for forwards, these attributes are by far the most important (more than double the weight of finishing). - Weak Foot - The ability to use the weak foot well is crucial in almost all positions. This has been the case for a long time in FM. I feel that the importance of the weak foot is very overrated on FM. In particular, why should it matter for goalkeepers??? - Decisions seem to matter more for defenders than for other positions. I'm a bit surprised by this. In particular, given the description given to decisions in the manual, I thought the attribute would be the most important to midfielders. - First Touch is a fairly important attribute in attacking positions. It is more important than technique and as important as finishing for strikers. - Leadership is more important for GK and Center Backs than for other positions. Could this mean that leadership is not just about being a good captain, but may also have to do with coordinating the defense?? - Balance is a fairly unimportant attribute for most players, including for wingers and strikers. SI should clarify what the attribute really means. - Teamwork is also a fairly unimportant attribute. I found that a bit surprising, especially for midfielders. - Heading and Jumping are fairly unimportant for midfielders center. I do not think this is an accurate representation of reality. - Long Throws - Even thought it always one of the least weighted attributes, I feel that weighting of long throws is too high, except for perhaps side backs. Most players will never even attempt them! - Preferred foot - The preferred foot of players does not factor into CA for side players. While I can see the case for wingers, given that a left footed or a right footed left winger can be effective in different ways, it seems to me, that given how most teams play, a left footed left back is preferable to a right footed left back. This is not the case in FM. A left footed left back will have the same CA in FM as a right footed left back with the same attributes.
  12. GK: Cost in CA units of 1 unit of the attribute - Attributes 2.5 - Handling, Reflexes 1.65 - Aerial Ability, Command Of Area, Communication, Kicking, One On Ones, Bravery, Concentration, Decisions, Positioning, Agility 0.92 - Throwing, Acceleration, Strength 0.6 - Weak Foot 0.35 - Anticipation, Composure, Leadership, Team Work, Balance, Pace 0.125 - First Touch, Creativity, Workrate, Jumping Reach, Stamina,Technique 0 - Eccentricity, Free Kicks, Penalty Taking, Rushing Out, Tendency To Punch, Aggression, Determination, Flair, Off The Ball, Natural Fitness Side Defenders: Cost in CA units of 1 unit of the attribute - Attributes 2.15 - Tackling, Concentration, Decisions, Positioning, Acceleration, Pace 1.2 - Marking, Anticipation, Agility, Stamina, Strength, Weak Foot 0.53 - Crossing, First Touch, Heading, Passing, Technique, Bravery, Composure, Creativity, Teamwork, Workrate, Balance, Jumping Reach 0.125 - Corners, Dribbling, Finishing, Free Kicks, Long Shots, Long Throws, Penalty Taking, Leadership, Off The Ball 0 - Aggression, Determination, Flair, Natural Fitness Center Backs: 1.9 - Heading, Marking, Tackling, Concentration, Decisions, Positioning, Acceleration, Jumping Reach, Pace, Strength 1.5 - Weak Foot 1.05 - Anticipation, Agility, Stamina 0.42 - First Touch, Passing, Bravery, Composure, Leadership, Workrate, Balance 0.125 - Corners, Crossing, Dribbling, Finishing, Free Kicks, Long Shots, Long Throws, Penalty Taking, Technique, Creativity, Off The Ball, Teamwork 0 - Aggression, Determination, Flair, Natural Fitness Midfielder Center: 2.25 - Weak Foot 2 - Passing, Creativity, Acceleration, Pace 1.15 - First Touch, Long Shots, Tackling, Technique, Anticipation, Composure, Decisions, Workrate, Agility, Stamina, Strength 0.47 - Dribbling, Finishing, Marking, Concentration, Off The Ball, Positioning, Teamwork, Balance 0.125 - Corners, Crossing, Free Kicks, Heading, Long Throws, Penalty Taking, Bravery, Leadership, Jumping Reach 0 - Aggression, Determination, Flair, Natural Fitness Attacking Midfielder Center: 2.7 - Acceleration, Pace 2.25 - Weak Foot 1.8 - Passing, Creativity 1 - Dribbling, Finishing, First Touch, Long Shots, Technique, Anticipation, Composure, Decisions, Off The Ball, Work Rate, Agility, Stamina, Strength 0.37 - Tackling, Concentration, Positioning, Teamwork, Balance 0.125 - Corners, Crossing, Free Kicks, Heading, Long Throws, Marking, Penalty Taking, Bravery, Leadership, Jumping Reach 0 - Aggression, Determination, Flair, Natural Fitness Wingers: 3.55 - Acceleration, Pace 1.8 - Crossing, Dribbling 1.63 - Weak Foot 1.05 - First Touch, Technique, Anticipation, Composure, Creativity, Workrate, Agility, Stamina 0.42 - Finishing, Long Shots, Passing, Tackling, Concentration, Decisions, Off The Ball, Teamwork, Balance, Strength 0.125 - Corners, Free Kicks, Heading, Long Throws, Marking, Penalty Taking, Bravery, Leadership, Positioning, Jumping Reach 0 - Aggression, Determination, Flair, Natural Fitness Forward Center: 3.2 - Acceleration, Pace 2.15 - Weak Foot 1.55 - Finishing, First Touch, Heading, Composure, Off the Ball, Jumping Reach, Strength 0.85 - Dribbling, Technique, Anticipation, Agility 0.32 - Crossing, Long Shots, Passing, Concentration, Creativity, Decisions, Positioning, Workrate, Balance, Stamina 0.125 - Corners, Free Kicks, Long Throws, Marking, Penalty Taking, Tackling, Bravery, Leadership, Teamwork 0 - Aggression, Determination, Flair, Natural Fitness I did not do this analysis for sweepers, wing backs, defensive midfielders and side midfielders because I do not use these positions in my current tactic. I may do it at some point if there is interest.
  13. Years ago there was a very active thread on this forum discussing the current ability (CA) cost of different attributes. There was a lot good analysis done at the time (and a lot of speculation), but game fans did not have a tool that could allow them to verify their hypotheses. That has changed. The in-game editor, made available by SI to fans of the game through Steam, has an interesting feature, not previously made available to fans in the pre-game editor: an item labelled "recommended current ability" (RCA). This item lets gamers know, upon editing a player's attributes, what should be the CA chosen for the player, if the editing gamer does not want the game to revert some of the attribute changes. What this feature also allows is for players to trace, position by position, the CA cost of different attributes. I have attempted to do that. The methodology I used was the following: - I set all attributes to 8. - Then, I set all positions to 1, except the position in analysis. (A player with 8 in all attributes, has 39 RCA in all positions). - Then, for each attribute, I first set it to 1, recorded the RCA, and then set it to 20 and recorded the RCA. - To obtain the CA cost of an attribute at a given position I used the following formula: (RCA when attribute is 20 - RCA when attribute is 1)/19 To validate the results, I repeated the process with all attributes set to 7, except for the attribute in analysis. Unfortunately, the results were not entirely consistent. This indicates that there is something else going on, and that the formulas are not as simple as I imagined. Upon finding this inconsistency, my initial hypothesis was that the formulas were somewhat non-linear (e.g. going from 15 to 16 in an attribute may cost more CA points than going from 8 to 9 in the attribute). My analysis of some of the attributes did not show this, but I did not have the patience to do the analysis to rule this out for all attributes. My new hypothesis is that not all units of CA have the same "thickness" (e.g. the increase in attributes allowed between CA 92 and CA 93 may be different from the increased in attributes allowed between CA 93 and CA 94). I found some evidence for this hypothesis, but I do not have the time or the patience to fully verify it. Despite the caveats explained in the previous paragraph, I still think it is useful to let you all know of my findings. I believe that the true CA costs of different attributes are close to the numbers I found. The CA costs of attributes are presented in the next post.