Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

santy001

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About santy001

  • Rank
    Moderator & Stoke City Researcher

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Stoke City

Recent Profile Visitors

6,822 profile views
  1. @RBKalle one of the remits under the attributes Ambition & Professionalism is that when scoring highly, they should increase the proclivity a player has to retire. Yet the way in which they work also mean that they're more likely to be the players best suited to ageing well. There's an awful lot of nuance to this so on one hand, I wouldn't suggest reading too much into it because the section covering the mental characteristics in the researcher guide is around 2000 words in total (just as an aside in case anyone reads this and asks for it in full - SI have said its fine to mention researcher definitions for attributes, but they're constantly iterated on year upon year, so I don't ever post the content on attributes in full because otherwise it potentially ends up creating a legacy of outdated information) This makes me think there could well be quite a high drop out rate at 34 or 35.
  2. It's very interesting stuff to look at. While this isn't critical in anyway there are two major things that stand out to me just that unfortunately can't really be tested. - Is the first great filter of sorts around 34-36 being hit because players are without clubs, or without an offer in the last year of their contracts? That could in itself be robbing saves of players in their twilight years. - Do ambition and professionalism which play a role in decision making in regards to retirement lead to the players who could perhaps keep on going longer, because they're professional & have high natural fitness quitting earlier than their more likely to decline counterparts? I have no knowledge of how the system works behind the scenes, but it has been mentioned that the game does need to push the older players on their way as previously clubs held onto them for too long. It has been something I've been thinking of since my own posts on the matter and the figures do raise some other questions: - Are some players slipping through the net on research with too high an overall CA? - Are some players, even if their CA's are right a little too high physically? It's definitely worth finding out whether the starting point is an issue, as well as several years down the line being an issue because ultimately almost no development model would produce similar results if we're too far off the mark collectively as researchers. - - - There's things in the game already such as the player preferred actions "Will retire at the top" and "Will play football as long as possible" - but they are very difficult PPM's for researchers to utilise and I don't know even if the use of this PPM will bypass the game's seeming hard filter of 39 @Seb Wassell maybe you could clarify? It would feel somewhat redundant if it didn't do anything for say goalkeepers who can keep going to 39 easily. It isn't something you can search for in the game, not all player traits are able to be searched up so it's not sure to know how many players have either but I've only used will play football as long as possible for Rory Delap who wanted to play longer, but a couple of bad injuries in the final couple of years of his career put an end to that for him. It's difficult to say what the usage of this is among ageing players who are still there in 2019/2020 but those who are then coming into the age bracket by 2023. It wouldn't impact development as much, but again it could impact the types of players still being there and whether they are suited to ageing well. It wouldn't surprise me if Ronaldo has this selected, as I frequently see him carry on and he has expressed a desire to keep playing until he's 40. - - - In fact, if you do have the data @RBKalle ambition, professionalism and natural fitness scores would be very interesting to see. It's only a thought/theory but based on how ambition and professionalism impart a proclivity to retire out of a sense of not dragging their name/legacy down it seems like maybe the majority of those best suited to perhaps age better past 35 are calling it a day at around 34/35. That's based on nothing other than the write-ups on the attributes and it therefore sounding plausible.
  3. @coolestrock the answer diverges down two main paths. First of all, it depends. In the former situation, if you've got a midfielder and those are say his first touch and passing, then against a side who close you down instantly the good first touch would likely be a boon. Yet again, if its 20 passing and 6 first touch, against a team who stand off you - well that greater passing and greater freedom on the ball is going to allow a player to make dangerous passes. Secondly, it's not measurable. There's no situation in the ME where you can categorically state a difference between even 1 and 20 for the majority of attributes. - - - It's not to come across as patronising or dismissive but you're thinking about it completely in the wrong way. If you want to know who would be the best player out of any given 2 here's how you do it: Give them game time. See how they function in the role you give them and alongside the team mates you give them to perform alongside.
  4. @coolestrock there's always going to be a degree of variance in what people recommend and as @enigmatic mentions its rarely going to be a straight-horse choice between these two scenarios, but I'll humour it because it goes into how I play the game a bit. On FM18 I signed Toni Kroos after he had already turned 33/34 and used him as my DLP until he retired a couple years later, and he was fantastic. A little later in the game, Neymar became my DLP as he was slowing down I retrained him to become a CM and once his pace was down to around 11 I made the switch and he became my DLP going forward. Personally, for me in the set-ups I tend to gravitate towards, a fairly immobile DLP is not an issue if you've got good mobility elsewhere in the team. If you've got a position in your team in which pace is non-essential, then an ageing player can still perform to a fantastic standard.
  5. It's possible, I mean I haven't seen a screenshot of how he actually looks, only the forecast of how he could look in the future according to a third party program which is dubious at best. Retraining, especially if done young, isn't much of an issue. As you might be able to guess, there are attributes that govern how well a player can turn their hand to another position with training. Speaking with a degree of insight if you're wanting to search for a player for a position you are better off by nailing down what ball park figures you want them to have (and scale down appropriately for youngsters) and leaving the position field blank. Particularly for roles such as the false 9, inside forwards etc. After all, these aren't really positions that youth football develops.
  6. Players come through the youth systems with a position they can play but it doesn't necessarily mean that is their most effective position. This mirrors real life enormously, the roles at youth level are often far simpler in comparison to the senior game and so when you start to get youngsters in the first question you should always be asking is where do I think this player is best? That RB as I said could be a brilliant RB if all you want is an athlete who is reactionary in defense. Personally I wouldn't be considering him for that position in my team because its the right hand side where I need to have a player who can dribble and cross, as well as be fast to create chances. Based on the stats of your regen RB he's likely above 6'0" and potentially closer to 6'4" which would make him ideal for me in a midfield role. I'd personally be using him as a BBM or a Segundo Volante. He has the engine and speed potential it seems to create real problems with his movement, even if his finishing would be relatively poor for the role. I tend to find my ideal left backs come through as centre backs, because I want a massive physical unit who can just defend on the left. Then I find my best right backs are defensive midfielders who are usually a little shorter, but are very technically well rounded as well as being proficient defensively.
  7. @LukasZ_VCF it depends what you mean with that. I mean, they're two separate players. There's no "Alexander Arnold" training regime that makes you develop the same way he has. You don't have such strict control over how a player develops. Just... play the youngster, train him and see how he develops. It feels like you're trying to impose something that is just completely impossible in game, and in real life as well. You couldn't go back in time 15 years and tell Messi to become Ronaldo. They're different players, and so they will always be different. You're never going to get Trent Alexander Arnold + 23PA with this regen because that isn't who this regen is. This regen is the player you've got with the PA he's got. If what you really want is to see Alexander Arnold if he had 23 more PA, then just use the editor to give him more PA and make him younger so he can develop into it.
  8. Well it's not really developing then is it? It's like saying you want to make some cheese, and buying a block from the shop. You're just getting an immediate end product. As I said, its a very arbitrary process from the best of my understanding. So there is no way to really mould it as you want, it just happens. Whether it happens to attributes that are useful or not is a different matter entirely.
  9. Not at all, I'm saying the individual ratings will move - arbitrarily - to match the CA. So if you drop Messi's CA from whatever it is right now, down to 100 he'll just start losing attributes at random. So you might end up with Lionel Messi only having 5 finishing, 5 pace, 5 acceleration, 5 dribbling but his technique stays up at 19/20. - - - For 2 identical players, it will be the same so if you made an exact clone of one then it would indeed be the same. My point was that just because you were looking at two RB's it didn't mean everything was the same. Footedness comes into play because it costs CA. Positions, and the proficiency to which they can play them play a part in how much CA attributes cost. Height generally acts as a ceiling to jumping reach, so these little bits and pieces play a part.
  10. Attributes are normalised around the CA, and never the other way around. So if you set a player to have 100CA and give him 20's in everything, attributes will be scaled down arbitrarily until the player has an attribute spread worth 100CA. Alternatively, if you set everything to 1's it will scale them up arbitrarily, again until the player has an attribute spread worth 100CA. There's no process in which you get to tell the game that a certain spread of attributes is a certain CA and it will register/accept/define that in any tangible way. It will simply adjust attributes until they fit the CA set for the player.
  11. It's not that way in the game either. It costs less CA for a defensive player to gain +1 finishing than it does an attacking one. That has nothing to do with the "ease" of it being acquired through training however.
  12. While it's not a secret which attributes cost no CA, how much CA those that do count and how much they do cost is not made publicly available. Long long ago the system was a little simpler and easier to understand, and so it meant by training any player to be natural in the position he was good at, and competent in central defence and competent in central midfield and maintain at these levels you could fudge the system in place at the time and get super-players at their CA. Ultimately you are looking at it in a way that's unintended, so there won't be the help there for it. You can't really control where players gain attributes, so you can't cheese up a load of low weighting attributes but for example what's the point of having a RB with long throws if your team doesn't use long throws? Train the player in a way that fixes his weaknesses in your formation. If you like your RB dribble forward with the ball, then you need to improve his dribbling - because the technique and first touch are there already. Again, if you want him getting crosses into the box, that needs to be improved. His off the ball could do with improving as well. On the flipside, if you just want a more defensive full back, then his tackling needs some improvement. Ideally his bravery would be a bit higher, but he's got some good stats in anticipation, positioning and marking which combined with his speed and strength should be powerful aides to his performance. - - - The one bit of information I can give you though is that the consistency and important matches being considerably lower mean you're always more likely to get a good game out of Alexander Arnold than your regen. Depending on some attributes not included there like professionalism and ambition your regen could be significantly weaker behind the scenes despite looking superficially at this stage he should be a better player in the long run.
  13. In regards to your first point, in simple terms yes. But it's more complicated than that in reality. Two similar players can be very similar, but just 1 or 2 small differences can create a big difference. In regards to the second point, not exactly what I'm saying is that even with 2 similar players if gaining an attribute costs +5 CA (it doesn't, but I'm just using it as an example) it could, for another similar but slightly different player cost +6CA. So you could have a situation in which both players have 10 for an attribute, but it costs 50CA for one player, and 60CA for the other. For a third player it might be 55CA. Again this is not using any real numbers, but for demonstrative purposes. So even when they're similar, there's potential for difference. - - - As I said, ultimately you won't gain anything from delving into this because the game isn't set up to make it a mechanical or predictable process. While it is a general rule that the higher number is more likely to be better, the reality is that you will only find out which is better given any two players by playing them both and seeing how they do with the rest of your players.
  14. You're moving in the right direction, but still thinking of it a bit incorrectly. You can't make a direct comparison between Trent Alexander Arnold and this regen on their abilities. Even if you could perform the very difficult feat of getting everything similar they could still have substantially different CA's because of something like footedness and positions. They of course will have a lot in common but it still doesn't work for a true direct comparison. - - - Honestly, I'd have to suggest that you put this to one side and don't worry about it in the detail you're looking at. You're trying to get exact information for a system which is best utilised in broad terms. 10 CA can be +2 to an attribute or it can be +15 across 4 or 5 attributes. You also can't directly build players through training and development to specification, its just a directing system to give an edge in some areas but again this is not a defined principle of the game. If your regen develops like that model in the screenshot, he will never be as good a player as Alexander Arnold. However, he will have an excellent niche element to his game that you could build an avenue to exploit in a tactic that Alexander Arnold would be much less effective at. This is the beauty of FM. For me, that regen is nothing more than a late impact sub player in a system that uses an extremely attacking RB. But for someone else he could be something else entirely. Or I would actually consider making him a box to box midfielder, because he has some attributes I really like the look of for that role. I'd never say, even at his best, I'd take him over Alexander Arnold at RB though. But that's just my personal decision, based upon how I play the game.
  15. The way you're looking at it with how you're just counting the attribute points up is completely down the wrong track @LukasZ_VCF. It's very difficult for me to explain it perhaps in the right way for you without inadvertently breaching my Non-disclosure agreement with SI so let me try and steer you more on the right path without getting too in detail. Ultimately physical attributes eat up a lot of CA. To be as fast as its showing your regen could be (and I'm 99% sure these prediction tools aren't all that reliable) it will cost a huge amount of his ability. - - - Trent Alexander Arnold is the much better footballer, your regen is the much better athlete should he develop like that.
×
×
  • Create New...