Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by enigmatic

  1. 5 hours ago, xavinwonderland said:

    I have been searching the forums for a clear answer on this but couldn't not find anything clear. 

    When a player gains attribute points the CA cost will depend on its position so increasing  tackling for instance will be very expensive for a defender but pretty much free for a striker. 

    What happens if I have a striker that I retrain as a defender? Is the cost increase based on being a striker? A defender? An average of the 2?

    Is it possible to min/max by keeping it natural as a striker and only accomplished as a defender so that the tackling cost is using the striker weight rather than the defender weights? 


    From what I can see the cost is the highest of the two, with an additional cost for being skilled in multiple positions.

    Min/maxing is a waste of time since if the player's ability in a position puts zero weight on their CA (competent and below) and they're not training in that position either they'll play with a significant penalty to their decision making.

    I'd rather have my defence anchored by a defender with two points less tackling than a great tackler that doesn't know how to play centre back

  2. His PPMS - which he might be able to lose - aren't that helpful either.

    Right footed pacy left winger with a combination of "runs with ball down left" and "avoids using weaker foot" sounds a lot like someone who will accelerate past his defender to the byline, then check back inside to cross off his stronger foot (giving the defender time to recover and block the cross) 

    And his passing attribute isn't ideal for "Tries Killer Balls often" at elite level although it probably works a lot better when opponents play high lines against you than when they sit deep..,

  3. On 22/08/2021 at 15:07, Piperita said:

    Existing players: Diawusie from Dresden. He has the potential to be a decent player for Bundesliga teams playing against relegation. He starts as a good 3rd League player. But in his first season in the third league he scored more than 1 goal/game (without being the penalty taker) and led me to my first legit invincible season. In the second league where he should have been over his level, he did the same. 18 goals in 18 games and this time also scoring in the cup. Unfortunately Leverkusen made me an offer I couldn't refuse during the winter. Now he is at 7 goals at 8 games in the Bundesliga. No idea where he is getting this from as nominally better players fail to reach the same level. He was plenty of fun to train and play, though.

    Sounds like Okyere Wriedt in FM19 for me. Signed him in the 3. Liga which he was too good for and he top scored as expected. Top scored again in 2 Bundesliga, which he wasn't too good for. He was supposed to be backup for my first Bundesliga season because he really wasn't Bundesliga standard at all on paper, but I gave him starts because he complained and he got more goals per 90 than anyone else that season, including the likes of Lewandowski and Werner and finished with 17 again.

    No idea why. His attributes didn't improve at all, his CA was around the 110 mark (which most people seem to consider the "no hoper" bracket for a player in a top league) and he was just a nicely rounded player with lots of 12s; nothing about his physique to worry Bundesliga defenders and far from my most clinical finisher, only Fairly Consistent and average personality traits. His strike partner was much better but didn't outscore him from a lot more starts

  4. Is the Bundesliga even simulated in "full detail"? Because if it isn't, the simple answer is because his Arsenal average ratings were calculated by the full match engine and the Hertha ones by a completely different algorithm that's heavily based on CA rather than tactical usefulness.

    Either way, different tactics for a different team in a different league are going to produce different results, and its far from certain that the low average rating actually matters. Or as @herne79 says, is there something you actually want him to do that he's not doing, or are you too fixated on a number that's governed mostly by if he directly contributes to a goal or not.

  5. On 17/08/2021 at 17:51, HUNT3R said:

    No official person would have said this, because it's wrong.

    Indeed it's the precise opposite, the stats are from 1.0 to 20.0, and the stuff after the decimal point, which you can see on the player development tab, counts


    (Though one side effect is that the difference between 15 and 16 can be the difference between 15.4 and 15.6 I.e not much. But it can also be the difference between 14.6 and 16.4...)

  6. On 17/08/2021 at 14:44, HUNT3R said:

    I don't agree with it being there as it causes confusion. It's basically there because it's going to be needed if there's a save and the rebound falls to the penalty taker again. For the actual penalty, Penalty Taking is what is being used, not Finishing.

    Yeah, really shouldn't be there. I doubt Finishing has much effect even on rebounds (usually they're open goals and composure plus the ability to get to the ball first must count for more)

  7. 7 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

     I'm surprised at Handling too. It's going to determine whether he holds onto the ball, but surely it doesn't determine whether he's able to save it. I mean, how often do you see 'keepers catching a penalty? It's almost always parried.

    I think Handling affects the quality of parry too leading to fewer easy rebounds (outside shootouts).

    But that's something else that's never been entirely clear, I've just assumed it and would and also assume in open play other attributes like Composure, Concentration. Decisions and possibly even Eccentricity affect where the ball is parried, possibly more

  8. Have to admit that whilst I can see Concentration playing a significant role in regular shot stopping (and handling/punching), I'm struggling to imagine a situation in which a penalty is taken and a goalkeeper isn't entirely focused on saving it! Would have thought it was more simply Anticipation (choice of dive) and Reflexes (speed of dive) with maybe a bit of Agility (how far does he get across the goal) thrown in. Tbh considering how much of a specialist skill penalty saving is there probably ought to be an attribute or at least a PPM associated with it.

    Acceleration playing a role in saving as well as sweeping is a new one to me too...

  9. 6 hours ago, Sloak said:

    I’m glad we can agree lack of clarity is a problem, but we don’t agree that there’s not superior alternatives. The description pop up in game could easily be improved by, for instance, mentioning that crossing is used in indirect free kicks, or that the players ability to cross at speed depends on balance. Neither of which are mentioned anywhere in game. Training does give a solid indication of what stats work together, but as we all know a players ability to dribble past an opponent relies on Acceleration, Agility, Flair, and more. (Side note, I don’t understand why you can’t train tackling or concentration, but you can train things like composure or vision which seem much less teachable on the training pitch).

    However, I think having the descriptions be small in game is probably a better idea, with a more comprehensive resource officially released from SI. The official resource could replace the current one on the forums, taking the place of a more in depth description of the attributes.

    Just spitballing some ideas, but maybe describe some events that commonly occur in a match of football. Describe what attributes a winger might use as he attempts to dribble his man and send in a cross. Put me in the digital mind of my midfielders as they battle for possession or my attackers as they look for space to receive the ball.

    A small visual like the ones we got for roles this year (that are entirely useless as knowledgeable players already understand what a TQ does, and new players are completely misled by a pressing forward that looks the exact same on A, S, and D duties, but I digress) could easily show a player putting his dribbling to use, or tangibly demonstrate what anticipation does on the pitch. 

    Maybe you give players a peak into what researchers reference when looking at a player. If I know that Joe Schmoe the SI researcher is instructed to treat vision more like the ability to always find a pass vs the ability to find top end passes, it would bring some context to our players in game. I

    I don’t need to know what attribute is most impactful, or how everything interacts, but more immersion in how the attributes actually create a player couldn’t hurt.

    Even if SI feels something like this would be too much to give away, they could at least put out an official version of what we have here, just with less ambiguous and overlapping descriptions. Players are commonly given conflicting information when comparing the games text and the communities resource, or they’re not given the information at all, and while that’s fine for tactics or recruitment, the games fundamental rules really shouldn’t be hard to pin down. SI is literally 1 blog post away from easily clearing up all the misconceptions and lack of information. 

    I know the suggestion forum has a purpose, but as far as I’ve seen public opinion seems much more impactful on the companies than the ol suggestions box, so I figured I’d air my grievances here. Reading it back it seems a little aggressive, but i really don’t think my ideas are unreasonable, and would bring a 

    Yeah, this is the sort of level of detail that's missing. It's been suggested in the past that knowing too much will lead to exploity behaviour but I think the opposite is true. People have no idea why their playmaker isn't picking the passes they want, but all they can find out is that if they download a formation created by Knap with a "set piece bug" and use a hacky trick to sign 5* players they can stop worrying about attributes and start winning. Knowing what the attributes do in more detail and giving instructions or trading players accordingly is playing the game properly.

    IRL a coach doesn't have to worry about whether a player's long shots ability affects their free kick shots in a small or large way, they just see who executes them better in training (and take a lot longer to notice who has mental difficulties with them in match situations)



    Other than that, I'd settle for info not being contradictory (SI saying on here that "jumping reach" refers purely to keepers' ability to win headers and not used at all in actual goalkeeping calculations, and yet it being CA-weighted for keepers and an in game tip [once?] suggesting it was important for them)

  10. 47 minutes ago, Haribo1681 said:

    I'd like to think that match ratings are an indication of whether or not my tactics are effective or not

    In theory they are. In practice, they're calibrated towards expecting attacking players to have goals or assists or to score >6.8 in a close game even if they link the play superbly all game, and penalising them harshly for not completing crosses or winning headers even if that's all down to a 6'5 centre back  (and have lots of weirder quirks than that!)

  11. On 27/07/2021 at 17:40, r0x0r said:

    Isn't there still the niche case scenario where when two players, 5'10 and 6'4, both with the same JR competing for the same ball, the taller player *may* have an advantage if the ball itself comes in around the 6'2 mark? The 5'10 player is jumping, the 6'4 player has his feet planted, for the same header/duel. The player with at least one foot on the ground is pretty much always going to win that, right?


    It'd only come into play when the ball is at that perfect heading height though.

    I believe SI have confirmed that height can give players a marginal advantage where headers can be won without maximum jump height


    I'm curious as to whether natural body height plays any role for goalkeepers (logically it should do for one-on-ones with the ball blasted from close range at head height, and theoretically it could for saves where reflexes/agility/anticipation both allow the player to dive to the same point, but the 6'8 keeper ought to get there earlier than the 5'10 one)

  12. 3 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

    Being 1-0 up after a minute on a full Wembley and not making a single shot until the rest of regular time is the definition of being taught a lesson.

    Let's just say that if you copy-pasted this game into club football, any EPL and CL game, with Mourinho in Southgate's place, every single media outlet would still be trashing him for parking the bus.

    The definition of being taught a lesson in attacking football is getting spanked, not Italy shooting from all angles until they earn an equaliser and then playing it safe (but ironically the two chances they did have in the last 53 minutes were the best open play chances all game, because more gaps at the back). They scored the same number of goals as us. And no, our shots weren't all in extra time, and Italy didn't look vulnerable once we added Grealish and a winger 

    Mourinho might get trashed all the time, but he's also won a **** ton of trophies, despite penalty shootout record that's nearly as bad as ours. Pretty sure Gareth wouldn't mind a Mourinho comparison...

  13. 47 minutes ago, Astafjevs said:

    Enigmatic has been a consistent embarrassment with his description of Italy's run. Just ignore it. You'd think we stumbled through the knockouts and won by luck. 

    What? I've said you were great in the opening rounds, I've said your tactics against Spain were perfectly justified before and after you won when even some of your own fans were less happy, I've said you did enough to deserve an equaliser our defence made your forwards work hard for, I filled my team of the tournament with Italian players, I just think it's total bollocks to act like Italy (and frankly any other nation) would never stoop to defending without the ball or pretend that only England had any luck. 

    Frankly, I think it's far more insulting to the Italian team to insinuate the only reason they equalised and England didn't carve them open was Gareth.

    You won a tournament by getting the big moments right. Well done. If we won the shootout all the people lining up to suggest Mancini and your forwards were clueless and cowardly bottlers would also be wrong.

  14. You're... not making any more sense. I said "England didn't lose because..." to rebut this forum's weird fondness for reframing the match (and tournament) as England losing by being taught a lesson in attacking football rather than the actual shootout finale to a team that hasn't conceded a second goal to anyone else in the last five years either, not because I'm obsessed by not losing or have any connection at all with what the England team think.

    Enjoy the 19th hole, sounds like you've been there a while :)


  15. 29 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:


    Cmon man, that's embarrassing.

    No, what's embarrassing is your insistence that two managers who took their teams from total failure to tournament finals are both too cowardly to succeed...

    (Interesting choice of manager for the graphic by the way. Not the man I'd be picking to make the "sitting on a lead never works" argument :lol:)



    9 minutes ago, akkm said:

    Yeah just proved the point there lol

    lol, you mean you went to all that effort to link bad grammar, pop psychology and a bunch of England players that have never met me and it was just a troll? And I thought I had too much time on my hands :D 


  16. 51 minutes ago, akkm said:

    obv thats interesting choice of words framing it as having 'lost' as opposed to WIN it. essentially a subconscious recognition of england's approach and even broader insight into england approach/mentality and also as to why pens are a historical issue. 

    Had you framed it as didn't win it would be more useful to have a bigger picture approach to being more of winning team/tournament team...southgate's cautious approach essentially was reactive throughout the tournament. instead of an attempt to win with a more proactive controlling possession to 'go and win it' with a more percentage game as opposed to to conceding possession/territory/ground to the opposition england should be trying to WIN by scoring more goals given such a fast start...you could argue by not front foot attempting to score more goals than italy they didn't WIN it therefore were left with situation where it went to penalties and lost it. obv very simplistic corollary is england didn't WIN it by not scoring more goals

    I mean, I'm not framing it as WIN it because we didn't win, and saying "we didn't not win it" is just terrible grammar. There's not much insight you can get into my psyche from that, never mind England players'.

    Same applies in reverse. Italy didn't win it by scoring more goals or having more shots across the tournament or by the semantics of winning/losing, they won it by missing one fewer penalty. Two games in a row actually, including the occasion they had considerably less possession and shots than their opponent.

    They deservedly got the applause for their stylish wins in the group stages, but they won the tournament by avoiding defeat and playing the percentages against strong teams, not by extra goals scored in early games or missing more shots from distance.

    It's pointless to pretend that there is something uniquely wrong with England's approach because it was the one the tournament winners used their last game. Which is a completely normal route to winning a tournament, and one which very nearly worked out for England instead of Italy. 

  17. Greenwood should be a lot more ready by then and I can't see Trent being left out unless his form's horrible, especially not given Gareth still likes wingbacks for big games. Joe Gomez and Ezri Konsa might have moved a long way ahead of Mings too.

    18 months is a long time in football though. Walker could lose a yard of his pace, Alli could look like a proper footballer again, Mount could be stuck on the bench at Chelsea and Stones could have slipped behind Laporte in the City pecking order, Barnes/Maddison could be lighting up the Premier League, and someone like Toney could come from nowhere

  • Create New...