Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[Leroy1883]

Sorry the what he said was for Benoit2, just to be clear.

[Serdar]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Also, if this is the way this works, then I am completely confused and quite de-motivated (and disappointed) at the moment.

I gave up hope on traning long time ago due its confusing presentation without any proper feedback and so on. I know you have been using this research mainly for traning regimes. I read all your messages and seen very interesting results however I do have no intention of touching traning at all anymore. I hire good coaches for each dicipline and I already have quite generic schedules for each position. But I dont even look anymore if players go up and down in attributes because I'm convinced that it is not directly related to what I do( I dont want to call it random but what ever is the reason behind the scenes is very trivial and confusing for user) so I gave up.

But please keep your comparisions coming on affect of different attributes. They are excellent to read!

[isuckatfm]

@ Hawshiels

I'm not saying this is et in stone but I tracked how my players developed in FM 07 and some general things I found were:-

1. all players have a natural progression rate from the moment they are generated in the game

2. this natural progression rate is affected by individual personality, in particular ambition and professionalism

3. this natural progression can be enhanced (but not hugely) by top coaching and facilities

4. exposure to playing time and it's effects on CA depends on the player's age, their level of ability relative to the level where they gain the exposure and also morale over the period

5. as a rough guide playing reserve team football can contribute to the natural progression up until about 20/21. It might also depend on how close they are to their PA and their CA relative to the level of the reserve team football

A schedule where defence training set to 10 notches from the left hand side and Attack training set to 10.

It depends on the age of the player and where they are on their CA development curve. So you will find that youngsters will generally increase in all attributes regardless of training settings, but particular settings will help push the distributed CA points towards specific areas but in my experience never in a completely predictable or obvious manner.

Also, if a player's CA is increased from 150 to 180 over the course of a couple of seasons or so and he receives no training .... will his attributes change, or will he need to wait until he receives training for the "points" to be assigned to attributes?

I doubt you could test this in the game as it is an unrealistic and unexpected input that the game might not know how to deal with. Plus you have the whole chicken and egg thing. If the player does not train and does not play matches will his CA increase at all? Well the answer is no. I know this from seeing unattached players remain unattached for nearly a whole season and their CA staying stagnant regardless of whther or not they had PA points available.

To answer your your question on training I'm running a little test and I'll post some screenshots in a few minutes. It's not from a patched game so the development speed might be exaggerated, but I'm sure the same principles would apply.

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

It is sometimes difficult to know who to believe on the forums so please forgive me for asking this Benoit2, but how do you 'know' this? Do you work for SI? Cheers.

Unless you count being external beta-tester; then no.

I do "play" around with the game a lot though and PaulC also regularly posts in the beta-forum.

But what we are trying to do is to come up with a series of development schedules for players in different positions to encourage their development in the attributes that are most suited for them.

How does knowing the exact weighing of every attribute help towards that? You already know what attributes are important by using common knowledge. Strikers need finishing, defenders marking etc.

And secondly, I don't understand the last point about the training only determining the importance of the training category. Are you saying that the following would have the same effect?

A schedule where defence training set to 10 notches from the left hand side and Attack training set to 10.

And a schedule where the defence is set to 15 and the attack is set to 15?

Defence and attack in the second schedule would improve quicker, but unless you drop some other categories, all you've done is increase the overall work-load. (which also increases the chance of players getting injured, fatigued etc)

Also, if a player's CA is increased from 150 to 180 over the course of a couple of seasons or so and he receives no training .... will his attributes change, or will he need to wait until he receives training for the "points" to be assigned to attributes?

If he'd receive no training at all during those seasons, I'd say he wouldnt be improving his CA at all to begin with.

But as always, the best way to find these things out, is to "play around" with the game yourself Start a new game, take over a team, set all players to no training, go on holiday and check the results afterwards and post them here

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

It is sometimes difficult to know who to believe on the forums so please forgive me for asking this Benoit2, but how do you 'know' this? Do you work for SI? Cheers.

Unless you count being external beta-tester; then no.

I do "play" around with the game a lot though and PaulC also regularly posts in the beta-forum.

But what we are trying to do is to come up with a series of development schedules for players in different positions to encourage their development in the attributes that are most suited for them.

How does knowing the exact weighing of every attribute help towards that? You already know what attributes are important by using common knowledge. Strikers need finishing, defenders marking etc.

And secondly, I don't understand the last point about the training only determining the importance of the training category. Are you saying that the following would have the same effect?

A schedule where defence training set to 10 notches from the left hand side and Attack training set to 10.

And a schedule where the defence is set to 15 and the attack is set to 15?

Defence and attack in the second schedule would improve quicker, but unless you drop some other categories, all you've done is increase the overall work-load. (which also increases the chance of players getting injured, fatigued etc)

Also, if a player's CA is increased from 150 to 180 over the course of a couple of seasons or so and he receives no training .... will his attributes change, or will he need to wait until he receives training for the "points" to be assigned to attributes?

If he'd receive no training at all during those seasons, I'd say he wouldnt be improving his CA at all to begin with.

But as always, the best way to find these things out, is to "play around" with the game yourself Start a new game, take over a team, set all players to no training, go on holiday and check the results afterwards and post them here

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Serdar:

But on the other hand, I cant believe that training concept of FM is as light as you call it.

From a gamer point-of-view it is very simplistic. Under the hood there's a lot more happening of course (thankfully).

[isuckatfm]

Here’s the little test. The images show Adebayor’s training schedule and how his attributes changed over a 6 month period. For those that do not want to know about hidden attributes don’t click the links.

Training Schedule

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1953/adebayor01trainingschedub5.jpg

FMM Profile 7th July 2007, CA 158

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1599/adebayor02ca15820070707yr4.jpg

FMM Profile 5th January 2008, CA 176

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/16/adebayor03ca17620080105rx3.jpg

Notice how tackling did not decrease at all despite training for defending being set to none. From doing tests like this on 07 and 08 I’ve noticed that there are lower limits on attributes and how far they can decrease. Also note how Finishing and Long Shots increased by larger amounts than other attributes but Composure from the same intensive training schedule actually increased less than Positioning from a general schedule.

Does this mean composure requires more CA points so improved more slowly? I would say probably not. Some insight into this can be gained from Marc Vaughan’s Hints and Tips for 07 where he states:-

The values in the Training Levels graph map roughly on to the Attributes graph. His attributes for that training category do not change at the same rate as each other - for example, if the Attacking bar increases by 10% on the Training Levels graph, it might mean that his Creativity increases by 12% and his Passing by 8%.

So you can influence how points are distributed but CA will progress at a rate that depends on exposure to playing time at a relevant level to their ability (not too low and not too high), age and how close to their PA they are. Plus the distribution of CA amongst attributes is not always predictable which makes figuring out weightings very difficult from testing it organically rather than forcing changes using FM Modifier.

Also note how acceleration and pace are the only attributes that do not change. From doing these types of tests the game mimics life in that these two attributes tend not to change much, if at all, once a player passes a certain threshold. Not a scientific fact from studying 1000’s of players but generally I have found 21/22 to be the cut off point where these attributes tend not to increase.

From messing around with the game I’ve generally found that applying common sense will usually get the right results when it comes to training and player development.

[Hawshiels]

If he'd receive no training at all during those seasons, I'd say he wouldnt be improving his CA at all to begin with.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as being stupid here, but .....

If a player is playing regularly over 2 seasons and his CA goes from 150 to 180 but he's receiving no training .... and if a player's CA develops in matches and not through training .... why do you say

"If he'd receive no training at all during those seasons, I'd say he wouldnt be improving his CA at all to begin with." - Benoit2

You see, I have done tests and they aren't consistent with this and this is why I am really curious about this. I need to find out why my tests are showing results that are different to your understanding - especially important since you are "in the know" .... because I'm not.

[Benoit2]

Training not causing CA development does not equal training not being a requirement

[isuckatfm]

"If he'd receive no training at all during those seasons, I'd say he wouldnt be improving his CA at all to begin with." - Benoit2

You see, I have done tests and they aren't consistent with this and this is why I am really curious about this. I need to find out why my tests are showing results that are different to your understanding - especially important since you are "in the know" .... because I'm not.

...from seeing unattached players remain unattached for nearly a whole season and their CA staying stagnant regardless of whether or not they had PA points available.

What exact way did you test this?

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Benoit2:

Training not causing CA development does not equal training not being a requirement

I've obviously spent too long at this now. In fact, so long that I am now completely confused. I just can't seem to see the woods for the trees. Benoit2 and isuckatfm .... you both seem to get it - so you lead on for a few days while I get my head together and decipher what you're trying to say here.

Sometimes a break is needed to re-charge the batteries. At the moment I am completely lost after the last few exchanges. [At this stage I'd like to use a smiley but there isn't one that sums up my level of confusion so I'm going to give you one that will apply in about 2 hours .... (This is blissful ignorance - induced by lots of fine wine)]

[isuckatfm]

Sometimes a break is needed to re-charge the batteries. At the moment I am completely lost after the last few exchanges. [At this stage I'd like to use a smiley but there isn't one that sums up my level of confusion so I'm going to give you one that will apply in about 2 hours .... (This is blissful ignorance - induced by lots of fine wine)]

Red Red Wine

Goes to my head

Makes me forget.......

[Ellesthyan]

If I understand correctly:

Training serves three purposes:

1) Keeping players fit.

2) Increasing attributes with a set amount.

3) Serving as guideline for CA points to be distributed.

While 1 is pretty much obvious, the confusion is caused by 2 and 3. One should understand that training ads ability, but only to a certain point, DEPENDING on the quality of the training (which can, as we know, be influenced by coaches, facilities, personality, heaviness of training, etc.). I repeat, to a certain point, to a limit.

Point 3 is completely different. When CA is distributed the engine looks at a number of factors (I think a few more then we know about). Position is an important one, attributes already in place are looked at (I've seen a frail defender who was otherwise good all-round and had a huge PA go from 8 strength to 15 in 2 years time), and the engine also checks how the player is training. Therefore, heavy training in shooting and low training in defence will encourage more CA points to go to Shooting skills and less to defence skills.

This is true to real life (I'm talking from experience). Training IRL is done firstly to keep up fitness (playing games won't be enough!), secondly to gain sharpness to gain an edge over the opponents, and thirdly to learn and increase your skills.

Now, I assume that the example with Adebayor earlier only showed him gaining training points as opposed to CA points. This is an important difference, and it is quite likely that he gained the defence points early in the season when he was untrained, or because suddenly the training quality increased, or because he came out of an injury. If it is indeed non of these possibilities we'd have to accept that training does not guide CA points distribution at all, but that is completely against common sense, and against anything I have seen in the game for the past three years.

[Ellesthyan]

Oops, should have checked those Adebayor screen shots better! He indeed loses defence skills, and gains sharply in shooting skills, thus proving Hawshiels and my point that training does guide CA increases. I think I might have mixed up Benoit2 with Isuckatfm...

[Raapy]

Hmm, how does Genie Scout work? I mean, the application gives you the option to "Show Potential Attributes" for a player. How can Genie know which attributes will increase for a specific amount of CA increase?

I load up my game and look at Robinho. He currently has 188 CA and 190 PA. I then switch on Show Potential Attributes. This raises his CA to 190, and increases two of his skills( Stamina and Strength in this case ) by 1 point each( 1 point for each CA point? ). It also increases his "Positional Rating" all across the board.

Anyway, doesn't all this mean that everything is actually pre-determined? And that each stat has a 'max' limit regardless of CA improvements and training schedule?

As far as I know, what Genie shows is 100% consistent with in-game workings, meaning that the only thing Robinho can improve on for those two last CA points is Strength and Stamina, which in turn would mean that training on, for instance, Defending or Shooting would be completely useless because those stats are already maxed out.

[lance101]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lance101:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hawshiels:

And now to the differences in values between the 3 attribute types - TATT, MATT and PATT.

I am giving the most simplified fractions (ratios) here rather than producing lengthy decimals for each.

So ...

One TECHNICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT = One and eleven thirty sevenths of a MENTAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT (roughly one and a third)

One MENTAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT = seventy five ninety sixths of a PHYSICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT

One PHYSICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT = almost exactly one TECHNICAL-ATTRIBUTE-POINT. [A technical attribute point is worth very slightly more, but not enough to be noticeable]

Hawshiels:

I've been trying to find the exact formula to determine CA from ratings, but the matter seems more complicated than what you suggest here...

My testing framework was the following:

6 different players

- All MC (no other position)

- All Right Foot 20 and Left foot 1

- All CA 100

- All Pace/Balance/Agility/Acceleration set to 1 (this ratings work slightly different so I didn't want then to influence what I was finding)

- All the other attributes for all the players set to 20, except...

1 player with 1 in passing, 1 player with 1 in long shots, 1 player with 1 in creativity, 1 player with 1 in composure, 1 player with 1 in strenght and 1 player with 1 in stamina.

The players for which I set 1 in passing and 1 in creativity had their other attributes less reduced when the game started than the other four players - presumably because passing or creativity are more important for a M C than composure, long shots, stamina or strenght.

Then I proceed to test what happens in the set of pace/agility/balance/acceleration:

2 different players

- Both MC (no other position)

- Both Right Foot 20 and Left foot 1

- Both CA 100

- Both Balance/Acceleration set to 1

- One with Pace set to 1 and Agility set to 20, the other with the other way around..

- All the other attributes for both the players set to 20

The player with Pace set to 1 saw his other ratings be less reduced than the other player -> evidence that pace is more important than agility for a MC.

With my post just wanted to illustrate that the method enunciated by Hawshiels at the beggining of the thread is not completely accurate, so finding the exact translation of ratings to CA requires finding first what are the key attributes for each position (my guess is that the most important ones are the ones the in game "hints" refer to)

Hope my explanation was clear (english isn't my first language) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lance101: Remember that the ratios I gave were average ratios and allow you to quickly work out a CA for a player based on adding the TATT, MATT and PATT scores. It was just a way to speed up research for some people. But you are right that each position has different weightings for each attribute. I do plan to post all of these (I've been putting it together for a few days now to give to Law_Man for the final report) so it will be completely accurate (I hope).

Remember that my own knowledge and understanding of all of this has been improving over the past few days also, but rather than just post the weightings and attributes in small sections, I thought it best to get the complete picture before posting.

I thought I already knew much of this, but my own understanding is improving greatly thanks to the debate/discussions/arguments (constructively put) on this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was just that the difference of weighting in attributes doesn't rely in the distinction between technical/mental/physical attributes, but rather in some other subgroups that differ through the positions (although I haven't yet tested besides the M C position).

I'm looking forward to ear your final results Hawhsiels. I will keep trying to come up with the weightings myself, when I have time to work on that problem (my pc is very slow at loading the full database in editor, so it takes me a long time to create "experiment" databases)

[Leroy1883]

Originally posted by Ellesthyan:

Oops, should have checked those Adebayor screen shots better! He indeed loses defence skills, and gains sharply in shooting skills, thus proving Hawshiels and my point that training does guide CA increases.

But that isn't what is shows. CA increasing is not related to training schedule distribution, however CA increasing does take into acount the overall training level.

E.g. Training schedule distribution allows you to shape players attributes based on the CA your player has. So by increasing Shooting the points are more likely to be allocated to Finishing Composure and Long Shots.

The overall training level needs to be managed because if it is set too high the player will get unhappy and this will limit natural CA growth, set it too low and the player will not be training enough to develop.

So one of the consequences of this is that it is better for a player to go in loan to a lower league club to get match experience, regardless of consideration for training facilities. The player will hopefully develop his CA quicker whilst on load, and it is also likely he will lose some allocated attributes because of the training facilities\coach quality. When he returns from load you can get the player back up to scratch by training up a hopefully larger unallocated CA point pool.

[Leroy1883]

If someone chooses that they don't want to shape their players through training they can choose to keep the general schedules and just adjust the overall training level up and down.

This would cause a relatively equal distribution of attributes to develop as CA develops. Hence the only disadvantage of general schedule is the inability to mould players.

In terms of CA improvement this can be done just as successfully using the default schedules that come with the game.

[Law_Man]

Hi all,

Wow there's somuch been written since I last posted in this thread! Good work all!

Finishe my exams on Friday afternoon and then for a couple of drinks..and am not at my girlfriends so will post properly agin tomorrow when I get home.

@Hawshiels

Don' lose faith mate, there's just a lot of diffeent opinions on various things which is good, but no wonder its also confusing. Have a chill out (you've done A LOT of work on this over the past few days) and then ome back with fresh enthusiasm/a hangover

@isuckatfm, Cleon, Joor, Benoit2 and others

Great to read your contrutions

@Benoit2

You sound like you are coming from a real base of actual knowledge which is fantastic If you could supply more evidence (when it is need/would be helpful) that would be great I really hope you can continue to contribute to this thread

However, if you choose to do so, could you please not be:

-imperious and mystical bordering on patronising:

Training not causing CA development does not equal training not being a requirement Wink

This thread isn't an opportunity to "laud" it over those that might not have deduced and may never duduc, the things you have, or the tidbits that you deign to offer.

and

-curt

Then you're wrong. It increased and decreases as much as almost all other attributes (only acceleration, pace, agility and balance are different).

The ability to write concisely can never be under-valued. However, this thread was not intended to be (nor in my opinion should it be) adversarial in any way, and care must be had and appreciation given, when posting in an online forum.

Hopefully you'll take the above points in the way that they were meant - to try to keep this thread a positive, happy, friendly, inclusive and inviting place to explore FM.

[Law_Man]

oh my god.... some of the key's on my girlfriend's keyboard don't work! Apologise for the uncharacterisitc untidyness of that post!

[Benoit2]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

However, if you choose to do so, could you please not be:

-imperious and mystical bordering on patronising:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Training not causing CA development does not equal training not being a requirement Wink

This thread isn't an opportunity to "laud" it over those that might not have deduced and may never duduc, the things you have, or the tidbits that you deign to offer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres very little I can do about others misinterpreting/misreading my words. There's absolutely nothing imperious, mystical or patronising about what I wrote.

Someone doesnt see that although something may not be a cause, it can still be a requirement. Thats all I explained. I need ground to walk on, but its not the ground that makes me walk, its my legs. Kind of like a duck is an animal, but an animal is not a duck.

The wink was added to keep the good spirit up.

Its not my fault many people dont realize that things may seem more negative then they are intended online, simply because you're missing certain cues. It would help if those people would just assume things are meant in a positive way. Im certainly not going to sweettalk every post of mine, because people would probably still manage to interpret something negatively.

[Cleon]

Theres very little I can do about others misinterpreting/misreading my words. There's absolutely nothing imperious, mystical or patronising about what I wrote.

Someone doesnt see that although something may not be a cause, it can still be a requirement. Thats all I explained. I need ground to walk on, but its not the ground that makes me walk, its my legs. Kind of like a duck is an animal, but an animal is not a duck.

The wink was added to keep the good spirit up.

Its not my fault many people dont realize that things may seem more negative then they are intended online, simply because you're missing certain cues. It would help if those people would just assume things are meant in a positive way. Im certainly not going to sweettalk every post of mine, because people would probably still manage to interpret something negatively.

Its true, people shouldn't read too much into the posts as its hard to express yourself in words.

I've known Benoit2 a while now (I use the term known loosely) and he's always posted well and never caused trouble. So I think its a case of people reading too much into his words (with regards to expression) and taking them out of context.

He's been a beta tester for a few years now iirc, so he does know what he's talking about. If any of you had access to that forum you'd see what I am on about, with the questions he asks. And because of this, he has access to some info that a normal user might not have, and the same goes for when SI respond in the beta forums.

Dunno why I posted really, I just felt the critism Benoit2 was getting was unjustified and unwarrented.

[Law_Man]

Okee okee Just desperate to avoid any possibility of this thread tunring into something negative,but perhaps I was a little ver-zealous!

Benoit2: I agree comlpetely with your reply to what I wrote, I just wanted to make sure we all kept the community spirit If some of the things you know are through the beta-forum, then I'm sure everyone will understand if you can't say why/how you know something if you explain that point.

That aside, can't wait for more excellent contributions to this thread from yourself, your posts above certainly taught me few things. C

Cheers.

[Hawshiels]

Onwards and upwards now ...

The short break was refreshing and I got back into it yesterday with increased vigour.

There are a few of the exchanges over the past few days that I found confusing (as I explained), however I am focussed on completing what we aimed to do in this thread. When I re-focussed, I realised that there is a little more work to complete this than I first thought, mainly because the tests I have been running have been done using teams that use my tactics - of which I have around a dozen sets but, all have some certain characteristics that are common. I now believe that this is why Benoit2 probably rightly has an issue with the way I am presenting my findings (although I do still think he could work a little harder on his people skills ).

So, I should probably from now on give a warning - as well as more explanation around the tests - before presenting further results which I plan to do now.

In the next post, you'll see a huge test that I've been running (and it's results) concerning the DFC (dual footed competence) within FM08 - which I'd like to nail so we can move on.

I think the findings are very interesting, but rather than me offer my own interpretations(which Benoit2 has rightly criticised), I will offer this up to discussion first of all.

[Hawshiels]

So, firstly let me explain the test I've been running. The point of this was to get more data to work with in determining how effective DFC is for a player, but also to determine how important it is in comparison with other attributes, and also how effective DFC is depending on the tactics deployed.

So, the test looked like this.

I started a game with all of the following country's leagues loaded:

- England

- Spain

- Scotland

- Germany

- Brazil

- Italy

- France

- Northern Ireland

- Argentina

- USA

- Switzerland

- Denmark

I did not change the database in any way from the 8.0.2 database (except that I made the fixes to Defoe, Turkish leagues, etc).

I started un-employed, and stayed unemployed while I played out 5 seasons. At the end of each season, I noted the ratings of each player and then re-started the game again and run this 5 times over.

...............

And then I did the same test over again, with this exception. I changed the database by changing 1 DC, 1 MC and 1 FC for each team and gave him DFC (280 players changed in total). When the game loaded, this meant that in the majority of cases, the other attributes were reduced to reflect this - of course we understand why this happens.

The reason I run the test this way was to have a larger number of sets of tactics being tested (i.e all the AI managers) against the value of this DFC improvement in these players.

So, the results ......

EoY (means End of Year)

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Before Database Changes (Before adding DFC)

Average Rating

Position EoY 1 EoY 2 EoY3 EoY 4 EoY 5

DC 6.87 6.89 6.94 7.08 7.12

MC 6.75 6.75 6.77 6.82 7.01

FC 6.91 6.98 7.12 7.19 7.24

After Database Changes (After adding DFC)

This table shows the differential from the above table.

Average Rating

Position EoY 1 EoY 2 EoY3 EoY 4 EoY 5

DC -0.02 +0.09 +0.15 +0.18 +0.19

MC -0.07 +0.10 +0.11 +0.13 +0.05

FC +0.05 +0.11 +0.12 +0.21 +0.27

</pre>

There are many issues invovled in doing tests a I've said so I can only present these numbers for discussion.

However I can add something that I noticed that may be worth mentioning. Out of the various countries, 11 of the teams I changed a player within got promoted - only 2 of which got relegated thereafter at any stage. 4 of the teams got relegated and 3 came back up again. I mention this because players being promoted are likely to have a lower rating the following season due to playing against better opposition. The opposite is true for relegated players.

There were 12 players that were bought by teams outwith the playable leagues so I had to eliminate them from the results.

[Hawshiels]

p.s. I have these games saved so I should be able to get other stats and stuff you may want. Please just ask and I'll see what I can do.

[Hawshiels]

p.p.s. Using what other indices could we compare the effectiveness of players?

Others I was thinking of were:

- Player value

- Reputation

Note that in the tests earlier in this thread, I used passes and tackles so I'm also open to using other stats like these also to do these comparisons. I just thought I'd get people's opinions before deciding on one or more indices to use as a means of measuring players - in addition to CA of course.

[Hawshiels]

The next time you are watching one of your matches, can you tell me if you think the AI manager uses the "Show onto weaker foot" option in the game.

I have now played a large number of games and I find this tactic to be vey effective against players with one very weak foot - and especially those with no pace to find space. However, I don't have any evidence that suggests that the AI uses this option.

Can anyone give me any evidence to support/contradict this?

Cheers

[blayhod]

few questions to all:

i understand that, to some extent, ME works in favor of players with two strong feet.

in real match it sure comes handy so it's justified, but what i can't understand is why are atributes of these players lower of other?

why is player with lower attributes capable of doing things as ones with higher?

other thing, somewhere above someone said training players weaker foot comes handy in game.

i did that since option is available, but only for players who already had reasonably good other foot. whats the point retraining player to other side if his other foot is "useless"?

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by blayhod:

few questions to all:

i understand that, to some extent, ME works in favor of players with two strong feet.

in real match it sure comes handy so it's justified, but what i can't understand is why are atributes of these players lower of other?

why is player with lower attributes capable of doing things as ones with higher?

other thing, somewhere above someone said training players weaker foot comes handy in game.

i did that since option is available, but only for players who already had reasonably good other foot. whats the point retraining player to other side if his other foot is "useless"?

They are only lowered if there is not enough CA (current ability) to allow the higher attribute scores for this player.

Also, a dual-footed-player with passing of 15 is not as good a passes as a single-footed player with passing of 16. However, what I proposed through my own research was that the dual footed player with only passing of 15 is more effective - especially if he is not expected to make longer range passes (as these are better made with a player with better passing accuracy).

Training players on their weaker foot can definitely be a major advantage in the game and especially in some positions. However it is reasonable to say also that a player trained to improve his pace, technique, dribbling, crossing, could be equally advantageous depening on what you want this player to do. I personally believe that central positions on the park (especially defensive and forward positions) gain a big advantage by having two strong(ish) feet.

Please though look again at my research, how I did it and of course play around with this yourself because only then will/should you be satisfied with any claims made here. I won't be offended if you don't believe me, but please post back any conclusions/findings or questions. That's what this thread is for.

Cheers

[isuckatfm]

@ Hawshiels

Can you check whether or not the following attributes changed for youngsters after 5 years in the following primary (natural) positions (if possible those with at least 50/60 PA points available). If possible regens from the 2nd season over 4 years might be better but either or :-

Natural CB: crossing, dribbling, long shots, technique, creativity, off the ball, aggression, team work

Natural FB R or L: dribbling, finishing, long shots, off the ball, aggression

Natural DM: crossing, heading, marking, jumping, pace

Natural WB R or L: finishing, long shots

Natural MC: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, flair, jumping

Natural M R or L: crossing, heading, marking, flair, positioning, jumping

Natural AM R or L: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, jumping, bravery (compare tackling to crossing also)

Natural AM C: crossing, heading, marking, flair, bravery, jumping

Natural ST: marking, tackling, bravery, team work

For all: agility, balance

Also if possible check if changes in pace/acceleration followed this pattern:-

Strikers, AM L/R, FB, WB > CB, M R/L, M C, DM, AM C

Don't feel obliged. If you can't be arsed just say so

This might link in to the discussion from previously and show that the 'free' attributes you highlighted in terms of setting a CA in the database editor link to the organic processes of the game, but more crucially, it's effect on AI managed players development. In particular the attributes that are appearing to remain stagnant that many FMers, myself included, consider important to the position (DM marking, AM R/L crossing, M R/L crossing, ST bravery etc.)

Note that in the tests earlier in this thread, I used passes and tackles so I'm also open to using other stats like these also to do these comparisons. I just thought I'd get people's opinions before deciding on one or more indices to use as a means of measuring players - in addition to CA of course.

TBH I don't put much emphasis on ratings when judging players as goals/assists tend to bias them, as well as 1 mistake in an otherwise perfect game leading to a crap rating. But it does show what you would expect in terms of the two footed effect on central players. If you think of the game as one of probability then having both feet increases the probability of a successful event (completed tackle, completed pass, shot on target) on either side. With the improvement in ST performance by AI managed players in your data it might indicate that AI managers often use 'show onto weaker foot' instructions on strikers, and conversely the improvement in CB performance.

I think you should post your DFC tests in their own thread as I think alot of people who might skim over or ignore this thread would find them interesting in of themselves.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

@ Hawshiels

Can you check whether or not the following attributes changed for youngsters after 5 years in the following primary (natural) positions (if possible those with at least 50/60 PA points available). If possible regens from the 2nd season over 4 years might be better but either or :-

Natural CB: crossing, dribbling, long shots, technique, creativity, off the ball, aggression, team work

Natural FB R or L: dribbling, finishing, long shots, off the ball, aggression

Natural DM: crossing, heading, marking, jumping, pace

Natural WB R or L: finishing, long shots

Natural MC: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, flair, jumping

Natural M R or L: crossing, heading, marking, flair, positioning, jumping

Natural AM R or L: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, jumping, bravery (compare tackling to crossing also)

Natural AM C: crossing, heading, marking, flair, bravery, jumping

Natural ST: marking, tackling, bravery, team work

For all: agility, balance

Also if possible check if changes in pace/acceleration followed this pattern:-

Strikers, AM L/R, FB, WB > CB, M R/L, M C, DM, AM C

Don't feel obliged. If you can't be arsed just say so

This might link in to the discussion from previously and show that the 'free' attributes you highlighted in terms of setting a CA in the database editor link to the organic processes of the game, but more crucially, it's effect on AI managed players development. In particular the attributes that are appearing to remain stagnant that many FMers, myself included, consider important to the position (DM marking, AM R/L crossing, M R/L crossing, ST bravery etc.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Note that in the tests earlier in this thread, I used passes and tackles so I'm also open to using other stats like these also to do these comparisons. I just thought I'd get people's opinions before deciding on one or more indices to use as a means of measuring players - in addition to CA of course.

TBH I don't put much emphasis on ratings when judging players as goals/assists tend to bias them, as well as 1 mistake in an otherwise perfect game leading to a crap rating. But it does show what you would expect in terms of the two footed effect on central players. If you think of the game as one of probability then having both feet increases the probability of a successful event (completed tackle, completed pass, shot on target) on either side. With the improvement in ST performance by AI managed players in your data it might indicate that AI managers often use 'show onto weaker foot' instructions on strikers, and conversely the improvement in CB performance.

I think you should post your DFC tests in their own thread as I think alot of people who might skim over or ignore this thread would find them interesting in of themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've just loaded up a view of the end of each of the 5 years and have looked at the player development. There is indeed something quite strange about this - and I've realised that I have never looked at AI-trained players' development before.

The AI players seem to have improved very little in the key areas, but the 'free' attributes have been eroded in favour of some other attributes that I don't see as being particularly relevant to that position. Mmmm, strange.

Also, when I compare the improvements that I get with my own training schedules, there is a massive difference - in my favour.

When you say that the important attributes are remaining stagnant in your game, is this with your own in-house trained players or the AI players in your game?

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

When you say that the important attributes are remaining stagnant in your game, is this with your own in-house trained players or the AI players in your game?

They were ll at an AI managed Arsenal.

Basically I did the same thing as I described in previous tests (artificially creating players of a given CA using FMM and seeing how the game adjusted their attributes. In 8.02 the rules had changed considerably compared to what I posted before about 8.0.0. In the same tests I saw those attributes I listed in the last post staying at 1 when CA was set.

So I thought this might just be an anomaly due to the 'sudden impact' change of using FMM. So I created a bunch of youngsters using the editor (took bloody ages to load the database with my dinosaur laptop )with Natural in each position (as listed before), gave them top non playing mental attributes (ambition, loyalty, professionalism ,temperament, injury proneness 1, natural fitness 20 etc.), a CA of 90 and PA of 190, contracted them to Arsenal, and started a game as unemployed and holidayed.

After 4 years I found that that particular list of attributes had not changed for the different positions despite each of the youngsters gaining between 40 to 50 CA points (even in the unusual one the Striker gained 78 points but his marking, tackling, bravery and team work all stayed the same):-

EDIT: All of these attributes showed little if no change

Natural CB: crossing, dribbling, long shots, technique, creativity, off the ball, aggression, team work

Natural FB R or L: dribbling, finishing, long shots, off the ball, aggression

Natural DM: crossing, heading, marking, jumping, pace

Natural WB R or L: finishing, long shots

Natural MC: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, flair, jumping

Natural M R or L: crossing, heading, marking, flair, positioning, jumping

Natural AM R or L: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, jumping, bravery (compare tackling to crossing also, EDIT: in my AM R after 4 years crossing only increased by 1 FMM point compared to 9 FMM points for tackling for a 48 point CA gain )

Natural AM C: crossing, heading, marking, flair, bravery, jumping

Natural ST: marking, tackling, bravery, team work

For all: agility, balance EDIT: did not change at all, except for ST who had 1 FMM point in each

EDIT: For all set piece attributes decreased, in particular bad cases the FB and M R had their long throws attribute decrease by 25, roughly 5 visible attribute points.

Also if possible check if changes in pace/acceleration followed this pattern:-

Strikers, AM L/R, FB, WB > CB, M R/L, M C, DM, AM C

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by Hawshiels:-

When you say that the important attributes are remaining stagnant in your game, is this with your own in-house trained players or the AI players in your game?

They were ll at an AI managed Arsenal.

Basically I did the same thing as I described in previous tests (artificially creating players of a given CA using FMM and seeing how the game adjusted their attributes. In 8.02 the rules had changed considerably compared to what I posted before about 8.0.0. In the same tests I saw those attributes I listed in the last post staying at 1 when CA was set.

So I thought this might just be an anomaly due to the 'sudden impact' change of using FMM. So I created a bunch of youngsters using the editor (took bloody ages to load the database with my dinosaur laptop )with Natural in each position (as listed before), gave them top non playing mental attributes (ambition, loyalty, professionalism ,temperament, injury proneness 1, natural fitness 20 etc.), a CA of 90 and PA of 190, contracted them to Arsenal, and started a game as unemployed and holidayed.

After 4 years I found that that particular list of attributes had not changed for the different positions despite each of the youngsters gaining between 40 to 50 CA points (even in the unusual one the Striker gained 78 points but his marking, tackling, bravery and team work all stayed the same):-

EDIT: All of these attributes showed little if no change

Natural CB: crossing, dribbling, long shots, technique, creativity, off the ball, aggression, team work

Natural FB R or L: dribbling, finishing, long shots, off the ball, aggression

Natural DM: crossing, heading, marking, jumping, pace

Natural WB R or L: finishing, long shots

Natural MC: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, flair, jumping

Natural M R or L: crossing, heading, marking, flair, positioning, jumping

Natural AM R or L: crossing, heading, marking, positioning, jumping, bravery (compare tackling to crossing also, EDIT: in my AM R after 4 years crossing only increased by 1 FMM point compared to 9 FMM points for tackling for a 48 point CA gain )

Natural AM C: crossing, heading, marking, flair, bravery, jumping

Natural ST: marking, tackling, bravery, team work

For all: agility, balance EDIT: did not change at all, except for ST who had 1 FMM point in each

EDIT: For all set piece attributes decreased, in particular bad cases the FB and M R had their long throws attribute decrease by 25, roughly 5 visible attribute points.

Also if possible check if changes in pace/acceleration followed this pattern:-

Strikers, AM L/R, FB, WB > CB, M R/L, M C, DM, AM C

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've just checked my own saved games again and this is really true. Now am back to being confused again.

How can a player be a better player (i.e. his CA has increased from 120 to 160 for example), and yet his attributes have hardly changed?

This does not seem right somehow. Any ideas?

[isuckatfm]

It's the changes to the CA model. The attributes aren't changing because not only is there no link to CA cost when generating a player (regens and importing from database) but there is also no link to cost in the development model, thus no CA points are getting distributed to those attributes as a player progresses towards their PA.

The striker not gaining in tackling and marking is not an issue, but an AM R gaining basically nothing in crossing yet gaining in tackling doesn't seem right.

Also the DM gaining nothing in marking. What's the effect of that on a tactical choice that involves man marking the key opposition midfielder.

All of this means that when the game is populated by regens there will be few DM with high marking/jumping, both of which I thought were pretty relevant attributes.

If this is as intended behaviour then SI need to let gamers know because certain attributes that many consider key just aren't developing with AI managers.

I think I'll be uninstalling the patch now .

[Andrewbanny]

@ Hawshiels

Welcome back after you little rest,i just want to encourage you by saying that your tests are intresting read to me and prob many others although, im unwilling to participate due to the fact that alot of the info goes over my head and is a bit complex for my education but all the same i enjoy reading and have picked up some useful info i.e the DFC player and the affect he can have on CA and PA and within the match engine through your recent tests.

Iv followed the thread carefully and you seemed a little downhearted when benoit2 entered the thread and the way i read it at the time was that he was just pulling your findings to pieces for some reason, but since cleon has recently stated he has known benoit2 for a while and is sure he means no harm then im prepared to accept that and like he says it's so easy to misread when written.

I just want to encourage you to keep this thread going and just because some of us uneducated FM fans ar'nt participating dos'ent mean we ar'nt reading intensly.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Andrewbanny:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">@ Hawshiels

Welcome back after you little rest,i just want to encourage you by saying that your tests are intresting read to me and prob many others although, im unwilling to participate due to the fact that alot of the info goes over my head and is a bit complex for my education but all the same i enjoy reading and have picked up some useful info i.e the DFC player and the affect he can have on CA and PA and within the match engine through your recent tests.

Iv followed the thread carefully and you seemed a little downhearted when benoit2 entered the thread and the way i read it at the time was that he was just pulling your findings to pieces for some reason, but since cleon has recently stated he has known benoit2 for a while and is sure he means no harm then im prepared to accept that and like he says it's so easy to misread when written.

I just want to encourage you to keep this thread going and just because some of us uneducated FM fans ar'nt participating dos'ent mean we ar'nt reading intensly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really appreciate the sentiment behind your posting. Cheers.

I think that the complexity of the thread is being increased because my grasp of maths and statistics is much better than my grasp of the english language so I sometimes find it difficult to explain things clearly and concisely. So, the reason you don't understand some of it is down to my education (or lack of) .... not yours.

However, if all goes according to plan, Mr. Wordsmith (aka Law_Man) will come to our rescue. My plan is to reach conclusions, re-write these conclusions into one single document, send it to him and have him make it understandable. At that stage I believe it will then be posted and/or downloadable.

Hopefully then, everyone can understand the findings more clearly.

But once again, thanks for your post.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

It's the changes to the CA model. The attributes aren't changing because not only is there no link to CA cost when generating a player (regens and importing from database) but there is also no link to cost in the development model, thus no CA points are getting distributed to those attributes as a player progresses towards their PA.

The striker not gaining in tackling and marking is not an issue, but an AM R gaining basically nothing in crossing yet gaining in tackling doesn't seem right.

Also the DM gaining nothing in marking. What's the effect of that on a tactical choice that involves man marking the key opposition midfielder.

All of this means that when the game is populated by regens there will be few DM with high marking/jumping, both of which I thought were pretty relevant attributes.

If this is as intended behaviour then SI need to let gamers know because certain attributes that many consider key just aren't developing with AI managers.

I think I'll be uninstalling the patch now .

I'm not sure it is just this patch. I went back the previous one and it appears to be the same.

This has highlighted a major issue I feel in the workings and the relationship between CA and attributes - not so much for the human controlled players, but for the AI's players.

CA then no longer becomes a way of comparing players are all - since one player could have a CA of 130 (with attributes shaped in the correct way) and yet the AI could have a player with CA of 170+ and yet be far less effective. Thank you for this, because what you have identified is where my model broke down.

Of course, what I did right at the start of the thread (and in all previous versions of FM) was to set up games with 10-12 human managers and test the effectiveness of training on players. I used this method for each new version to determine the most appropriate training schedules. This proved successful (in fact very successful), but I didn't appreciate the lack of progression in the AI-trained players. And especially - you have identified - within the FREDs.

In my tests (this time and previously), I started games where all the good FREDs were signed by a human player (i.e. one of the many I created to manage each team) and so the development was excellent.

Perhaps then there is now an additional purpose for this thread ........ maybe we should be designing training schedules that SI can use for the AI teams.

The post by Benoit2 was an interesting one, but it is one that has now really concerned me about the way things work within FM08 (and maybe beforehand too).

Mmmmmmmm.

[isuckatfm]

I'm not sure it is just this patch. I went back the previous one and it appears to be the same.

It didn't happen on 8.0.0 where all attributes increased in a generic manner as a player developed. This was the natural development effect I referred to previously on the thread where all attributes increased as CA did, but to what extent was shaped by training.

I don't believe this is an issue with AI training as they appear to be able to improve all other attributes within the same training category. For example:-

ST: gone from 90 to 183 CA, off the ball has increased from 45 to 79, anticipation 50 to 65, positioning 35 to 50 but team work is stuck on 25. All are in the tactics training category

DM: gone from 90 to 154 CA, concentration 35 to 58, tackling 75 to 91 but marking is stuck on 15. All are in the defending training category.

Also they all started out as 16 year olds and yet certain positions saw much lower gains in pace and acceleration (CB, DM, MC) compared to others (AM R, ST, FB). Also I don't think it's a coincidence that gains in crossing were marginal for M R and AM R alongside set piece attributes declining in most players.

Are you saying that you have had players in your squad with those particular attributes increased with the patch e.g. marking for a DM, team work for a ST or crossing for a M R?

Was this in a continued save or a brand new game?

I'd like to know before I continue my current save (8.0.0) in 8.0.2 where I have a crop of youngsters aged 16, 17 who I'm hoping can take me to Champions League glory, but if my DM's marking doesn't change I'll be pretty ****ed.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not sure it is just this patch. I went back the previous one and it appears to be the same.

It didn't happen on 8.0.0 where all attributes increased in a generic manner as a player developed. This was the natural development effect I referred to previously on the thread where all attributes increased as CA did, but to what extent was shaped by training.

I don't believe this is an issue with AI training as they appear to be able to improve all other attributes within the same training category. For example:-

ST: gone from 90 to 183 CA, off the ball has increased from 45 to 79, anticipation 50 to 65, positioning 35 to 50 but team work is stuck on 25. All are in the tactics training category

DM: gone from 90 to 154 CA, concentration 35 to 58, tackling 75 to 91 but marking is stuck on 15. All are in the defending training category.

Also they all started out as 16 year olds and yet certain positions saw much lower gains in pace and acceleration (CB, DM, MC) compared to others (AM R, ST, FB). Also I don't think it's a coincidence that gains in crossing were marginal for M R and AM R alongside set piece attributes declining in most players.

Are you saying that you have had players in your squad with those particular attributes increased with the patch e.g. marking for a DM, team work for a ST or crossing for a M R?

Was this in a continued save or a brand new game?

I'd like to know before I continue my current save (8.0.0) in 8.0.2 where I have a crop of youngsters aged 16, 17 who I'm hoping can take me to Champions League glory, but if my DM's marking doesn't change I'll be pretty ****ed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My games were all started in 8.0.2. And yes, they did increase the stats that were appropriate for the position (marking for DM, etc). However, they haven't increased for the AI !?!?!?!

I'll do a little more investigating on this and let you know what I find out. There is something really strange but it is not consistent because the results you are getting are different from mine - in the way that human players' attributes (key ones) are developing, but AI players' are not. Like yours however, they do improve many attributes, but just not the ones that are relevant so I have players in my game that have CA of 150+, but I can't see how their attribute scores can possibly give them this score.

Whereas, my players are developing very well in all attributes that I train - and in the priorities in which I train.

[benoit2: Are you around? You tested this for SI so you may have an idea of what is happening.]

[Raapy]

Like I said earlier, the guy who made Genie Scout must have figured this whole thing out. Genie Scout can tell you what the max attributes on a player will be when he's maxed out his PA, which means that you can reach a max limit( below 20 ) on any of the player's attributes.

Something which also means that keeping a player on a 'Defending' training schedule would be 100% pointless once that player has reached his max limit on his defending attributes.

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andrewbanny:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">@ Hawshiels

Welcome back after you little rest,i just want to encourage you by saying that your tests are intresting read to me and prob many others although, im unwilling to participate due to the fact that alot of the info goes over my head and is a bit complex for my education but all the same i enjoy reading and have picked up some useful info i.e the DFC player and the affect he can have on CA and PA and within the match engine through your recent tests.

Iv followed the thread carefully and you seemed a little downhearted when benoit2 entered the thread and the way i read it at the time was that he was just pulling your findings to pieces for some reason, but since cleon has recently stated he has known benoit2 for a while and is sure he means no harm then im prepared to accept that and like he says it's so easy to misread when written.

I just want to encourage you to keep this thread going and just because some of us uneducated FM fans ar'nt participating dos'ent mean we ar'nt reading intensly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really appreciate the sentiment behind your posting. Cheers.

I think that the complexity of the thread is being increased because my grasp of maths and statistics is much better than my grasp of the english language so I sometimes find it difficult to explain things clearly and concisely. So, the reason you don't understand some of it is down to my education (or lack of) .... not yours.

However, if all goes according to plan, Mr. Wordsmith (aka Law_Man) will come to our rescue. My plan is to reach conclusions, re-write these conclusions into one single document, send it to him and have him make it understandable. At that stage I believe it will then be posted and/or downloadable.

Hopefully then, everyone can understand the findings more clearly.

But once again, thanks for your post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@Hawsheils

Mr. Wordsmith is back at home with the parents, wireless broadband, a week off, a raging cold (for my sins), lots of a well known blackcurrant cordial and enthusiasm for this thread So yes as I said, over the next few days I'll produce a report that will hopefully live up to your (very kind) hype

@Andrewbanny Thanks again to everyone who has supported this thread, I've got no doubt that's its been a real help to people like Hawshiels who have put so much time into this work.

[sitruc03]

Just another idea to throw out there... do Player Preferred Moves affect CA or is it just a bonus that determines more specifically how a player performs in the match engine?

Also, I'd like to help out with setting up some 'perfect' training schedules. I can see I'm jumping in late on this thread... I've been reading it off and on for about 4 hours and still haven't completely digested everything, but if those of you that are plugging away at this could use some help let me know what you'd like me to do. I have Genie and FMM, and I'm fairly adept at data analysis and manipulation using Excel and such. And I have my awesome Gunners squad to test things out on... plenty of players at all levels.

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by sitruc03:

Just another idea to throw out there... do Player Preferred Moves affect CA or is it just a bonus that determines more specifically how a player performs in the match engine?

Also, I'd like to help out with setting up some 'perfect' training schedules. I can see I'm jumping in late on this thread... I've been reading it off and on for about 4 hours and still haven't completely digested everything, but if those of you that are plugging away at this could use some help let me know what you'd like me to do. I have Genie and FMM, and I'm fairly adept at data analysis and manipulation using Excel and such. And I have my awesome Gunners squad to test things out on... plenty of players at all levels.

If you're good at IT that would be very useful in helping me to write up the report, as I'm not brilliant with tables, graphs etc.

[sitruc03]

Oh I have plenty of experience getting tables and crap into reports... had countless sleepless nights putting those things together in school, and my engineering degree has gotten me absolutely nil so far . Shoot me an email with some of the directions and files and stuff and I'll get back to you if I have questions...

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Raapy:

Like I said earlier, the guy who made Genie Scout must have figured this whole thing out. Genie Scout can tell you what the max attributes on a player will be when he's maxed out his PA, which means that you can reach a max limit( below 20 ) on any of the player's attributes.

Something which also means that keeping a player on a 'Defending' training schedule would be 100% pointless once that player has reached his max limit on his defending attributes.

One thing that does not seem to be taken into account by Genie Scout is the strength of the weaker foot - which surprises me.

Anyway, your point about keepng a player on a defending schedule being pointless ..... is quite correct.

When I prepare schedules for players, I usually have 4-5 for each position.

What I do is have a schedule for players that need to develop their mental attributes (as a priority), another one for the key defending attributes (as a priority), another for physical attribute shaping (as the priority) and one to keep a great player "ticking over". This ensures that no training is ever wasted because all stats have been maxed out already.

I aim to produce similar schedules here once we've finished this stage.

[Hawshiels]

sitruc03: I'm sure Law_Man is delighted to get your help - as am I.

Just wanted to confirm something from your question about player preferred moves. They do not impact CA at all. They are actually quite strange in the way they work since you have no (none that I can see anyway) control over how often a player uses them or not. The level of creative freedom (or not) seems also to have no bearing on how often they are used in the game.

[Law_Man]

Right, I'm about to embark on the report, I'll post back tonight hopefully to confirm that its done, or sooner if I need to re-confirm any points.

[blayhod]

Originally posted by isuckatfm:

It didn't happen on 8.0.0 where all attributes increased in a generic manner as a player developed. This was the natural development effect I referred to previously on the thread where all attributes increased as CA did, but to what extent was shaped by training.

I don't believe this is an issue with AI training as they appear to be able to improve all other attributes within the same training category. For example:-

ST: gone from 90 to 183 CA, off the ball has increased from 45 to 79, anticipation 50 to 65, positioning 35 to 50 but team work is stuck on 25. All are in the tactics training category but team work is stuck on 25. All are in the tactics training category

DM: gone from 90 to 154 CA, concentration 35 to 58, tackling 75 to 91 but marking is stuck on 15. All are in the defending training category.

****ed.

sorry to interrupt, but

[blayhod]

Originally posted by blayhod:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by isuckatfm:

It didn't happen on 8.0.0 where all attributes increased in a generic manner as a player developed. This was the natural development effect I referred to previously on the thread where all attributes increased as CA did, but to what extent was shaped by training.

I don't believe this is an issue with AI training as they appear to be able to improve all other attributes within the same training category. For example:-

ST: gone from 90 to 183 CA, off the ball has increased from 45 to 79, anticipation 50 to 65, positioning 35 to 50 but team work is stuck on 25. All are in the tactics training category but team work is stuck on 25. All are in the tactics training category

DM: gone from 90 to 154 CA, concentration 35 to 58, tackling 75 to 91 but marking is stuck on 15. All are in the defending training category.

****ed.

sorry to interrupt, but </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry again,

i meant to say that teamwork is something thats in players nature, like aggression, and it really unlikely to change drastically due to training.