Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[xouman]

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 xouman:

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

2. How quickly can a player develop his weaker foot (i.e. how long does it take to make an increase of each single FMM point?)?

2. Not sure. I will tell you my experience from few players:

-I have a 23 yo player who is still right only (weak left foot, very weak at 16) despite having being repositioning as LM for 6-7 years. He has high CA (over 150) and his PA is still 20 points ahead. He can play as CD, DMC, MC (he plays 33% of the time in each of these more or less) and now also as LM (less than 5% of the time). He has not good winger attributes. Plays always.

-I had a ST repositioned as LM. He had good crossing (16-18) and improved his weak foot 2 points each year until he had two strong feet. he played 30-40% of the matches as LM. he is also an EPL player, and has always been a first team player.

-I have a couple of CDs who had been repositioned as LB for 10 years, and they have improved nearly 0.8-1 weak foot point each year. The have played at least 2/3 of matches, and near 50% as LB.

-I have a 21 yo striker. He is also 18/20 AML (I can't remember if he was already good or if I trained him there) and 18/20 AMR (he's training this) and has improved 2-3 points his weak leg in 3-4 years. Has played 33% first time matches, most of them as sub.

I know it's not serious information, just tell me what kind of data do you prefer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for this xouman.

Maybe one or two of your players can help me work out something I'm struggling with at the moment. In each of my saved games, I am struggling to come up with a single example of a player that has developed their weaker foot by 10 points (on the 1-20 scale). I can find players with increases of 5-6 points, but no-one with greater than this.

I have now tended to buy players with DFC and then train them, but for comparison purposes, I wanted to see what would happen if I took a one footed player with great stats and then train him in the weaker foot.

As you can probably tell, I have been focussing much of my recent testing on the importance of DFC in players and the more I test, the more it is becoming apparent at how important it is. Pace in previous versions of FM was over rated in my opinion, but it is now less of a bonus than it was before. The new GREAT attribute seems to me to be DFC.

So, what I want to know (and I'm happy doing the tests again to check this) is, is it better to:

- Buy a player with SFC (single footed competence), with good attribute scores and spend time training him on the weaker foot (although this seems to be quite difficult)

... or ....

- Buy a player with DFC (dual footed competence), with lower attribute scores and spend the time training him in the key areas.

I am currently having great success with the latter of these two, but I didn't want to write the first option off if anyone out there can find a way (or even suggest a way that I can test) to make this work.

Maybe the AML trained to AMR will be the best chance of reaching any great degree of success on the weaker foot so if you could pay attention to the growth of this player, I'd appreciate it.

Anyone else with any success in this area is strongly encouraged to share their experiences. Cheers.

p.s. Recently, when I've been watching football on television or at matches live, I have been paying particular attention to the possible improvement in effectiveness of players if they had DFC. I watched Man Utd and saw how Cristiano Ronaldo and Anderson could take advantage of situations because of their comfort at making passes and crosses with both feet. I then watched players such as Fabregas (albeit a world class player himself) having to take the ball onto his stronger foot before he was comfortable in making a pass during a fast break. Now the difference with Fabregas and other players having to do this is his technique and control of the ball. He is able to very quickly get the ball onto his other foot and make the pass. However, here's the thing .... the next time you watch a game, see just how long it takes a SFC player to control the ball onto his stronger foot to make a longer range (40 yards or more) pass. It actually is the difference between the opposition being able to close him down or not. I think if you pay attention to this in games, you will be very surprised at how long it takes and perhaps FM08 is just reflecting this accurately - whether by accident or by design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in my current game I'm close to get sacked because I have performed awfully with 8.0.2 and chairman doesn't want to offer me a contract so I could look him with fmm and simulate 2-3 seasons... but how can I make sure that he is retraining as AMR?

If I can, I will check all my squad players and see how they develope each season. if I take off autosavings and minimum detail I could do that in a couple of hours.

But now I'm at work

[lance101]

Originally posted by xouman:

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

2. How quickly can a player develop his weaker foot (i.e. how long does it take to make an increase of each single FMM point?)?

2. Not sure. I will tell you my experience from few players:

-I have a 23 yo player who is still right only (weak left foot, very weak at 16) despite having being repositioning as LM for 6-7 years. He has high CA (over 150) and his PA is still 20 points ahead. He can play as CD, DMC, MC (he plays 33% of the time in each of these more or less) and now also as LM (less than 5% of the time). He has not good winger attributes. Plays always.

-I had a ST repositioned as LM. He had good crossing (16-18) and improved his weak foot 2 points each year until he had two strong feet. he played 30-40% of the matches as LM. he is also an EPL player, and has always been a first team player.

-I have a couple of CDs who had been repositioned as LB for 10 years, and they have improved nearly 0.8-1 weak foot point each year. The have played at least 2/3 of matches, and near 50% as LB.

-I have a 21 yo striker. He is also 18/20 AML (I can't remember if he was already good or if I trained him there) and 18/20 AMR (he's training this) and has improved 2-3 points his weak leg in 3-4 years. Has played 33% first time matches, most of them as sub.

I know it's not serious information, just tell me what kind of data do you prefer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@ Xouman

What you are suggesting is similar to what I did to get players with different attributes in order to (originaly) be able to solve the system with 8 equations (attributes type A sub group 1, type A sub 2, type a sub 3, type b subgoup 1, agility, balance, weak foot and initial points), but I used CA 100 as my anchor instead of CA 1. I was worried that there might be something specific about CA=1.

Anyways, I feel that you suggest that using CA=1, because at that value only the attributes you change in each of the player would be automatically increased above one, but that is not the case - even at CA=1 there are already around 124 points to be distributed on the atttributes, so even if you say, increased acceleration and pace to 20, the game will still change the other ratings -> making the calculations at CA = 1 does not make them any easier than at any other level of CA.

I still plan on repeating this procedure for other positions, but it will take some time, because my computer is a b@$#@ to load the database in the editor.

[lance101]

correction:

@ Xouman

What you are suggesting is similar to what I did to get players with different attributes in order to (originaly) be able to solve the system with 8 equations (attributes type A sub group 1, type A sub 2, type a sub 3, type b subgoup 1, agility, balance, weak foot and initial points), but I used CA 100 as my anchor instead of CA 1. I was worried that there might be something specific about CA=1.

Anyways, I feel that you suggest that using CA=1 is better, because at that value only the attributes you change on each of the players would be automatically adjusted above one, but that is not the case - even at CA=1 there are already around 124 points to be distributed on the atttributes, so even if you say, increased acceleration and pace to 20, the game will still change the other ratings -> making the weight calculations at CA = 1, does not make these calculations any easier than at any other level of CA.

I still plan on repeating this procedure for other positions, but it will take some time, because my computer is a b@$#@ to load the database in the editor.

[Akim]

actually i am just at page 4 but i am reading this thread for about 2 hours already and just want to say that the stuff you guys (especially Hawshiels, maybe some more come in later in pages) found out is ace!!! KUTW

[xouman]

@lance101: why did I say 1 CA? to get the starting point for the formula. If attributes are increased in a linear way this test is not really useful, but we never know. Besides, having all players 1 CA should gave them the same number of attributes (weighted, of course), I think that randomness would be lower. but it's true that your former tests gave me the idea, and indeed my ideas nearly a copy of yours Only more examples to help finding the formula.

@hawshiels: I did a test yesterday. However, my internet connection at home often does not work properly, so I couldn't post the results, I'll post them tonight if I can. But I'll tell you what I remember:

-Scenario: I started the test on may 24th, 2028 (all regens). Team is Merthyr Tydfil, continental status, best facilities and 8-10 coaches between 4-6*. The test ended 365 days after, all the time on holiday. All players in the test were training a reposition to improve weak foot (LB for CB, LM for MC and AML for ST). From june 30th I was not managing the team, but players still had trained reposition.

-changes during the year: As I've said, I was sacked 1 month after the test. few players were sold and som were bought, but results were quite clear. team ended 9th in EPL (not a great result, but decent). All players trained with default program, if I'm not wrong. These are the results:

-Two players improved 7/100 their WF. Both 16yo, playing regularly in Merthyr u18 squad, performing under average, average determination, improved 15CA during the year... one has 90CA and 130 PA, the other 70CA and 90PA. both have about 40/100 WF points...

-One player have improved 6/100. 16yo also, playing regularly in u18, slighly over average, also improved 15CA points... I'm not sure about his CA-PA, but surely PA > CA+20. Single footed

-A couple of players improved 5/100. both 18yo, great PA (170-180) and PA > CA+50, playing regularly in first team, single footed. One was sold in january

-5 players improved 4/100. all aged 16-18, one of them very close to his PA, another already dual footed (80/100), average determination, all with 70 < PA < 140. another one was 22yo striker, 175 PA, 140 CA, who has not started repositioning from the very beginning.

-Few players improved 2/100. one of them is 23yo but had PA = CA+20, none of these aged 16 or less.

-some players improved 1/100. some "old" (27yo), some young (17yo) but already achieved their PA... no young player far from his potential has improved only 1 point.

-Some players didn't improve at all. One of them was a young player transfered very quick. others were not so young (>23 yo), but still had some space to improve (CA<PA).

[xouman]

Sorry for double post :s

first conclusions:

-age is very important. at 16yo players improved an average of 5-6/100, 18yo players improved an average of 3-4/100, and players over 20 improved 1/100 WF points

-PA > CA also seems important. players far from their potential improved more, and if they are close they barely improve, even if they are very young.

-as they are related, maybe both are involved with WF improvement, but maybe only of both. I haven't found other elements involved. Maybe (I'm not sure at all) playing in the weak side helps to improve that leg.

But I said the other day that I had a player who improved a lot. But there are some differences: that player appeared quite young (15yo), despite being a striker had good winger traits and played as LM 40% of matches when he was <23 yo, he played a lot since 16 because he was on loan some years, he had high PA... maybe he improved around 7/100 some years.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by xouman:

Sorry for double post :s

first conclusions:

-age is very important. at 16yo players improved an average of 5-6/100, 18yo players improved an average of 3-4/100, and players over 20 improved 1/100 WF points

-PA > CA also seems important. players far from their potential improved more, and if they are close they barely improve, even if they are very young.

-as they are related, maybe both are involved with WF improvement, but maybe only of both. I haven't found other elements involved. Maybe (I'm not sure at all) playing in the weak side helps to improve that leg.

But I said the other day that I had a player who improved a lot. But there are some differences: that player appeared quite young (15yo), despite being a striker had good winger traits and played as LM 40% of matches when he was <23 yo, he played a lot since 16 because he was on loan some years, he had high PA... maybe he improved around 7/100 some years.

Cheers xouman. This is in line with my own findings. I am finding that the maximum WF increase I can get out of 100 in a career is 27. This is the absolute maximum based on 72 players all under the age of 19 (15 to 19) that I tried in all sorts of combinations.

Comparing this to real life .....

1. I would have thought that a player's weaker foot would develop as he gets older but it does not appear to be the case in the game.

2. I would expect a few more players to start off with higher WF scores than they do for FREDs in the game.

3. I would expect that it would be possible to have specific training for this within a schedule.

These however do not appear to be the case within the game. This is fair enough as we can't expect the game to be perfect, but it is perhaps something SI could consider for future versions.

Having now established an average WF career improvement and upper limit, I now want to push ahead on the schedules for younger players. I know what has been said about this previously, but the current test I am doing with my own training schedules is showing that it makes a massive difference to the performance of a player if you shape these attributes correctly - so I aim to make a series of schedules that others can use to suit their own needs.

I am also working on a variation depending on age since I have noticed quite a difference after the age of 26 as an average for most players. But more about this soon.

[Hawshiels]

Let me know what you think of this. This is the result of my player testing. This first post shows the results based on the "out of the box" general schedule.

Note that the following numbers are based on the 1-100 scale. To reduce them to in-game 1-20 scale, you do just divide by 5.

1. Players (regardless of age up to 26) appear to develop their weaker foot at a rate of +2 to +3 each season.

2. Players can increase their TATT (Tactical attributes) by up ro 25 points per season.

3. Players can increase their MATT (Mental attributes) by up to 28 points per season. NOTE: This is for players that do not play matches.

4. Players can increase their MATT by up to 80 points per season if they play matches in the first team of your own team or at a loan club.

5. Players can increase their PATT (Physical attributes) by up to 10 points if not playing matches, and by up to 18 points if they are playing matches.

These figures are based on players with at least 30 points away from their PA. i.e. PA - CA >= 30.

The average CA increase for players playing matches was 16. The average increase in CA for players not playing matches was 11.

There appeared to be very little difference caused by position.

Now, I'll show you the results after specifically designed schedules .....

[isuckatfm]

Great stuff as always Hawshiels.

Have you got the original save of your test i.e. the starting point? Any chance you could check if agility and balance improved in any of your players as they developed from 16/17?

With regards to the weaker foot gains I've generally found that it is just like other attributes and how much you can gain depends on the availability of PA points. Except you don't have a specific training slider to influence how much CA gets put into it.

Typically I've found as a proxy for a training slider:-

(matches + training)> training only > matches only

So if a naturally right footed player plays every match as a left winger while training as a left winger then you get greater gains in his left foot than if he were just training the new position of AM L. Is there a correlation like this in your tests or is it just a coincidence on my end? (I don't have specific numbers on it as I tracked this a while back and didn't keep the data)

[isuckatfm]

@ Hawshiels

Just to add I agree with your 'real life' comparison. In my opinion other attributes shouldn't suffer because of training a weaker foot but I suppose they have to put a cap on it and have some way for simulating the consumption of training time. I think it should be separated from CA and maybe should be linked to versatility as the control in how strong a player's weaker foot can become. Or if I remember correctly as you suggested technical attributes should be separated between stronger and weaker foot.

The low number of FREDs with decent weaker foot scores is also a bit troubling. But again it's difficult to draw a real life comparison as no one here is going to have access to the type of data that would allow for this, in which case I would hope that SI have crunched the numbers and set it up to reflect real life.

[xouman]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Let me know what you think of this. This is the result of my player testing. This first post shows the results based on the "out of the box" general schedule.

Note that the following numbers are based on the 1-100 scale. To reduce them to in-game 1-20 scale, you do just divide by 5.

1. Players (regardless of age up to 26) appear to develop their weaker foot at a rate of +2 to +3 each season.

2. Players can increase their TATT (Tactical attributes) by up ro 25 points per season.

3. Players can increase their MATT (Mental attributes) by up to 28 points per season. NOTE: This is for players that do not play matches.

4. Players can increase their MATT by up to 80 points per season if they play matches in the first team of your own team or at a loan club.

5. Players can increase their PATT (Physical attributes) by up to 10 points if not playing matches, and by up to 18 points if they are playing matches.

These figures are based on players with at least 30 points away from their PA. i.e. PA - CA >= 30.

The average CA increase for players playing matches was 16. The average increase in CA for players not playing matches was 11.

There appeared to be very little difference caused by position.

Now, I'll show you the results after specifically designed schedules .....

1. Don't think so. Maybe was just bad luck, but in my yesterday's tests was a big difference between players aged 16 and 25. all players aged 16 improved 4+ points, and no player above 23 improved 2 points or more. All of them training in a new position to help this.

2. This value is related to training? I suppose that it is. Where is the point when a player maintains his quality and despite he's not improving, he's also not losing attributes? how many diferences are between top facilities and coaches and medium facilities and coaches?

3. Which MATT are more likely to improve without playing? and non official matches count as played matches? It's not related with player's age?

4. Same as 3 and: how many matches should a player play in order increase at least 50 MATT?

5. This ir related to age for sure. which PATT are more likely to increase? how many points do the player increase if he is, for example, aged 20?

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I'm asking things that I would like to know ^^ Thanks a lot for you efforts!

@isuckatfm: So if a naturally right footed player plays every match as a left winger while training as a left winger then you get greater gains in his left foot than if he were just training the new position of AM L.

I also have had the same coincidence, but 100% sure. Maybe I can look again my saved game (I was going to delete it as I was sacked after 20 years :____ ) and see if players who have had best increases played in new positions and if players with low increases haven't played at all. I will tell you something tonight or tomorrow. But that player I'm always talking about (the one who achieved DFC status) played a lot of games in the new side.

[isuckatfm]

@isuckatfm: So if a naturally right footed player plays every match as a left winger while training as a left winger then you get greater gains in his left foot than if he were just training the new position of AM L.

That's generally what I've found yes. Also I had a 433 with an AM L and AM R but played the right footer on the left and left footer on the right as I hoped this would get them to cut inside more often. It did help in this respect but I also found the player's weaker foot increased without needing position specific training. I'm fairly convinced the game references the 'Games played in position' statistics in the Profile screen when deciding on gains in weaker foot and also contributions to positional rating.

[Hawshiels]

isuckatfm, xouman: I am going to try to present the numbers in a more readable format which should clear up a few questions.

I have found that there appears to be 4 stages in a player's development. I can't find the exact change points (if there are any at all), but here is what the numbers suggest:

A player will make between 50% and 62% of their development between 15 and 18 (i.e. over this 3 year period). If a player has not developed well physically during this time, he has low PA and should be sold. This is one of the best signs of a low PA player.

They then make a further 18% to 26% between 18 and 21. Note that players not developing mental skills quickly (see following post) suggest that they have low PA and could/should be sold since little development is likely.

The third stage takes a player from 21 through to 26, where he can improve a further 19% - 22% of his PA during this time. Despite the improvement appearing similar to stage 2, this stage last for 5 years as opposed to 3.

Note that I found some interesting (I thought) things .....

1. The difference between 5 stars and 7 stars appeared not be much at all. In fact it appeared to amount to only 3 to 4 (1-100) points in total for each player.

2. The differences caused by training facilities again seemed to be marginal. In fact, I couldn't really find any instances that suggested that this was a factor at all. Any help here would be appreciated because I assumed this functionality was implemented in this version.

3. Morale had a very slight effect (1 - 3 points over the course of a season) on training outcomes. But even greater effects were caused by "jadedness" which could cause a reduction of between 1 and 4 points for each player.

[Hawshiels]

p.s. The fourth stage (in case it wasn't obvious) is the "ticking over" stage where a player can still develop but only amounts to a further 1 to 20 points (1-100 scale) from this point on (i.e. 26 through to retirement). Noting also, that depending on the natural fitness of players, this could deteriorate very quickly after 29.

[Hawshiels]

Note that using the "General" schedule I could not get "agility" or "balance" to increase AT ALL.

Creativity (MATT), Positioning (MATT) and Strength (PATT) appeared to be the only attributes under the "General" schedule that could develop by more than 4 points in a single season (sometimes as much as by 8). This applies to player in the first 2 stages of development.

Most other attributes were limited to a 2 - 3 point increase.

[xouman]

thanks hawshiels!!! those last increases in attributes are x/20 or x/100? 8/20 seems amazing, but 2-3/100 seems marginal for a 16 yo player.

And I have a question. In my last game, I started in BSS. I loaned few players, and I managed to loan one of these for 3-4 years. My coaches said he was a L1 player (and he seemed that), and when his club promoted they decided he was not good enough, and was not renewed. since my club was in BSP or L2, he wasn't interested in my club and went to scotland.

in 2-3 years he seemed a bss player, his attributes dropped in a terrific way, and he was 22-25 yo. 1-2 years later, he was absolutely rubbish, worse than any of my grey u18 players. I didn't look at his CA or PA, but from my experience he could be perfectly a L1 player looking at his spider web attributes display (swad)

the same happened with some players I play and then release, they go to scotland small teams and destroy themselves

how can a player drop his attributes so easily? and most of these players are playing a lot!!! one reason could be the absence of coaches, but I'm not sure...

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

I have found that there appears to be 4 stages in a player's development. I can't find the exact change points (if there are any at all), but here is what the numbers suggest:

A player will make between 50% and 62% of their development between 15 and 18 (i.e. over this 3 year period). If a player has not developed well physically during this time, he has low PA and should be sold. This is one of the best signs of a low PA player.

They then make a further 18% to 26% between 18 and 21. Note that players not developing mental skills quickly (see following post) suggest that they have low PA and could/should be sold since little development is likely.

The third stage takes a player from 21 through to 26, where he can improve a further 19% - 22% of his PA during this time. Despite the improvement appearing similar to stage 2, this stage last for 5 years as opposed to 3.

quote]

That's pretty much what I've found over various versions of FM. Physical attributes fill out fast early and slow down. It's one of the reasons I use it as a an element in deciding whether or not to go for a youngster as the higher the physical attributes the less CA it will consume to get them to a decent level.

Do you have data on this that you could post showing CA progression over time? I'd be interested to see if I can fit a curve to it that reflects my conceptual graph:-

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1452/caparelationship2np3.jpg

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

Note that I found some interesting (I thought) things .....

1. The difference between 5 stars and 7 stars appeared not be much at all. In fact it appeared to amount to only 3 to 4 (1-100) points in total for each player.

2. The differences caused by training facilities again seemed to be marginal. In fact, I couldn't really find any instances that suggested that this was a factor at all. Any help here would be appreciated because I assumed this functionality was implemented in this version.

3. Morale had a very slight effect (1 - 3 points over the course of a season) on training outcomes. But even greater effects were caused by "jadedness" which could cause a reduction of between 1 and 4 points for each player.

Point 2 is one I noticed on FM 07 and I found quite strange. It doesn't really tie in with reality in the way I would have hoped but I suppose if it is too tightly coupled to development then it would become a bit too predictable in terms of how players developed at various clubs.

Point 3 is a to SI as it gives a nice model of 'burning out' youngsters with over exposure to matches.

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

Note that using the "General" schedule I could not get "agility" or "balance" to increase AT ALL.

That is worrying and ties in with my test game where zero AI managed players saw gains in these attributes. Maybe one for the bugs forum?

One thing I will say is that linking training to gains in CA is different to linking it to gains in attribute points. My understanding of it (and I'm fairly certain I've seen SI people post on this) is that training allows you to get 'more bang for your buck' but at the cost of tiring players and possibly more injuries. So you could have two players with identical CA and identical 'nominal' attributes. If you put one of those players on a higher intensity schedule then his attributes will increase higher than the other player left on a General scheme without it requiring an increase in CA.

Also training facility quality and coaches is supposed to be linked to this 'bang for your buck' concept. So if a player moves from Man Utd to a BSN team his attributes will drop not because of a loss in CA but because the lower quality facilities and coaching mean you get less out of his CA.

This 'bang for your buck' effect has been seriously toned down in FM 08, especially compared to 06 where you could take a mediocre CA player and put him with a top club and high training levels and his attributes would increase to be comparable to a top CA player without requiring gains in CA.

To link this to what you are posting about, in my opinion you should separate the data with regards to different CA gains due to better schedules and different attribute gains with respect to training schedules. Just my opinion

Keep up the good work The effort is appreciated. I would normally do this type of thing myself but my laptop is on it's last legs and taxing the processor over long time periods leads to some noises akin to a squealing pig at the slaughterhouse

[isuckatfm]

I ballsed up the quotes in that last post. The first part should look like this:-

originally posted by Hawshiels:-

I have found that there appears to be 4 stages in a player's development. I can't find the exact change points (if there are any at all), but here is what the numbers suggest:

A player will make between 50% and 62% of their development between 15 and 18 (i.e. over this 3 year period). If a player has not developed well physically during this time, he has low PA and should be sold. This is one of the best signs of a low PA player.

They then make a further 18% to 26% between 18 and 21. Note that players not developing mental skills quickly (see following post) suggest that they have low PA and could/should be sold since little development is likely.

The third stage takes a player from 21 through to 26, where he can improve a further 19% - 22% of his PA during this time. Despite the improvement appearing similar to stage 2, this stage last for 5 years as opposed to 3.

That's pretty much what I've found over various versions of FM. Physical attributes fill out fast early and slow down. It's one of the reasons I use it as a an element in deciding whether or not to go for a youngster as the higher the physical attributes the less CA it will consume to get them to a decent level.

Do you have data on this that you could post showing CA progression over time? I'd be interested to see if I can fit a curve to it that reflects my conceptual graph:-

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1452/caparelationship2np3.jpg

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by xouman:-

the same happened with some players I play and then release, they go to scotland small teams and destroy themselves

Do you have the scottish leagues active? I've noted a strange link between active leagues and the effects of playing time on development. It appears that the CA development model is referencing the statistics in the 'Games played in position' section rather than the statistics at the bottom of a player's profile. The reason I think this is happening is because in my test game one youngster aged 19 went on loan to an English side in a non active league (they would have been Championship level if the league was active). He played 30+ games according to his statistics at the bottom of his profile but in the 'games played in position' section it said none. His CA increase was equivalent to those who saw no first team competitive action, but the youngster who played 15+ games in an active league gained about 20 CA points more.

I think there are issues with how non active leagues behave. Alongside development is how players in non active leagues never complain about not playing first team football. In my current game Marcelo went 3 seasons with Madrid playing only 10 matches total, but despite his contract set to key player he never complained about not playing regularly. But that's for another thread.

[xouman]

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 xouman:-

the same happened with some players I play and then release, they go to scotland small teams and destroy themselves

Do you have the scottish leagues active? I've noted a strange link between active leagues and the effects of playing time on development. It appears that the CA development model is referencing the statistics in the 'Games played in position' section rather than the statistics at the bottom of a player's profile. The reason I think this is happening is because in my test game one youngster aged 19 went on loan to an English side in a non active league (they would have been Championship level if the league was active). He played 30+ games according to his statistics at the bottom of his profile but in the 'games played in position' section it said none. His CA increase was equivalent to those who saw no first team competitive action, but the youngster who played 15+ games in an active league gained about 20 CA points more.

I think there are issues with how non active leagues behave. Alongside development is how players in non active leagues never complain about not playing first team football. In my current game Marcelo went 3 seasons with Madrid playing only 10 matches total, but despite his contract set to key player he never complained about not playing regularly. But that's for another thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, i had scotland active. Also happened with welsh teams, and I had wales in full detail: players who are about L2 drop amazingly when signing for a bad club, even if they play :/

[isuckatfm]

originally posted by xouman:-

yes, i had scotland active. Also happened with welsh teams, and I had wales in full detail: players who are about L2 drop amazingly when signing for a bad club, even if they play :/

That would be the 'bang for your buck' effect I mentioned in a previous post then, probably due to coaching staff and facilities.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by xouman:

thanks hawshiels!!! those last increases in attributes are x/20 or x/100? 8/20 seems amazing, but 2-3/100 seems marginal for a 16 yo player.

And I have a question. In my last game, I started in BSS. I loaned few players, and I managed to loan one of these for 3-4 years. My coaches said he was a L1 player (and he seemed that), and when his club promoted they decided he was not good enough, and was not renewed. since my club was in BSP or L2, he wasn't interested in my club and went to scotland.

in 2-3 years he seemed a bss player, his attributes dropped in a terrific way, and he was 22-25 yo. 1-2 years later, he was absolutely rubbish, worse than any of my grey u18 players. I didn't look at his CA or PA, but from my experience he could be perfectly a L1 player looking at his spider web attributes display (swad)

the same happened with some players I play and then release, they go to scotland small teams and destroy themselves

how can a player drop his attributes so easily? and most of these players are playing a lot!!! one reason could be the absence of coaches, but I'm not sure...

Firstly, the numbers I gave were out of the 1-100 scale so the increases using the "General" schedule are minimal.

As for your player that loses points, I have noticed that this can happen by as much as 60 points (1-100 scale) if a player has been playing more games in the previous season (for some reason). Equally, he can lose up to 8 points (1-100 scale) for each month he is out injured and not training.

[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 xouman:-

the same happened with some players I play and then release, they go to scotland small teams and destroy themselves

Do you have the scottish leagues active? I've noted a strange link between active leagues and the effects of playing time on development. It appears that the CA development model is referencing the statistics in the 'Games played in position' section rather than the statistics at the bottom of a player's profile. The reason I think this is happening is because in my test game one youngster aged 19 went on loan to an English side in a non active league (they would have been Championship level if the league was active). He played 30+ games according to his statistics at the bottom of his profile but in the 'games played in position' section it said none. His CA increase was equivalent to those who saw no first team competitive action, but the youngster who played 15+ games in an active league gained about 20 CA points more.

I think there are issues with how non active leagues behave. Alongside development is how players in non active leagues never complain about not playing first team football. In my current game Marcelo went 3 seasons with Madrid playing only 10 matches total, but despite his contract set to key player he never complained about not playing regularly. But that's for another thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct. If you have a league set to either view only or playable, the players seem to develop reasonably well in terms of CA improvements, but players in non-active leagues will still develop but the CA increases over the season seems to be around 1 or 2 points only.

[lance101]

Originally posted by xouman:

@lance101: why did I say 1 CA? to get the starting point for the formula. If attributes are increased in a linear way this test is not really useful, but we never know. Besides, having all players 1 CA should gave them the same number of attributes (weighted, of course), I think that randomness would be lower. but it's true that your former tests gave me the idea, and indeed my ideas nearly a copy of yours Only more examples to help finding the formula.

@ Xouman

I did have a player in my equations with CA=1, to be able to identify how many points are already there for a player just with CA 1.

I will post soon the results for DM C=20 (unfortunately that cannot be separated from MC = 15, because the game allways automatically adjusts players with DM C and AM C to have M C at least 15)

[lance101]

This is correct. If you have a league set to either view only or playable, the players seem to develop reasonably well in terms of CA improvements, but players in non-active leagues will still develop but the CA increases over the season seems to be around 1 or 2 points only.

This is a key insight! I'm already regreating many of loans I've made :S

[lance101]

Just a comment on the weak foot issue:

Having found the (approximate) weightings of the different attributes for MC, I have to say that I think it is kind of silly that the weak foot is the most important rating for a player. I realized that the way the game is coded, it probably is the most important rating, in the game, for a player to have... but do you really think it should be that way??

In real life, all else equal, would you have someone with weak foot 1 and pace 20 or someone with weak foot 20 and pace 1??

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by lance101:

Just a comment on the weak foot issue:

Having found the (approximate) weightings of the different attributes for MC, I have to say that I think it is kind of silly that the weak foot is the most important rating for a player. I realized that the way the game is coded, it probably is the most important rating, in the game, for a player to have... but do you really think it should be that way??

In real life, all else equal, would you have someone with weak foot 1 and pace 20 or someone with weak foot 20 and pace 1??

I understand the point you are making here Lance101. However, here's something you could do out of interest. I suggested earlier in the thread that people watch live games and see how much more effective a player is with two good feet. I am not suggesting that the game has it correct in terms of weighting, but if you watch real life players take a long time to get the ball under control and onto their stronger foot before they can make a pass, you'd appreciate the importance of this attribute.

So, maybe your comment about pace is a bad example.

Would you prefer to have a player with a weak foot score of 1 and passing of 20, or a dual-footed player with passing of 12? There is a tactical system that would suit both of these players equally, but that is why it is down to the tactics we use.

I personally think the balance of this attribute is about correct actually, but please watch a game or two over the weekend and let me know what you think by watching for this carefully. I like to watch football from all different levels and I watched a Scottish First Division game last week (I think) where St. Johnston played Hamilton Accies. One of the Hamilton players was equally skilled (it appeared) on both feet and he dominated the midfield. There was one particular St Johnston player that always seemed to have to get the ball onto his right foot and he was closed down so quickly that all he could do was punt the ball up the park (on the occassions he didn't lose possession that is). And it made me realise how important the technique (ball control) attribute was here too. A one footed player with low technique seemed pretty useless to me, whereas a one-footed player with good technique (i.e. Fabregas in real life) can overcome the lack of a strong weak foot because he controls the ball quickly onto his good foot and makes the pass. I'm rambling on here, but I suggest you will see this in a different light after this weekend's action.

[lance101]

@Hawshiels

Actually, I've always appreciated two-footdness of a player in real life - I tend to remember if obscure players play with left/right or either foot.... but having sayed that, I think that this attribute is over-rated in this game.

I don't know which of these will be better in the match engine ('Would you prefer to have a player with a weak foot score of 1 and passing of 20, or a dual-footed player with passing of 12? There is a tactical system that would suit both of these players equally, but that is why it is down to the tactics we use.'), but I know, for sure, that the dual footed player, everything else equal, will have a higher CA in the game, and that is silly, in my view...

Did Maradona use his right foot often?

[lance101]

My latest results on the weights of each attribute towards CA, for each position (these results are not final, the more players I include the better I can approximate the real thing - if it is linear)

Weights (ratio of 1 point in this attribute in FMM to 1 point in CA)

Attributes DM C=20 (MC=15) M C=20

Crossing 0.000 0.000

Dribbling 0.063 0.095

Finishing 0.063 0.095

Heading 0.000 0.000

Long Shots 0.166 0.138

Marking 0.000 0.000

Passing 0.255 0.289

Tackling 0.213 0.138

First Touch 0.166 0.138

Technique 0.166 0.138

Penalty 0.000 0.000

Corner 0.000 0.000

Set Pieces 0.000 0.000

Long Throws 0.000 0.000

Creativity 0.203 0.289

Anticipation 0.166 0.138

Decisions 0.166 0.138

Positioning 0.106 0.095

Off the Ball 0.012 0.095

Composure 0.063 0.138

Concentration 0.106 0.095

Flair 0.000 0.000

Influence 0.000 0.000

Bravery 0.000 0.000

Aggression 0.000 0.000

Determination 0.000 0.000

Team Work 0.063 0.095

Work Rate 0.190 0.138

Acceleration 0.393 0.373

Strenght 0.166 0.138

Stamina 0.166 0.138

Pace 0.393 0.373

Jumping 0.000 0.000

Balance 0.102 0.106

Natural Fitness 0.000 0.000

Agility 0.199 0.189

Weak Foot 0.491 0.472

Number of "ability points" 128 123

available at CA=1

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by lance101:

Did Maradona use his right foot often?

No, but he did use his hand once, and I think many of us appreciated that.

The reason I think there will continue to be great debate about the effectiveness of the weaker foot is because we don't know exactly how the engine calculates its effectiveness.

For example if a player has a weaker foot score of 15 and a strong foot score of 20 .... If he has 20 as a score for his passing attribute, does this mean he has 20 for his strong foot, but only 15 for his weaker one? Or if his passing score is 12, does this mean his weaker foot works the same as a player with 9 as a passing score (i.e. always three quarters). Or is it a more complex calculation that this?

The reason I ask this is because depending on the effectiveness, it may be that the researchers have applied scores that are too high in the database. For example, is Fabregas really as strong as 10 out of 20 for his weaker foot? He is one of my most favourite players in the world right now, but I wouldn't rate his weaker foot as being anywhere close to half that of his right foot. I agree with you that there is an imbalance somewhere - although I don't think it is too far out as I've said before.

Having said that, the important thing here is to understand what works - regardless of its relevance in real life - so we can get the most out of the game. If all the tests turn out to be correct that the weaker foot is indeed a very powerful (even if over-rated) attribute .... why shouldn't be all make the most of this and buy DFC players?

[lance101]

Just to put some perspective in the weak foot issue:

For a M C to go from 1 in weak foot to 20 in weak foot, by my calculations presented above, he uses, approximately 45 CA points!!

While to go, for instance, the same M C, to from 1 in passing to 20 in passing, uses approximately 28 CA points.

[Powermonger]

Originally posted by lance101:

Just to put some perspective in the weak foot issue:

For a M C to go from 1 in weak foot to 20 in weak foot, by my calculations presented above, he uses, approximately 45 CA points!!

While to go, for instance, the same M C, to from 1 in passing to 20 in passing, uses approximately 28 CA points.

That would make sense though. In D&D, it costs alot more skill points for a character to become ambidextrous and become proficient in using a weapon in both hands. In soccer, a midfield player who is strong with both feet would be deadly, so the cost of having this proficiency needs to be balanced out somehow.

[xouman]

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 xouman:-

yes, i had scotland active. Also happened with welsh teams, and I had wales in full detail: players who are about L2 drop amazingly when signing for a bad club, even if they play :/

That would be the 'bang for your buck' effect I mentioned in a previous post then, probably due to coaching staff and facilities. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure lance. I was a BSP team, with 5/20 in facilities and few bad half-time coaches, and still the player increased a bit during those 3-4 years I loaned him. he was really a L1 player, or good L2 at least. Then, he goes to a scotish team, full time, more reputation than mine, and he forget how to play football and run. maybe scotish team hadn't good facilities or any coach, but that drop was amazing. and that happened several times later, even from players in my reserves ho crumbled going to a welsh team.

[xouman]

Originally posted by lance101:

Just a comment on the weak foot issue:

Having found the (approximate) weightings of the different attributes for MC, I have to say that I think it is kind of silly that the weak foot is the most important rating for a player. I realized that the way the game is coded, it probably is the most important rating, in the game, for a player to have... but do you really think it should be that way??

In real life, all else equal, would you have someone with weak foot 1 and pace 20 or someone with weak foot 20 and pace 1??

I think that DFC is indeed the best TECHNICAL attribute for a player. A player relying on physical style does not need DFC as a technical player does. Players perform better if they don't have to put always the ball on the strong foot. A player with technical attributes average of 3 would prefer rather 20 pace and acceleration than 20 in WF, but a player with 17 TAA maybe plays better with high DFC.

[xouman]

Originally posted by lance101:

My latest results on the weights of each attribute towards CA, for each position (these results are not final, the more players I include the better I can approximate the real thing - if it is linear)

Weights (ratio of 1 point in this attribute in FMM to 1 point in CA)

Attributes DM C=20 (MC=15) M C=20

Crossing 0.000 0.000

Dribbling 0.063 0.095

Finishing 0.063 0.095

Heading 0.000 0.000

Long Shots 0.166 0.138

Marking 0.000 0.000

Passing 0.255 0.289

Tackling 0.213 0.138

First Touch 0.166 0.138

Technique 0.166 0.138

Penalty 0.000 0.000

Corner 0.000 0.000

Set Pieces 0.000 0.000

Long Throws 0.000 0.000

Creativity 0.203 0.289

Anticipation 0.166 0.138

Decisions 0.166 0.138

Positioning 0.106 0.095

Off the Ball 0.012 0.095

Composure 0.063 0.138

Concentration 0.106 0.095

Flair 0.000 0.000

Influence 0.000 0.000

Bravery 0.000 0.000

Aggression 0.000 0.000

Determination 0.000 0.000

Team Work 0.063 0.095

Work Rate 0.190 0.138

Acceleration 0.393 0.373

Strenght 0.166 0.138

Stamina 0.166 0.138

Pace 0.393 0.373

Jumping 0.000 0.000

Balance 0.102 0.106

Natural Fitness 0.000 0.000

Agility 0.199 0.189

Weak Foot 0.491 0.472

Number of "ability points" 128 123

available at CA=1

good job lance! I have another question now: those 123 initial ability points, what are them? 123/100 fmm points (25/20 normal points)?

how are they assigned? do they have any preference? all MC with CA=1 have 123 initial ability points?

and specially: how can DMC star with more points than MC if he have less free points??? this annoys me :/

thanks again, and excuse me for being so dull

[Joor]

This is something I dont understand with training; when I set strength slider on 6 why did my young 21 y o OMC go from 15 to 17 strength in 7 months ?.

As you can see my training schedule focus alot more on other areas ..

[Joor]

Here you see hes stats in the beginning of 2007;

and 7-8 months later ;

[Joor]

I just dont get it...even with high aerobic training nothing happend to agility and balance...and crossing gone up alot ?

[Powermonger]

Originally posted by lance101:

My latest results on the weights of each attribute towards CA, for each position (these results are not final, the more players I include the better I can approximate the real thing - if it is linear)

Weights (ratio of 1 point in this attribute in FMM to 1 point in CA)

Attributes DM C=20 (MC=15) M C=20

Crossing 0.000 0.000

Dribbling 0.063 0.095

Finishing 0.063 0.095

Heading 0.000 0.000

Long Shots 0.166 0.138

Marking 0.000 0.000

Passing 0.255 0.289

Tackling 0.213 0.138

First Touch 0.166 0.138

Technique 0.166 0.138

Penalty 0.000 0.000

Corner 0.000 0.000

Set Pieces 0.000 0.000

Long Throws 0.000 0.000

Creativity 0.203 0.289

Anticipation 0.166 0.138

Decisions 0.166 0.138

Positioning 0.106 0.095

Off the Ball 0.012 0.095

Composure 0.063 0.138

Concentration 0.106 0.095

Flair 0.000 0.000

Influence 0.000 0.000

Bravery 0.000 0.000

Aggression 0.000 0.000

Determination 0.000 0.000

Team Work 0.063 0.095

Work Rate 0.190 0.138

Acceleration 0.393 0.373

Strenght 0.166 0.138

Stamina 0.166 0.138

Pace 0.393 0.373

Jumping 0.000 0.000

Balance 0.102 0.106

Natural Fitness 0.000 0.000

Agility 0.199 0.189

Weak Foot 0.491 0.472

Number of "ability points" 128 123

available at CA=1

Interesting findings. This is what I've found through analysing the database for DMCs and MCs and is based on players aged between 21 and 32 and with a CA of 100 to 200 (649 players found). This is looking at the percentage of players who have a individual attribute score of 14 or greater.

DMC

Work Rate (76%)

Stamina (74%)

Teamwork (72%)

Bravery (59%)

Aggression (52%)

Tackling (52%)

Natural Fitness (51%)

Positioning (51%)

Strength (51%)

Anticipation (49%)

Concentration (48%)

Passing (48%)

Balance (42%)

Composure (39%)

Decisions (35%)

Influence (35%)

Acceleration (33%)

Agility (30%)

Technique (30%)

Long Shots (29%)

Marking (29%)

Heading (26%)

Pace (26%)

Creativity (25%)

Jumping (23%)

All the remaining attributes are below 20% and are less prominent then found in other positions.

MCs

Work Rate (66%)

Stamina (64%)

Teamwork (62%)

Passing (58%)

Natural Fitness (48%)

Technique (45%)

Aggression (41%)

Bravery (40%)

Creativity (40%)

Strength (37%)

Anticipation (35%)

First Touch (34%)

Long Shots (32%)

Composure (32%)

Concentration (32%)

Influence (32%)

Positioning (32%)

Agility (31%)

Tackling (31%)

Free Kicks (29%)

Influence (29%)

Acceleration (28%)

Balance (28%)

Off The Ball (26%)

Flair (25%)

Pace (25%)

Corners (21%)

Dribbling (21%)

Penalties (20%)

The remaining attributes are fairly low percentage wise for MCs.

The top three attributes for both positions are Work Rate, Stamina and Teamwork respectively. Other positions do not have as much a dominance in work rate (except wingbacks), same with stamina and teamwork. It's interesting to see that the weightings you found through FMM for these three attributes do not put as much emphasis with these in terms of CA compared to what I'm finding distribution wise in the database.

Now if I only look at DMCs with a CA of 150 or more (same age bracket with attributes scoring 14 or more), the distribution is radically different:

DMCs (Top 6)

Stamina (100%)

Anticipation (98%)

Concentration (95%)

Positioning (93%)

Teamwork (93%)

Work Rate (93%)

MCs (Top 5)

Stamina (94%)

Teamwork (92%)

Work Rate (85%)

Anticipation (82%)

Passing (82%)

Be interesting to find out if CA development is static per position or indeed changes around the weightings as players start reaching higher levels of CA.

[xouman]

Originally posted by Powermonger:

Interesting findings. This is what I've found through analysing the database for DMCs and MCs and is based on players aged between 21 and 32 and with a CA of 100 to 200 (649 players found). This is looking at the percentage of players who have a individual attribute score of 14 or greater.

DMC

Work Rate (76%)

Stamina (74%)

Teamwork (72%)

Bravery (59%)

Aggression (52%)

Tackling (52%)

Natural Fitness (51%)

Positioning (51%)

Strength (51%)

Anticipation (49%)

Concentration (48%)

Passing (48%)

Balance (42%)

Composure (39%)

Decisions (35%)

Influence (35%)

Acceleration (33%)

Agility (30%)

Technique (30%)

Long Shots (29%)

Marking (29%)

Heading (26%)

Pace (26%)

Creativity (25%)

Jumping (23%)

All the remaining attributes are below 20% and are less prominent then found in other positions.

MCs

Work Rate (66%)

Stamina (64%)

Teamwork (62%)

Passing (58%)

Natural Fitness (48%)

Technique (45%)

Aggression (41%)

Bravery (40%)

Creativity (40%)

Strength (37%)

Anticipation (35%)

First Touch (34%)

Long Shots (32%)

Composure (32%)

Concentration (32%)

Influence (32%)

Positioning (32%)

Agility (31%)

Tackling (31%)

Free Kicks (29%)

Influence (29%)

Acceleration (28%)

Balance (28%)

Off The Ball (26%)

Flair (25%)

Pace (25%)

Corners (21%)

Dribbling (21%)

Penalties (20%)

The remaining attributes are fairly low percentage wise for MCs.

The top three attributes for both positions are Work Rate, Stamina and Teamwork respectively. Other positions do not have as much a dominance in work rate (except wingbacks), same with stamina and teamwork. It's interesting to see that the weightings you found through FMM for these three attributes do not put as much emphasis with these in terms of CA compared to what I'm finding distribution wise in the database.

Now if I only look at DMCs with a CA of 150 or more (same age bracket with attributes scoring 14 or more), the distribution is radically different:

DMCs (Top 6)

Stamina (100%)

Anticipation (98%)

Concentration (95%)

Positioning (93%)

Teamwork (93%)

Work Rate (93%)

MCs (Top 5)

Stamina (94%)

Teamwork (92%)

Work Rate (85%)

Anticipation (82%)

Passing (82%)

Be interesting to find out if CA development is static per position or indeed changes around the weightings as players start reaching higher levels of CA.

do you did the first test with players with CA from 100 to 200 or from 100 to 149? I think that second way seems more informative as it's independant from second test.

kutgw!

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Joor:

I just dont get it...even with high aerobic training nothing happend to agility and balance...and crossing gone up alot ?

If this player was playing games, you will notice that his strength will develop anyway. In fact, this is an area of physical development that almost requires no training which is strange.

As for agility and balance ..... I still haven't found a way to get these to increase.

[FF15]

Hey - Well done on the awesome work done so far! Any chance of a brief summary as to the findings to date? Extremely interested but don't have the time to read 10 pages worth!

Well done again!

[lance101]

@ xouman

The "initial CA points" are points in terms of CA. Let me say an example:

A MC=20 with CA=100 will have 99+123 CA ability points, that will be distributed through the attributes - each attribute will take as much as the weight I present says.

A DMC=20 (MC=15) with CA=150 will have 149+128 points.

Although there is still some uncertainty in the estimation of these "initial CA points" - the standard errors are still around 7 - this seems to imply that the game gives more initial points to this second player - eventhough it's not clear that he will be able to higher attributes across the board, because then maybe the weights each attribute has might be higher.

[lance101]

Just one more clarification: DM C and M C have the same free attributes. Their other attributes are not weighted in the same way though.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by lance101:

Just one more clarification: DM C and M C have the same free attributes. Their other attributes are not weighted in the same way though.

True. There are slight differences.

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by FF15:

Hey - Well done on the awesome work done so far! Any chance of a brief summary as to the findings to date? Extremely interested but don't have the time to read 10 pages worth!

Well done again!

I intend to produce a summary as a matter of urgency, but unfortunately haven't had as much free time as I'd have liked over the last few days.

[Aytumious]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Let me know what you think of this. This is the result of my player testing. This first post shows the results based on the "out of the box" general schedule.

Note that the following numbers are based on the 1-100 scale. To reduce them to in-game 1-20 scale, you do just divide by 5.

1. Players (regardless of age up to 26) appear to develop their weaker foot at a rate of +2 to +3 each season.

2. Players can increase their TATT (Tactical attributes) by up ro 25 points per season.

3. Players can increase their MATT (Mental attributes) by up to 28 points per season. NOTE: This is for players that do not play matches.

4. Players can increase their MATT by up to 80 points per season if they play matches in the first team of your own team or at a loan club.

5. Players can increase their PATT (Physical attributes) by up to 10 points if not playing matches, and by up to 18 points if they are playing matches.

These figures are based on players with at least 30 points away from their PA. i.e. PA - CA >= 30.

The average CA increase for players playing matches was 16. The average increase in CA for players not playing matches was 11.

There appeared to be very little difference caused by position.

Now, I'll show you the results after specifically designed schedules .....

Do reserve or youth squad matches count as players having played or do I need to loan these players out or give them some playing time with my first team?

[Aytumious]

I should have also added, has it been established that sending you players to feeder clubs that aren't in active leagues a complete waste? Would it be better to just keep the guys playing in reserves and training with my staff?

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Aytumious:

I should have also added, has it been established that sending you players to feeder clubs that aren't in active leagues a complete waste? Would it be better to just keep the guys playing in reserves and training with my staff?

It is a waste to send them to clubs that are not within either a viewable or playable league so you are better to get them into ANY games within these leagues. The best way to determine how useful the games are at improving your players is to look at the reputation of the league you are having them play in. If they play in the reserve league, this league will have a reputation that will dictate how quickly their CA rises.

So, always always start a game by including the leagues that surround the one you intend to play in (geographical location) because these are most likely going to become your affiliates and therefore you need them to be active to help improve your players.

p.s. Note that sending players to non-active leagues will improve them but only very very slightly so they are better off in training.

[the guy]

Lance,

Have you been inputing the data one by one from FMM results? I am more than willing to try and calculate the weights for other positions, and was trying to figure out if there is a faster way to get the data. If you want help, please let me know.

Also, did you notice the ratios for the CM results? If you normalize by the smallest value, 0.095, the weights are almost exactly 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I remember someone at SI said the importance was weighted as integers from 0 to 5 for the 2007 version. They seem to be doing the same thing here as well. I wonder if the DM/CM combo can be calculated as a weighted average of the position weights. Just throwing it out there as a possibility, I have no data to back it up.