Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[Ljuba82]

Originally posted by JAT:

I managed to compile a chart what I think shows free attributes for all playing positions.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/fmr2008/freeattributes.html

And about players who can play multiple positions. According to my testing, it seems that if player can play more than one position, he gets free attribute only if attribute is free for ALL positions he can play. For example if we take DC who has following free attributes (excluding "free for all" attributes)

Crossing

Dribbling

Finishing

Long shots

Technique

Creativity

Off the ball

Teamwork

And this player learns DM position, DM position has ollowing free attributes (excluding "free for all" attributes)

Crossing

Heading

Marking

Bravery

Influence

Off the ball

Jumping

In this case, player does not gain any new free attributes but loses following

Dribbling

Finishing

Long shots

Technique

Creativity

Teamwork

So I think that player cannot gain any new free attributes through training new positions but can lose them.

...one more evidence that game is flawed...

...no matter how hard you train your player, or how he is playing well in matches, if you train him to another position where he would loose his FA, he will start loosing his other attributes...just to make his CA intact....

...SO UNLOGIC...

[IredzIPenguin]

So... is this thread dead? It's been a month since someone posted and we still haven't figured out all the things we need to figure out. I have a quesiton.

@ Hawshiels:

You posted here (http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=383563&postcount=89) that for each Vertcal Position on the field theyre are different CA points used for each position. I'm unsure of what you mean by this. With Defence as an example, does it cost 4 FMM TATT points to increase CA by 1?

[Smac]

Its a huge problem ; none of the free attributes are improving .

I beleave SI knows about this bug..

This seems mighty serious. Hope its improved in the future!

Agree with all that this is an amazing thread, what I've read so far. KUTGW in '09!

[Law_Man]

This seems mighty serious. Hope its improved in the future!

Agree with all that this is an amazing thread, what I've read so far. KUTGW in '09!

Yeh apologies for the thread dying a death, I had exams and with the speed it took off it really ran away from me and I never really got back into with one thing or another.

However, I'm sure people would be interested in running similar tests for FM09.

KUTGW lads.

[wwfan]

Bah. Excuses, excuses. You'll be explaining away your relegation with some equally insignificant matter. Eating perhaps? Or needing to sleep?

[xiaoken777]

Is here a pre-set point limit for each of a player's attributes? The reason I ask this is because I developed a player, Luke Pearce. The first time I bought him, I used genie scout to check out his "max potential attributes". He seemed a decent wingback.

5 years later after his first full season, his mental stats shot up incredibly high. Other then aggression and influence, every other mental state become red (more then 16, most 18-20). I did not take notice back then, but I am almost certain that this was not what I saw in genie scout when I originally bought him.

[Law_Man]

Bah. Excuses, excuses. You'll be explaining away your relegation with some equally insignificant matter. Eating perhaps? Or needing to sleep?

Mod brutality!

[kolobok]

Is here a pre-set point limit for each of a player's attributes? The reason I ask this is because I developed a player, Luke Pearce. The first time I bought him, I used genie scout to check out his "max potential attributes". He seemed a decent wingback.

5 years later after his first full season, his mental stats shot up incredibly high. Other then aggression and influence, every other mental state become red (more then 16, most 18-20). I did not take notice back then, but I am almost certain that this was not what I saw in genie scout when I originally bought him.

No. Genie Scout provides an estimate of max potential attributes assuming that all attibutes will grow uniformly. It's not the case as training, tutoring, exposure to first team football, and other factors make some attributes increase faster than others. The only limits are 20 points per attribute and CA, which would not allow all attributes to increase over the roof.

To Law_Man: I guess lawyers always find excuses unless they get paid:D:)

[Surferosa]

This thread is ace.

Its also good to see a few of the contributors back- even better if it all sparks back to life. I think we need Hawshiels to return... can we petition him?

[Smac]

Man, I wish there were a summary. I've read a bit more but my head is still spinning.

A question: Do the Free Attributes increase or not? (post patch 8.0.2)

[LichR]

Sorry for reviving an old thread.

with Ljuba82's help, I was able to pinpoint EXACTLY how attributes / CA work.

First of all, to clear the myth, there is NO free attributes for positions.

There are attributes that take up VERY little CA however, for each position.

Let me clarify.

For a striker, his marking / tackling take up very little CA.

For a central defender, his finishing / off the ball take up very little CA.

and contrary to what most people believe here, position training takes NO additional CA.

so what happens for a striker when he gains central defender position?

His marking and tackling suddenly becomes an "important" attribute for him, which lead people to believe that this is no longer free attributes.

HOWEVER, his finishing / off the ball becomes a "less important" attribute for him, since he is a hybrid DC and ST.

Let me clarify again.

If each 1 point of his finish / off the ball took 3 CA, having 20 / 20 finishing /off the ball would've put the player at 120 CA. (this is just a number made up, not exact number)

When he gets 11/20 positional rating at DC, his finishing and off the ball attribute will each take 2 CA per point, free-ing up 40 CA.

Therefore, he would sit at 80 CA.

What happens now with the 40 free CA?

it gets distributed evenly on all his attributes.

The conclusion?

If you have a player who has almost peaked, and has low attributes in "other" positions, you should train him for these "other" positions.

Example, you have a 24 years old striker with low marking/tackling, you should train him to be a DC. When he gets DC positional rating, the weights on his attributes will change, and his overall attributes will go up by 1.

so Why shouldn't you do this to EVERY single player?

first of all, when you train your players, your they WILL accrue points depending on their position, whether you train them for that specific attribute or not. Ex. If you have a AM R, ONLY train him to defense, he will still get crossing +1.

Therefore, if you train their off-position too early in their development curve, instead of becoming a good striker, they will end up getting marking/tackling attributes, hence, becoming a not-so-good striker. (think of it as, his free CA will be distributed, but his PA-CA will be his future growth, and they will be split between DC and ST attributes, although more on ST if you train him in attacking)

However, once he has already finished his development, the free CA will be distributed. and since his growth as DC will be minimal, he will become a better ST in the end.

I hope this clarified everything.

If you have further questions, you may ask me via PM or reply to this thread.

Ljuba82 can clearly back me up on this one, since our research point to the same conclusion.

[IredzIPenguin]

Wow... well, this is definitely gonna take some getting used to as your theory basically directly contradicts with what Hawshiels said. Will you be investigating changes made in fm09?

[LichR]

this IS using FM09

[Ljuba82]

Like LichR said, after researching "some stuff " for FM 2009 I think we discovered something very interesting...

1. No free attributes. In previous versions a DC for example with finishing, srossing of 1 have the same CA like DC with finishing, crossing of 20. Now you can see some minor changes in CA (a point or 2).

I clearly remember (someone from SI said that) that free attributes existed in previous versions, so it would be nice if someone from SI comment this, because if free attributes really don't exist anymore, it's a really big step forward and I'm feeling that people from SI really listened what I was talking.

Also, like years before, some attributes don't present ability and don't use CA points. They are just mental traits (personality) or some attributes that you can personaly jugde is it better to have them high or low (aggression, flair, eccentricity for GK...)

2. Some attributes are nit corectly weighted in my oppinion. For example weight for marking for DM is very low, so theoreticaly it can increase a lot with just little consuming of CA. Problem is that the training marking is linked with tackling that have bigger weight so you can't increase marking without increasing tackling (defending training). The same is with jumping, but you can clearly see that jumping could be veru important for DM.

3. There is something called "expecting PA". I'm not sure what is it and did it existed in previous versions, but maybe it's PA that scouts tell you. If it's true, I don't like it cause that means that scout rating JPA and JPP are not important.

4. Weaker foot is most important for strikers. It takes 30 CA points (from 1 to 20).

5. Techical att are generally inexpensive, so you can train players most in that area once when you're satisfied with their physical att, I mean you don't have to try to maximise their physical stats (just oppinion, you maybe preffer to have physical type of players).

6. Pace and Acceleration are the most CA consuming attributes for every position.

About LichR "retraining method"...

I don't know if I can agree with LichR, but facts are that when you train a striker for DC (when he reach 11 for DC) he will loose "weight" of his main attributes (finishing, composure, pace...) . That means that he will be the same pleyer as before, but his CA will be smaller, so he can improve further in his striking attributes and can fullfill that several point of CA. More is player trained to DC position (20 for example), more you gain potential in improvement.

The reasons why I can't agree (or disagree) with LichR are...

1. You can assume it's a good strategy only if your strikers defending attributes are low. If for examle, hipoteticaly, striker have high rating in tackling, marking, bravery, positioning (mainly defensive attributes)...by learning new position, weight of those att will increase, and it's possible that increase in weight of DC attributes will be bigger that decrease in stiker att. That means that he should gain more CA, but because that is impossible, all of his att will just gradually go down to reflect his CA. Of course it's just a theory, I don't see strikers with those attributes over 15

2. I'm not sure is it possible to train players to such different position. It's ok to train a DC to DR, or AMR to AML, but I'm not sure will you be able to train a striker to DC rating of 11. Of course, it depends on his versatility and age (the younger, the better chances are), but if you train him to DC when he is not fully developed as a striker will probably hinder his striking attributes (LichR explained it well)

3. Not sure about alghorythm, but players generaly, naturaly gets higher attributes in position ther are suitable. You can best see this with regens. Strikers have bigger finishing att, wingers pace, DC have better tackling...

My point is, even if you can succesfully train a player to DC position, because you want to increase space to improve his striking attributes, maybe it will be impoosible to raise them much, cause player wil naturally raise his defendind and striking attributes.

4. Don't forget that it takes time to train a player to new position, so maybe you are just using valuable time of training (in%) for training him in other position with no gain at all.

[Ljuba82]

...about weaker foot...there is obviously alghorythm with that...it not use 30 CA for all players (lower league players), but you can assume that with world class STRIKERS it takes around that.

[RT--]

I don't know how I managed to miss this thread the first time around, but can I just say - BEST! THREAD! EVER!

Really fascinating stuff, and good to see people trying to get to grips with how FM works. I bet this makes great reading for the SI staff who have a bit of inside information on all of this.

It's re-assuring (but not surprising, perhaps) to see that the results of most of the investigations point to a very complex, but very clever system.

Good to see that LichR and Ljuba are continuing the investigative work for 09 - it's obvious that the weightings of certain attributes and how easy they are to improve with training is very closely linked with some of 08's biggest issues, in terms of how things like pace + acceleration, and set-pieces were so poor in re-generated players.

I desperately hope the distribution of attributes has been improved for re-gens in 09, and I'm looking forward to reading the results of more investigations when the full version is out.

[IredzIPenguin]

So anyone else gonna continue the research for this thread? im terrible @ math and research but i'm good at praising ppl . I'm sure many people are very interested to see what differences there are between 08 and 09 in terms of attributes etc. Hawshiels, come back to us!t_t

[Altazar]

Okey dokey.

Here goes (sorry does not let me enter it as a normally formatted table):

Attribute / Position GK DR/L WBR/L SW DC DMC MC AMC MR/L AMR/L ST Training category

Acceleration 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 Aerobic

Agility 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Aerobic

Balance 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Aerobic

Injury Proneness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jumping 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 Aerobic

Natural Fitness 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strength

Pace 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 Aerobic

Stamina 1 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Strength

Strength 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 4 Strength

Corners 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Set pieces

Crossing 0 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 Set pieces

Dribbling 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 3 Ball control

Finishing 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 4 Shooting

First touch 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 Ball control

Free kicks 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Set pieces

Heading 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 Ball control

Long shots 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 Shooting

Long throws 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Set pieces

Marking 0 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Defending

Passing 1 2 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 2 Attacking

Penalties 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Set pieces

Tackling 0 4 3 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 1 Defending

Technique 1 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ball control

Versatility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Aggression 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anticipation 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Tactics

Bravery 4 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Composure 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 Shooting

Concentration 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 Defending

Consistency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Decisions 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 Tactics

Dirtiness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ball control

Important Matches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Leadership (influence) 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Movement (off the ball) 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 Tactics

Positioning 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 Tactics

Teamwork 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 Tactics

Vision (creativity) 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 4 3 3 2 Attacking

Workrate 1 2 2 1 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 Strength

Aerial ability 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goalkeeping

Command of area 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tactics

Communication 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tactics

Eccentricity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Handling 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goalkeeping

Kicking 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goalkeeping

One on ones 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goalkeeping

Reflexes 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aerobic

Rushing out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tactics

Tendency to punch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Throwing 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goalkeeping

Read:

0 - is free attribute for this position

1 - least weight for position ... 6 - heaviest weight for position.

Hope this helps you pinpoint the formulas. Note that the degree of proficiency in a position reflects on the CA. Thus, a 20 in ST with 20 in AMC will actually reflect 50% of the above weights for ST and 50% for AMC.

Best,

Altazar

[Macon]

You can't just casually drop information like that into an ancient thread, which people might not notice!

Interesting that flair is a free attribute for all positions: dunno if this was always the case or not.

[kolobok]

You can't just casually drop information like that into an ancient thread, which people might not notice!

Interesting that flair is a free attribute for all positions: dunno if this was always the case or not.

Why not? It bumps the thread up and given that some people obviously don't know it exists, it's not a bad idea even if it's just a bump, especially for a therad of this quality. The info belongs here as without the backgroung Altazar would have to wright a dissertation explaining what it all means.

Altazar, good work!

[Surferosa]

Fixed the table...

Plus.. I agree with kolobok. Best thread on the forums (imo). Anything that keeps it alive is a good thing

Att/ Posn	GK	DR/L	WBR/L	SW	DC	DMC	MC	AMC	MR/L	AMR/L	ST	Training category
Acceleration	3	4	4	4	4	4	4	5	5	6	6	Aerobic
Agility		4	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	Aerobic
Balance		2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	Aerobic
Inj Prone	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Jumping		1	2	1	3	4	1	1	1	1	1	4	Aerobic
Natural Fitness	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Strength
Pace		2	4	4	4	4	4	4	5	5	6	6	Aerobic
Stamina		1	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	2	Strength
Strength	3	3	2	3	4	3	3	3	2	2	4	Strength
Corners		0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	Set pieces
Crossing	0	2	3	1	1	1	1	1	4	4	2	Set pieces
Dribbling	0	1	2	1	1	2	2	3	3	4	3	Ball control
Finishing	0	1	1	1	1	2	2	3	2	2	4	Shooting
First touch	1	2	3	3	2	3	3	3	3	3	4	Ball control
Free kicks	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	Set pieces
Heading		1	2	1	2	4	1	1	1	1	1	4	Ball control
Long shots	0	1	1	1	1	3	3	3	2	2	2	Shooting
Long throws	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	Set pieces
Marking		0	3	2	2	4	1	1	1	1	1	1	Defending
Passing		1	2	3	3	2	4	4	4	3	2	2	Attacking
Penalties	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	Set pieces
Tackling	0	4	3	2	4	4	3	2	2	2	1	Defending
Technique	1	2	3	3	1	3	3	3	3	3	3	Ball control
Versatility	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Aggression	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Anticipation	2	3	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	Tactics
Bravery		4	2	1	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	
Composure	2	2	2	3	2	2	3	3	3	3	4	Shooting
Concentration	4	4	3	4	4	3	2	2	2	2	2	Defending
Consistency	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Decisions	4	4	3	4	4	3	3	3	2	2	2	Tactics
Dirtiness	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Flair		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Ball control
Imp Matches	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Iinfluence	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	
Off the ball	0	1	2	1	1	1	2	3	2	2	4	Tactics
Positioning	4	4	3	4	4	3	2	2	1	1	2	Tactics
Teamwork	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	Tactics
Creativity	1	2	2	2	1	3	4	4	3	3	2	Attacking
Workrate	1	2	2	1	2	4	3	3	3	3	2	Strength
Aerial ability	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Goalkeeping
Command of area	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Tactics
Communication	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Tactics
Eccentricity	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Handling	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Goalkeeping
Kicking		4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Goalkeeping
One on ones	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Goalkeeping
Reflexes	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Aerobic
Rushing out	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Tactics
Tend to punch	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	
Throwing	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Goalkeeping

Read:

0 - is free attribute for this position

1 - least weight for position ... 6 - heaviest weight for position.

Hope this helps you pinpoint the formulas. Note that the degree of proficiency in a position reflects on the CA. Thus, a 20 in ST with 20 in AMC will actually reflect 50% of the above weights for ST and 50% for AMC.

[Altazar]

What it also means to show is that even though some people believe that certain attributes are free, that is not actually true. For example Natural Fitness is NOT free from goalies even though it is for everyone else. Also, some attributes like corners, free kicks and long throws ARE NOT FREE, just have low weight.

The above should also help you to edit a player while keeping his overall CA. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo to have an attribute like free kicks (weigth coefficient of 1) by 4, you can do this simply by decreasing by 4 another attribute with weight coefficient 1 like corner kicks or by a combined 4 any number of attributes that have a weight coefficient for his position of 1, e.g. corners -3, long throws -1.

Cheers.

[zaq]

I dont know if this has been mentioned before, I didnt manage to read all off the posts but it might be something to take in to concideration.

I read a post a while back on one of the more obscure sections of this forums and it was posted by credible accounts (if i had the time i would try to find the thread).

This is what i remember ( with some reservations for bad memory ): That although positions take CA points positions also affect the cost/weight of abilities so a player that can play more than one position use the lower cost/weight for attributes that are of different importance for the positions.

According to the poster this would mean that although being able to play in many positions would use up alot of CA the rest of the players attribut would be cheaper due to the position rebate given.

Not exactly sure it is true, but it sounds reasonable and could be significant for your calculations.

[Altazar]

To put it in perspective, take concentration attribute for a player that has as positions (Position rating >=2), DC = 10, DMC = 15, MC = 20, AMC = 15, ST = 10. The actual weight of concentration for him would be formed by multiplying the weight for that position by the proficiency in that position divided by the sum total of proficiencies, i.e.:

Concentration = [10 (DC prof) * 4 (Conc for DC) + 15 (DMC prof) * 3 (Conc for DMC) + 20 (MC prof) * 2 (Conc for MC) + 15 (AMC prof) * 2 (Conc for AMC) + 10 (ST prof) * 2 (Conc for ST)] / (10+15+20+15+10) = 2.5

The "number" of positions where a player has proficiency >=2 should not take ANY CA.

The result of the above formula is that a player who now has ST proficiency of 20, if retrained to DC (let us say he reaches DC 15 proficiency), would as a result get his heavy-weight for striker attributes decreasing in weight counter-balanced by increase in the weight of center-defender heavy-weight attributes. If you keep him on a striker training schedule, given he is below 24, this would allow him to increase his striker-essential attributes now BEYOND what he could achieve IF HE DIDN'T HAVE DC=15.

This is, in reality a kind of a bug people keep mentioning.

[kolobok]

Altazar,

I think your findings have much more important application than simply editing or retraining. Here is what I mean.

Suppose I have a DC with all attributes related to defending training (tackling, concentartion, etc.)>16, but relatively low decision, creativity, positioning, teamwork. Typically the intesity of defensive and tactical training for DCs is close to high, whilst the rest just complement those 2 categories (at least how I set it up). However, if the player's CA is close to his PA, it does not do any good, because to improve even one attribute (say positioning) he would need to give up a lot elsewhere.

Other things equal, I can slightly reduce the intensity of his defensive training in favor of tactic and even if I lose 1 point in marking, adding 2 in positioning would compensate it.

Hope it makes sense.

[dimartino]

I'm really interested in this thread, but I just don't have the time to read trough 7 pages (as I have to work, and 90% of my free time is divided between family and FM2009)!!! Can anybody please be kind enough to resume this threads conclutions??? 10x A LOT!!

[BaYa]

BEST FM RESEARCH AND TOPIC EVER !

1000000000000 X thanks !!!

[BaYa]

are you guys sure that attributes like: consistency do NOT have any effect on the CA ??? (see table) I really doubt about it

[kolobok]

I'm really interested in this thread, but I just don't have the time to read trough 7 pages (as I have to work, and 90% of my free time is divided between family and FM2009)!!! Can anybody please be kind enough to resume this threads conclutions??? 10x A LOT!!

Briefly - during a player's carreer in the game he moves from CA towards PA. CA is defined by combination of attributes. The combination is different depending on player's position and versatility. Each additional point of CA is distributed across attributes. The distribution depends on player's position, training, whether he is two-footie and some other factors. Some attributes are (almost) free, meaning that their increase does not "eat" a lot of CA points, whilst some other attributes are heavily weighted. There are lots of details inside.

[Altazar]

I guarantee that the zeros are zeros, in fact being a generally mistrusting guy, instead of just using them as they come from the last developer tool, I have tested them.

As to the "free attributes", let me try to explain why they are free. First off, versatility. It refers to (a) how good a player is in retraining into a new position and (b) how good he is in retaining a position in which he is proficient when he is not playing actively in that position. Normally, you would not be playing a given player in several positions from match to match - swapping left winger to right winger is not a change in position (still a winger) and ST to AMC swapping although happening in real life is not a dramatic change. So, no need to give it a cost. As for aggression - it is sometimes good, as it makes you run at your opponents, but it also makes it more likely you pick up cards for it. Injury proneness - well, since it increases with age, and is a negative attribute, we may argue that it should have a negative weight, but including attributes with negative weight would make it very difficult for the game calculations. Same goes for dirtiness and eccentricity. Therefore, these three instead of negative weights are given zero weights. Flair is really a tendency (style) of play, which neither improves nor worsens play, same as tendency to punch for goalkeepers. Therefore, they reasonably have zero weights. What remains is consistency and important matches. The reason these two do not have weights is not that they do not matter, but rather how they are applied. Consistency shows how often a player will manage to play at his CA level. Thus, it already affects CA. Important matches shows how well a player reacts to having to play in a derby match (against clubs denoted as rivals). Similarly, this means it already affects CA. Therefore, these two do not need "extra" CA weights.

Note that certain attributes do not fall into a training category. This means that they are developed through a player's career - through tutoring him, giving him game practice, and with his age.

[MM1]

Quick question guys

As I understand the table, it list the cost of CA points for each stat increase based on position and provided player is one footed

So for example a player who is only trained/natural as a DC and who is only one footed ie other foot has value of 1, the cost of CA points for each point out of 20 in tackling is 4 CA points - Is that correct ?

If so - I am a little confused as looking at a DC one footed only player with for example 16 in Tackling, that would mean he should have used 76 CA points just on that one skill - I have such a DC player who has 16 tackling and 16 marking ie should have used 152 CA points, but he has only used 123 CA points out of 138 - what am I missing ?

Thanks

[Surferosa]

The fact that they are weightings rather than absolute multipliers. So the values in the table would equate more like each point in Tackling (in your example) contributes 4 times as much as 1 point in the foot score: or 400%. Thats different to saying that each point in tackling is worth 4x (ie tackling 20 <> 4x20 CA, but rather 1 pt in tackling is worth 4xfoot score in CA- hence proportionate not absolute).

Also the fact the points aren't actually out of 20- they are out of 100. You only see values as a fifth of their actual value- ie a score of 100 is scaled to a score out of 20.

Probably easiest to load up the editor to see.

[Jumbalumba]

Hmm, I do believe footedness would have some weighting as part of CA. Unless of course it is just 1 as Surferosa seemed to suggest in the previous post.

[MM1]

The fact that they are weightings rather than absolute multipliers. So the values in the table would equate more like each point in Tackling (in your example) contributes 4 times as much as 1 point in the foot score: or 400%. Thats different to saying that each point in tackling is worth 4x (ie tackling 20 <> 4x20 CA, but rather 1 pt in tackling is worth 4xfoot score in CA- hence proportionate not absolute).

Also the fact the points aren't actually out of 20- they are out of 100. You only see values as a fifth of their actual value- ie a score of 100 is scaled to a score out of 20.

Probably easiest to load up the editor to see.

Thanks Surferosa

I am already using Genie Scout

One more quick question

I have seen in other posts in here, that it stated that for a pure DC to increase in tackling he would have to use 4 of his CA points for each increase - but from what you are saying that is not accurate ?

Thanks again:)

[Surferosa]

Well, I haven't used any Scout tools for a long time- but when I did it still used to show attribute values out of 20 (whereas they are actually stored in the database out of 100). So when you have a player that has 10 for an attribute (for example), in the database it could hold any value from 50-54. Thus when your player is training, he may increase from 50 to 54- but you would still see a value of 10 in-game.

My understanding of that table is that these are weightings. So it is not that you can calculate the CA by (for example) taking the attribute value (in this case 10) and multiplying it by the value in the table (say 4) to get a total of 40 CA points. There must be a value of 'x' which you multiply this by as well to get the actual CA score- but 'x' would carry the same value irresective of the attribute- which is why the weightings are useful in their own right.

Out of interest Altazar- do you know what 'x' is? Also Im intrigued as to how you got to these values. Did you use some type of simultaneous equation tool?

[MM1]

Well, I haven't used any Scout tools for a long time- but when I did it still used to show attribute values out of 20 (whereas they are actually stored in the database out of 100). So when you have a player that has 10 for an attribute (for example), in the database it could hold any value from 50-54. Thus when your player is training, he may increase from 50 to 54- but you would still see a value of 10 in-game.

My understanding of that table is that these are weightings. So it is not that you can calculate the CA by (for example) taking the attribute value (in this case 10) and multiplying it by the value in the table (say 4) to get a total of 40 CA points. There must be a value of 'x' which you multiply this by as well to get the actual CA score- but 'x' would carry the same value irresective of the attribute- which is why the weightings are useful in their own right.

Out of interest Altazar- do you know what 'x' is? Also Im intrigued as to how you got to these values. Did you use some type of simultaneous equation tool?

Thanks you have been a great help

Surely the x value you use to divide with not multiply as else number will be way to high for a CA value - I mean 10 (Marking) and 10 (Tackling) you would already be talking 80 CA points so x I assume is used to divide this ?

Also in the Genie Scout is an interesting number which is a percentage so for example one CB is listed as Current Rating 72.08% and another is listed as 74% - I found these numbers interesting as I assume the current rating is the percentage of max relevant CB stats the player has (relevant as to what the game thinks is relevant for CB) - any thoughts ?

PS the reason I am asking questions is that I am in the process of trying to create "scientific" related training schedule systems (I call them Arsene Wenger training - as read an article about him explaining that he is the no.1 coach in not only spotting talents - but also in developing beyond what most other coaches could have achieved and in much shorter times) - so if I can figure out a way to accuratly predict when looking at a players stats for this youth to get 18 tackling and marking + what ever else - he will need at least 50 more CA points.

Then if I could get close guestimate on what his current CA is - I could then (without ext scout) make a assement if the player would have the ability to ever getting x/y and z in various skills. Also then to make training schedules specifically to develop this in quickest way - ie what notch of aerobic training is req for how long for player to get to agility of 18 etc.

[Surferosa]

Thanks you have been a great help

Surely the x value you use to divide with not multiply as else number will be way to high for a CA value - I mean 10 (Marking) and 10 (Tackling) you would already be talking 80 CA points so x I assume is used to divide this ?

OK- I see what you mean. I should of said that x is going to be a small decimal number- say 0.1- that reduces the value calculated. In all honesty, we could just quote the weighted multipliers as actual multipliers (so instead of 1,2,3.. perhaps they are 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc). One for Altazar..

Also in the Genie Scout is an interesting number which is a percentage so for example one CB is listed as Current Rating 72.08% and another is listed as 74% - I found these numbers interesting as I assume the current rating is the percentage of max relevant CB stats the player has (relevant as to what the game thinks is relevant for CB) - any thoughts ?

Again- without knowing what the current version does, the original used to use weightings that the coder of the tool put in (which you could change I think) to come up with a % score for each position. Its completely arbitary I would suggest (ie not a game mechanic, but simply something developed to give the user an idea of how good a player is).

PS the reason I am asking questions is that I am in the process of trying to create "scientific" related training schedule systems (I call them Arsene Wenger training - as read an article about him explaining that he is the no.1 coach in not only spotting talents - but also in developing beyond what most other coaches could have achieved and in much shorter times) - so if I can figure out a way to accuratly predict when looking at a players stats for this youth to get 18 tackling and marking + what ever else - he will need at least 50 more CA points.

That seems like a tremendously difficult thing to do- so good luck to you I'm guessing you already have, but my starting point would be SFrasers - A Closer Look At Training.

I'd also recommend having a good (long) read of this whole thread- especially Hawshields contributions as his unparalled knowledge of the attributes and the way the improve was originally born from a desire to improve training. I was always left with the impression that some of his findings demoralised him towards this end- but thats not to say you are not the man to pick up the baton

[MM1]

OK- I see what you mean. I should of said that x is going to be a small decimal number- say 0.1- that reduces the value calculated. In all honesty, we could just quote the weighted multipliers as actual multipliers (so instead of 1,2,3.. perhaps they are 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc). One for Altazar..

Again- without knowing what the current version does, the original used to use weightings that the coder of the tool put in (which you could change I think) to come up with a % score for each position. Its completely arbitary I would suggest (ie not a game mechanic, but simply something developed to give the user an idea of how good a player is).

That seems like a tremendously difficult thing to do- so good luck to you I'm guessing you already have, but my starting point would be SFrasers - A Closer Look At Training.

I'd also recommend having a good (long) read of this whole thread- especially Hawshields contributions as his unparalled knowledge of the attributes and the way the improve was originally born from a desire to improve training. I was always left with the impression that some of his findings demoralised him towards this end- but thats not to say you are not the man to pick up the baton

Thanks will see what I can come up with - mostly doing it to add an extra level to the game as it can become a bit borring (playing liverpool) after a few seasons (I heard) - so wanted to see if I could create a new Messi - instead of just buying him - ie find a young 15 year old, getting him discovered for his national side etc - also when I check who has bid on youngsters in Genie Scout - found it amazing that arsenal are buying youngsters I normally wouldn't have looked at. Obviously the AI (arsene wenger) - knows something we don't about potential new talents - will ofcourse post any results I find

[Altazar]

Just a quick note, the multiplier should be between 0.125 and 0.165 if that helps. I don't have the time to build an excel model to finetune it further.

As for scouting, I believe that a scout's judgement is based on a formula similar to coaching, and not just the judging player ability / potential, but it more or less tells you about a player:

CA/PA * positional rating -> how effective he is and will likely be in his best position;

Non-zero weighted attributes for his best position that "outperform" or "underperform" the respective attribute for a player who would have the same CA and attributes distributed under "even spending of CA across non-zero weighted attributes for this positon".

[Surferosa]

Just a quick note, the multiplier should be between 0.125 and 0.165 if that helps. I don't have the time to build an excel model to finetune it further.

Now Im confused :confused:

I would of thought getting the multiplier was the easy bit in comparison to working out the relationship between the attributes. Once you've got the attribute weightings- surely the multiplier is just the number you use to get back to the CA score.

So say it was 0.125. What you are really saying is that for for a GK with 5 Acceleration and 10 in Agility, the amount of poiints these wpould count towards his CA are (excluding the complexity of the fact that the scores are out of 100):

Multiplier x Weighting x Score

0.125 x 3 x 5 = 1.875 CA points

0.125 x 4 x 10 = 5 CA points

etc

Or am I missing what you mean?

Also- where / how did you come up with this list? What tools / software did you use?

[Law_Man]

Great to see that this thread is still kicking around. Unfortunately I have so little free time these between work and trying to have a social life that I really can only play about one match a night, if that. Please continue the good work though, and I wish you all well.

[Surferosa]

Really good to see you make a return to the thread (however brief). Also a belated thank you for starting one of my fav threads on these forums. A must read

As for you're work / life balance issue- there is only one thing for it- give up law and join the ranks of the great unwashed

[Altazar]

Surferosa, you read it correctly. The source of the info is a tool the researchers were using - namely a manual that came with it, which was in Italian. As I don't speak the lingo, I had to try to grasp just the fundamentals and double-check some of them.

Best,

Altazar

[Ljuba82]

I dont know if this has been mentioned before, I didnt manage to read all off the posts but it might be something to take in to concideration.

I read a post a while back on one of the more obscure sections of this forums and it was posted by credible accounts (if i had the time i would try to find the thread).

This is what i remember ( with some reservations for bad memory ): That although positions take CA points positions also affect the cost/weight of abilities so a player that can play more than one position use the lower cost/weight for attributes that are of different importance for the positions.

According to the poster this would mean that although being able to play in many positions would use up alot of CA the rest of the players attribut would be cheaper due to the position rebate given.

Not exactly sure it is true, but it sounds reasonable and could be significant for your calculations.

Maybe this helps

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=58666

Altazar,

I think your findings have much more important application than simply editing or retraining. Here is what I mean.

Suppose I have a DC with all attributes related to defending training (tackling, concentartion, etc.)>16, but relatively low decision, creativity, positioning, teamwork. Typically the intesity of defensive and tactical training for DCs is close to high, whilst the rest just complement those 2 categories (at least how I set it up). However, if the player's CA is close to his PA, it does not do any good, because to improve even one attribute (say positioning) he would need to give up a lot elsewhere.

Other things equal, I can slightly reduce the intensity of his defensive training in favor of tactic and even if I lose 1 point in marking, adding 2 in positioning would compensate it.

Hope it makes sense.

No, he don't need to give attributes elsewhere.

Cause if you retrain him, his CA will drop, cause if you retrain DC to ST, his defensive attributes have less weight than before, while his attacking atributes have more weight. But since he was defender, his defensive attributes are much bigger than his attacking, so you will save much more of his CA because weight of defending attributes fall THAN you would loose some of CA because weight of his attacking att increased.

I guarantee that the zeros are zeros, in fact being a generally mistrusting guy, instead of just using them as they come from the last developer tool, I have tested them.

As to the "free attributes", let me try to explain why they are free. First off, versatility. It refers to (a) how good a player is in retraining into a new position and (b) how good he is in retaining a position in which he is proficient when he is not playing actively in that position. Normally, you would not be playing a given player in several positions from match to match - swapping left winger to right winger is not a change in position (still a winger) and ST to AMC swapping although happening in real life is not a dramatic change. So, no need to give it a cost. As for aggression - it is sometimes good, as it makes you run at your opponents, but it also makes it more likely you pick up cards for it. Injury proneness - well, since it increases with age, and is a negative attribute, we may argue that it should have a negative weight, but including attributes with negative weight would make it very difficult for the game calculations. Same goes for dirtiness and eccentricity. Therefore, these three instead of negative weights are given zero weights. Flair is really a tendency (style) of play, which neither improves nor worsens play, same as tendency to punch for goalkeepers. Therefore, they reasonably have zero weights. What remains is consistency and important matches. The reason these two do not have weights is not that they do not matter, but rather how they are applied. Consistency shows how often a player will manage to play at his CA level. Thus, it already affects CA. Important matches shows how well a player reacts to having to play in a derby match (against clubs denoted as rivals). Similarly, this means it already affects CA. Therefore, these two do not need "extra" CA weights.

Note that certain attributes do not fall into a training category. This means that they are developed through a player's career - through tutoring him, giving him game practice, and with his age.

1. No free attributes in FM 2009. In previous versions a DC for example with finishing, crossing of 1 have the same CA like DC with finishing, crossing of 20. Now you can see some minor changes in CA (a point or 2).

I clearly remember (someone from SI said that) that free attributes existed in previous versions, so it would be nice if someone from SI comment this, because if free attributes really don't exist anymore, it's a really big step forward and I'm feeling that people from SI really listened what I was talking.

Also, like years before, some attributes don't present ability and don't use CA points. They are just mental traits (personality) or some attributes that you can personaly jugde is it better to have them high or low (aggression, flair, eccentricity for GK...)

[kolobok]

Maybe this helps

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=58666

No, he don't need to give attributes elsewhere.

Cause if you retrain him, his CA will drop, cause if you retrain DC to ST, his defensive attributes have less weight than before, while his attacking atributes have more weight. But since he was defender, his defensive attributes are much bigger than his attacking, so you will save much more of his CA because weight of defending attributes fall THAN you would loose some of CA because weight of his attacking att increased.

I am not talking about retrainning. I am talking about improving some aspects (e.g. composure, passing, etc) at the expense of other (e.g. tackling). I would be happy if one of my defs dropped his tackling from 20 to say 17-18 but improved his composure (from to 12 to 14 would do) and passing from 8 to 11. Given that he is 28 it's quite likely that he is very close to his PA and therefore his attributes won't increase unless something falls.

[Ljuba82]

I am not talking about retrainning. I am talking about improving some aspects (e.g. composure, passing, etc) at the expense of other (e.g. tackling). I would be happy if one of my defs dropped his tackling from 20 to say 17-18 but improved his composure (from to 12 to 14 would do) and passing from 8 to 11. Given that he is 28 it's quite likely that he is very close to his PA and therefore his attributes won't increase unless something falls.

...ok I understand you, but...that sounds very logic to me. I mean every player (every man) has limitation. When you focus heavily on something new, you will probably forgot some of previous knowlegde.

I think that reshaping is good for this game.

[MM1]

Ok did some testing for my Arsene Wenger Training system and found some possible interesting scenario's

It seems when you ask a Player to learn a PPM move, his attributes in the relevant skills improve faster - ie for Place shoot, finishing and composure seemed to increase quicker

Can anyone else confirm this as I have only been able to do a few tests so far ?

Also it seems that players will refuse to learn certain PPMs if relevant attributes are below certain threshold - is it possible that each PPM has hard coded certain skill requirements ?

Can anyone confirm this - again have only done a few tests so far - but I have had a few players refuse to learn PPM place shoot where finishing was set to 1 - but could be coinsidence ?

[m1illion]

By far the best thread in this entire forum. Amazing work.

I play FM live, what I haven't seen, in a clear and concise presentation, is a formula for calculating CA or PA.

One post put up an entire players stats and asked everyone to do the calculation and no one responded. Is this still a mystery and that is why I can't find it? With FM09 you should be able to "reverse engineer" the numbers using whatever tools you have been using but maybe it isn't that simple.

Anyway, if it is possible, could you please show the equations, if not ........

thanks

[MM1]

In my quest to use this research to create a Wenger like (scientific) youth training regime

I have come across two hidden hidden (not dual entry) coaches stats.

When using Genie Scout, you have the option of customizing what columns are shows, among the options are two columns called

1. Coaching Outfield Players

2. Coaching Technique

These are values from 1 to 20

For both, the values are not visible on the actual coaches page nor in the FM 09 DB editior ie they are completely hidden and only visible when you select to view these columns - but the some of the coaches values are quite surprising as some 7* coaches for example who have Coaching Goalkeepers at only 3 also only has 3 in Coaching Outfield players.

I am quite sure the first one is the equivilant to the Coaching Goalkeepers stats ie how effective coach is at teaching outfield players as opposed to goalkeepers

However the 2nd is a bit of a mystery to me and it is definatly nothing to do with the known coaches stat Coaching Technical

Anyone come across this or have any input ?

[Altazar]

Those are actually a leftover from FM08 and do not affect the result.

What matters however is an attribute that shows how many players a given coach can train effectively, and this is hardcoded.

The result of the training would depend on:

1. the age of the player - before 19, they advance rapidly, between 19 and 21 they advance fast, between 21 and 23 they advance normally, and between 24 and 25-26 the development slows very much. After 25-26 they can only gain a couple of points in CA. After 30-32, CA starts to drop, and after 36 the drop accelerates.

2. The speed of CA gain depends on:

(a) Ambition for CA increase;

(b) Determination for slowing down CA drop;

© Adaptation to a degree;

(d) Professionalism;

(e) Training schedule intensity for the particular attribute;

(f) Relative weight of the give training in the training schedule to some degree (what I mean is that given high or very high training workload, the number of notches in the Attack training type divided by the total amount of notches in all training types has an effect on how much the change will be focused on Passing and Creativity compared to total attributes change);

(g) quality of training facilities / youth training facilities;

(h) coach stars AND coaches workload;

(i) coaches' training intensity (called hardness of training);

(j) tutoring for youth players, which will accelerate mental attributes adjusting towards those of the tutor and "acquire" tutor's PPMs;

(k) yes, PPM acquisition through tutoring or requesting a player to learn a PPM will act to "focus" raise in the respective attribute category. Shooting PPMs will help increase shooting attribute, movement PPMs will help increase dribbling and/or off the ball attributes, tackling PPMs will increase tackling attribute.