Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Law_Man

Current Ability and Atrributes Research

Recommended Posts

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.

>> Thanks Altazar - have a couple of follow up questions

1. How do you know for certain they are only left over stats ?

2. How can I see this hard coded stat / what is it called ?

3. How does Professionalism impact ie same as ambition, more or less than ambition or in some other way ?

4. Is your list in order of priority ie I would have thought Professionalism would be higher than adaptation ?

5. Re the players age groups, can they vary from player to player perhaps based on other mental stats or are they set for all players ?

5a. If not set, what are they mental stats which affects to what age a player will develop ?

6. I also found in the FM09 DB editior a coaches stat called Dirtiness allowed, do you know what this does a) affect how "dirty" coach allows player to act in training so impact on amount of injuries and/or b) can lower a players Dirtiness stat ?

Again thanks for your replies :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent thread, well done!

To summarise, what are the implications of this study to deciding whether or not to re-train, say, Fabregas as an AMC?

Thanks in advance, once again well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. How do you know for certain they are only left over stats ?

That is what the creators of the scouting tools said. Pretty much the same as the special moves that are visible under certain editors but not in the game editor, since they are no longer used by the engine, i.e. dictates tempo, gets crowd going, ...

2. How can I see this hard coded stat / what is it called ?

Using RTE you can see a number against something called players ... I don't remember the exact name. It has a value between 5 and 100, meaning a numeric measure of the effectiveness on training larger number of players (workload efficiency). It is not HOW MANY he can train, instead how little his efficiency decreases with increasing number of players on a training schedule.

3. How does Professionalism impact ie same as ambition, more or less than ambition or in some other way ?

Ambition shows how fast it increases, professionalism has to do with the player not "escaping" from training.

4. Is your list in order of priority ie I would have thought Professionalism would be higher than adaptation ?

Not exactly, but to make it clear - adaptation has marginal impact, because it effects how a player melds his playing style to that of the team. And this has an indirect impact on his training as well. Also higher adaptation seems to me to make it easier for a tutored player to shift towards the tutor's mental attributes.

5. Re the players age groups, can they vary from player to player perhaps based on other mental stats or are they set for all players ?

They are the same, the mental stats do not affect them (unfortunately). What the developers said was that players that are still good at 40 (Italian clubs) are the exception, not the rule and the game needs not adapt for 4-5 players compared to over 250,000 players that meet the rule.

5a. If not set, what are they mental stats which affects to what age a player will develop ?

I guess I answered that, but:

Whereas ambition is the leading stat the younger a player is, note that determintation plays increasingly greater role with age. Also professionalism is the tutor's attribute deciding how efficiently he passes on mental skills and PPMs to a tutored player.

6. I also found in the FM09 DB editior a coaches stat called Dirtiness allowed, do you know what this does a) affect how "dirty" coach allows player to act in training so impact on amount of injuries and/or b) can lower a players Dirtiness stat ?

It does not really effect coaching as much as how much dirtiness the coach would allow in the team play strategy when he is given over to manage your youth team or your reserves team. Higher dirtiness means that players will be more prone to have harder tackling all over - at least that's what it does for me. Just like pressing shows how much the coach will ask his players under his strategy to press all over. Marking - how much he prefers man marking (0) over zonal marking (20), etc. So, it really says that given a preferred formation, based on this attributes the game "generates" player instructions specific to the coach who manages the given team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. How do you know for certain they are only left over stats ?

That is what the creators of the scouting tools said. Pretty much the same as the special moves that are visible under certain editors but not in the game editor, since they are no longer used by the engine, i.e. dictates tempo, gets crowd going, ...

2. How can I see this hard coded stat / what is it called ?

Using RTE you can see a number against something called players ... I don't remember the exact name. It has a value between 5 and 100, meaning a numeric measure of the effectiveness on training larger number of players (workload efficiency). It is not HOW MANY he can train, instead how little his efficiency decreases with increasing number of players on a training schedule.

3. How does Professionalism impact ie same as ambition, more or less than ambition or in some other way ?

Ambition shows how fast it increases, professionalism has to do with the player not "escaping" from training.

4. Is your list in order of priority ie I would have thought Professionalism would be higher than adaptation ?

Not exactly, but to make it clear - adaptation has marginal impact, because it effects how a player melds his playing style to that of the team. And this has an indirect impact on his training as well. Also higher adaptation seems to me to make it easier for a tutored player to shift towards the tutor's mental attributes.

5. Re the players age groups, can they vary from player to player perhaps based on other mental stats or are they set for all players ?

They are the same, the mental stats do not affect them (unfortunately). What the developers said was that players that are still good at 40 (Italian clubs) are the exception, not the rule and the game needs not adapt for 4-5 players compared to over 250,000 players that meet the rule.

5a. If not set, what are they mental stats which affects to what age a player will develop ?

I guess I answered that, but:

Whereas ambition is the leading stat the younger a player is, note that determintation plays increasingly greater role with age. Also professionalism is the tutor's attribute deciding how efficiently he passes on mental skills and PPMs to a tutored player.

6. I also found in the FM09 DB editior a coaches stat called Dirtiness allowed, do you know what this does a) affect how "dirty" coach allows player to act in training so impact on amount of injuries and/or b) can lower a players Dirtiness stat ?

It does not really effect coaching as much as how much dirtiness the coach would allow in the team play strategy when he is given over to manage your youth team or your reserves team. Higher dirtiness means that players will be more prone to have harder tackling all over - at least that's what it does for me. Just like pressing shows how much the coach will ask his players under his strategy to press all over. Marking - how much he prefers man marking (0) over zonal marking (20), etc. So, it really says that given a preferred formation, based on this attributes the game "generates" player instructions specific to the coach who manages the given team.

Again thanks a mill Altazar :thup:

Quick follow up on answer 3 and 4

3. What do you mean "escaping" ?

4. When you say "Also higher adaptation seems to me to make it easier for a tutored player to shift towards the tutor's mental attributes" - is this based on test your have done or someother information ?

Again thanks for all your help it is much appreciated :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent thread, well done!

To summarise, what are the implications of this study to deciding whether or not to re-train, say, Fabregas as an AMC?

Thanks in advance, once again well done!

Sorry SBMII,

Not sure what you mean - but if you mean is it worth to re-train a player for a different position, simply to lower the CA cost for his primary skills for another position - from what I have gathered it would be that

Retraining a player for another position, has a side-benefit of lowering some CA cost for skills he may need for his "old" position

But retraining someone for only the purpose to lower CA cost in "prime" position is not worth it.

Anyway that is what I have gathered from what I have read in here.

If you meant your question i a different way - let me know :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give you an example. Set Wayne Rooney, who is closing to 24, to versatility 20 in the editor, so he can retrain easily as Center Back. Make him retrain to Center Back, while giving him a schedule that has shooting, attacking, set pieces at intense, tactics and ball control and high, defending and goalkeeping at none, with strength and aerobic at medium to light. Within 2 years, using this method compared to not retraining in Center Back, his finishing, long shots, dribbling, crossing and passing for me increased additional 1-2 points each. So, is it worth it? Very much so.

No for tutoring. If again you use Rooney and Federico Macheda to learn from him. I have tested to have Rooney at professionalism 20 and Macheda at adaptation 20 with all else equal. They end up liking each other and Macheda feels he has learnt a lot from Rooney. Setting Rooney's professionalism at 10 and Macheda's adaptation at 10, Macheda felt he has gained a little from Rooney. Maybe not conclusive, but still.

Escaping from training means players who miss training sessions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altazar, while you're about:

That list of attribute weightings was really interesting, from the last page. Thanks for putting that together.

Any idea how weaker foot abillity and 'determination' fit in to that picture?

I'd really like to have some sort of editing tool where you had, say, 130CA to 'spend' and could create your own player by distributing the attributes around, a bit like Fifa's Be A Pro mode, or something. Or put in all the attributes and have it update the CA dynamically. I guess that's along the lines of what the researchers have, and I know they'd never release something like that for obvious reasons.. but still, it'd be fascinating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Determination has zero weight. Footedness has weight, but it varies by position, and I don't have the weights for each position. You may note that it actually differs for LB and RB even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Determination has zero weight. Footedness has weight, but it varies by position, and I don't have the weights for each position. You may note that it actually differs for LB and RB even.

Would my suspicion be correct that it has a comparably high weight for DM/MC? Because from personal experience DM's with only 1 foot tend to be gods on their other attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would my suspicion be correct that it has a comparably high weight for DM/MC? Because from personal experience DM's with only 1 foot tend to be gods on their other attributes.

I think it does not take any points for dm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would my suspicion be correct that it has a comparably high weight for DM/MC? Because from personal experience DM's with only 1 foot tend to be gods on their other attributes.

It does take points from every player. Think of it this way: a player with first touch 20 and 'right foot only' can stop the ball perfectly only with his right foot. If ball goes to his left foot, nobody knows where it will deflect. Hence, when ball goes towards his left foot, he either needs to spend some extra time to change his body position to use his right foot, or use extra touch to actually get the ball. An "either foot " player with first touch 13 don't have a perfect first touch, but you can expect the same effectiveness no matter which foot he uses. So in some sense, these two players are almost equivalent in terms of their first touch ability.

MC, DM, AMC are the players that receive the ball from different sides (hence to a different foot) and are supposed to pass everywhere. So for them "either foot" is more beneficial than say for FB or ML. ST would also be greatly affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Determination has zero weight. Footedness has weight, but it varies by position, and I don't have the weights for each position. You may note that it actually differs for LB and RB even.

I don't know about anyone else, but if that's true (not a personal attack :), I just find it hard to imagine someone modelling it this way, and am wondering if something is skewing the results that lead to this conclusion) then it's just plain wrong in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about anyone else, but if that's true (not a personal attack :), I just find it hard to imagine someone modelling it this way, and am wondering if something is skewing the results that lead to this conclusion) then it's just plain wrong in my opinion.

I think there was some discussion about left and right wingers having slightly different weightings for WFA, so it's certainly plausible.

I'm surprised how low the marking weighting is for DMs, and that maybe explains why so few DM regens have decent marking stats. Even the ones with fantastic defensive skills tend to be useless at marking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How well woudl youmake the striker train to a new position ? competent ?

Versatility defines how well somebody can retrain to a different position and retain it and the old one. Actually, retraining is best done using the following procedure:

1) In the training section, make the player retrain to a new position, let us assume we want a ST to become a left back, so we put his train to new position first to left wing back, which is more "attack minded", therefore easier for him to attain.

2) Put that player on the left back position in your games, so he gets playing practice for the position, not just training.

3) Ask him to learn the preferred moves typical for that position, in this case I would make him dribble down the left wing (as a left wing back), and ask him to unlearn get forward whenever possible and get into opposition area if he has those moves.

4) Once he has become "competent" in the left wing back position, I would make him retrain to LB, and keep playing him as LB.

Now, if the player has high versatility of 19-20, he will not only retain the ST, but also get LB and LWB positions, and strangely enough, he will be capable also to play as ML/AML, so you may want to train him in those two positions as well, getting a player proficient everywhere on the left wing.

However, please note that: wing back and full backs on the left flank need to be with a strong left foot (able to kick the ball out of play), while left midfielder and left advanced midfielders need to be with a strong right foot (able to cross the ball towards the center), so you may want to keep this difference in mind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may note that it actually differs for LB and RB even.
I don't know about anyone else, but if that's true (not a personal attack :), I just find it hard to imagine someone modelling it this way, and am wondering if something is skewing the results that lead to this conclusion) then it's just plain wrong in my opinion.

Having done a bit of playing around with this now, I'm pretty sure that WFA weightings are exactly the same for DL and DR, as with ML/MR and AML/AMR.

The only way their weightings for WFA will be different is if they have different competency ratings for other positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having done a bit of playing around with this now, I'm pretty sure that WFA weightings are exactly the same for DL and DR, as with ML/MR and AML/AMR.

The only way their weightings for WFA will be different is if they have different competency ratings for other positions.

Good to know :thup:

Although it does mean I'll have to scrap my 64 page essay Weaker Foot Ratings: Sort It Out SI!!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, that's what I say. The General forum wouldn't be the same, otherwise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they said that FM10 has done some extra work on it. And they should, because players can also work on their footedness in real life and improve it. An example of that is *choke* Ben Foster. He is no longer total crap with his weaker foot, even if he is crap with his decision making.

So, in real life the players can actually work individually on certain parts of their game. So, I wonder, will we get, maybe in FM11, the option to have three training sessions for a player per week:

(a) general training - what we now have as "training";

(b) position training or working on specific part of his game (say long throws or corner kicks or weak foot usage or heading) - thus being able to develop 1 specific attribute;

© preferred move training - as we have it now.

The player could of then choose instead of spending time on (b) or © to have an additional session of general training.

This would allow managers to actually help build more individual approach to each player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, they said that FM10 has done some extra work on it. And they should, because players can also work on their footedness in real life and improve it. An example of that is *choke* Ben Foster. He is no longer total crap with his weaker foot, even if he is crap with his decision making.

So, in real life the players can actually work individually on certain parts of their game. So, I wonder, will we get, maybe in FM11, the option to have three training sessions for a player per week:

(a) general training - what we now have as "training";

(b) position training or working on specific part of his game (say long throws or corner kicks or weak foot usage or heading) - thus being able to develop 1 specific attribute;

© preferred move training - as we have it now.

The player could of then choose instead of spending time on (b) or © to have an additional session of general training.

This would allow managers to actually help build more individual approach to each player.

Altazar: Any chance you can reveal again the weightings of attributes for the different positions, this time for FM10?? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Altazar: Any chance you can reveal again the weightings of attributes for the different positions, this time for FM10?? :D

Will try when I get the time. Now I am stuck on writing a 3-year strategy paper. :p sadly, on banking and not FM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried reproducing your reproducing your results in FM09 using variations of the starting attributes, but unfortunately, without something like the old FMModifier allowing me to see the 1-100 attributes, I wasn't able (without a lot more work) to separate some of the attributes with weight 1 from attributes with weight up to 3! It is very difficult to figure this out without the research tool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone got anyt furterh with this in reaktion to fm10 - are the free attributes still free and can we still put a striker as a secondary defender (position) but make him a better striker by best spreadign his attributes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bandook: They have fixed the exploit present in the previous editions of FM by which if you trained a player to have a position in which he had bad key attributes he would improve... in FM 10, according to my testing, having more positions always reduces!!! your attributes vs having just one position. My hypothesis, even though I cannot say for sure, is that, for a player with multiple positions, the cost of an attribute in CA points is the highest possible among the different positions: for instance, looking back at the weights Altazar showed us for FM 09, suppose you have a FC: his pace will cost him 6, and his tackling 1... now if you train him to also be a D C (and he becomes a DC/FC) his pace will still cost him 6, but now his tackling will cost him 4!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tested this with an easy test by making a natural ST also a natural AMC. Almost all of his attributes jumped.

How this relates to other positions, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fixed the table...

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

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.

just found this, cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my 2 cents here.

In the table quoted above, the Attributes with weight zero are not Free Attributes, they are attributes that do not change. During gameplay, CA will not be distributed into these attributes nor will CA be removed from these attributes. They are CA independent attributes that can only be altered by mentoring or particular ingame events.

The table certainly looks accurate but it raises the question of whether or not some other vital pieces of the puzzle are missing, as Age certainly seems to have an impact on the growth of attributes, while the table would seem to imply that either a defender would naturally evolve into a striker and vice versa or that acceleration and pace are the easiest attributes to develop. Neither of which seem correct.

I have long held the suspicion that attributes themselves have a particular affinity towards CA that is modified by Age, and that player Position is a modifier of this affinity. I do not doubt the accuracy of the table, but it certainly seems clear to me that some other vital mechanic is being missed. If I was to theorize I would say that the table represents multipliers for CA per attribute per position, with the attributes themselves having a particular affinity for CA that changes with Age.

For example if Acceleration at Age 18 has a natural positive affinity for CA, then a Right Winger would gain a 6x multiplier to Acceleration gains at Age 18. If Acceleration at Age 30 has a natural negative affinity for CA, then a Right Winger would be fighting against a 6x multiplier for CA loss at Age 30. The size and type of this natural affinity, i.e. large increase - large decrease / small increase - small decrease would depend upon the natural attribute weights and age.

As it stands, the table on it's own provides expected weights but an illogical explanation for their function. Central Defenders do not naturally evolve into Technical and Creative Set Piece experts, nor do they gain 6x Acceleration compared to Creativity throughout their careers. They do however go through an early phase of dramatic Physical Attribute increases and a later period of Physical Decline coupled to Mental Improvement.

I would be looking to investigate the role of Age as a modifier of these Attribute weights. I would expect to find that a low age acts as a positive modifier for Physical Attribute weights, with increasing age making this 6x attribute weight increasingly negative. The weight of the attributes would not change, but the function of these weights as positive or negative modifiers would change with age. For example age 18 might be 6x(1), age 20 might be 6x(0.5), age 24 might be 6x(0.1), age 26 might be 6x(-0.1), age 28 might be 6x(-0.5) and age 30 might be 6x(-1).

The relationship should look something like a quadratic curve. I don't have the mathematics background to produce an example of the equation but I can see the possible relationship as something like a quadratic curve.

Food for thought anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're misreading the table, SFraser. It just gives an idea of the relative weight which each attribute contributes towards the CA value for different positions.

Those weightings remain the same throughout a player's career, in as much as they're used to calculate the player's CA. In effect, two players with exactly the same attributes and position will have exactly the same CA, even if one is aged 16 and the other one aged 36.

(The values in that table are relative rather than absolute, by the way - an attribute rated as a 6 does not necessarily contribute twice as much as one rated as a 3. The only other attribute which contributes towards CA is the weaker foot score.)

You're right that (all things being equal) different attributes will be more likely to go up or down, depending on a player's age, but that's not because the attribute weightings change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of posts from one of the SI guys on a different thread that might be of interest, SF:

Actually, this year we've already gone into the individual attribute decays

Generally the attributes are grouped to attributes that grow with experience, old age or with young age and attributes that decline with old age. This has been the way the system was originally coded already but this year we've added specific control on certain individual attributes that should behave a bit differently from their categories.

I think you are interpreting the game in a wrong way with this one, especially considering your post linked in the above quote. Firstly, the attributes are not linked to CA in a binary system (which is what your free attribute theory seems to suggest) but with different weight ratings. And most importantly, the attributes in FM are not mainly improved by the means of CA going up and then attributes adjusted up afterwards, but rather the other way around. The players mainly gain improvements in their attributes via training, which in turn then raises the CA depending on how much the individual attributes improved.

Theoretically there is also some balancing done between the CA and the attributes in the way you describe where the attributes are adjusted due to the CA changing, as this may occur at times if the players receive CA boosts that are not directly linked to their training improvements. I'll take a look at this side of the code over the Xmas holidays to see if it needs finetuning but I don't think there is too much wrong with it in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first two posts in this thread provide a comprehensive arguement backed up by test data that CA and Attributes do not change at all significantly through training. As CA is simply a measure of the quantity of points distributed into attributes there is little point in drawing a distinction between the two. The most significant factors in an increase of CA is Personality and Match Experience, as shown by the tests above. Attributes obviously cannot grow past the level of CA present in a player nor drop below the level of CA.

Understanding the relative weights of attributes alone is of limited utility ingame. Understanding that CA increases or decreases according to Match Experience and Personality, and that attributes themselves have a changing affinity towards CA increases or decreases according to Age is of most relevance. Training provides a negligible source of CA gain, while high levels of Professionalism, Ambition and Match Experience provide the greatest gain of CA. As is also shown in the thread above these gains of CA can be dramatic, for example 39 CA in 6 months under ideal conditions.

The poster Riz Remes may be correct in principle in what he says but he is saying it in a way that is misleading. Attributes may grow according to their natural affinity for CA brought about by age combined to slider positions on the training schedules, but it is personality and match experience that will determine the exact extent of the gains or losses. By implying that Training raises Attributes which in turn raises CA he is contradicting a huge amount of detailed test work and basic trends that can be easily observed ingame just by playing a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're just going to love this one. I have now found out EXACTLY what the game is doing with the stats and it's something that I noticed earlier but didn't appreciate just how MASSIVE a difference it makes.

But you'll be glad to hear that it is simple, completely understandable (I hope) and precisely what you would expect. But how many of you ever check this attribute properly????

Ready for it ......

For some time now, I have noticed that two players with the same stats (EXACTLY) will get very different ratings in the game if played in EXACTLY the same position. I couldn't ever work this out until now.

Want to know how the game rates a player's passing, tackling, crossing, etc? You CANNOT just go by the attribute rating. You need to consider the strength of his feet.

It would appear that two-footed players within the game are much more valuable than I first appreciated - this probably relates to how the engine works in determining the effectiveness of passes, tackles, crosses, etc.

So, you could have a 'Right foot only' player with 20 passing, 20 tackling, 20 crossing, and 20 for all of the other 'feet' related technical attributes and yet they will not do as well in the engine as someone with 18 for each of these that can use both feet. This makes sense does it not?

So, what SI have done is to alter the stats to reflect this.

So, take your example of Elano. His left foot has a score of just 6 meaning that his other stats have to be increased considerably to make him effective at passing within the engine.

If his left foot was rated at 15, his attributes would plummet - otherwise he would be a superman player.

So, if you take the example of Kaka and Elano. Kaka's left foot score is 14 so his overall effectiveness within the engine needs to be reduced so his stats may fall. In fact you'll notice this with most players with a high 'second foot' score.

So, in actual fact ... the attributes are not lying at all. We have just forgotten to look at one of the most important attributes as far as the engine is concerned.

What you will find is that Kaka will outperform Elano (as you would reasonably expect). Why? Because Kaka's attributes have to be combined with the 'feet' scores to work out how effective he really is.

I bet none of you will forget to look at the 'feet' scores ever again.

p.s. If you want to prove this to yourself ...

If you want to get 18-20 for EVERY attribute, reduce the 'left' or 'right' foot score to be 1 and set the attributes to 20. You will not score less than 18 for any individual attribute. Set the 'other' foot to be 10 or higher and you'll notice that the attributes drop dramatically (i.e. you can lose up to 3 or 4 points per attribute).

AMAZING! icon_eek.gif

So, in summary. When you are looking for a player in the game, FM08 obviously rates two footed players higher, so you MUST NOT just compare attributes. You must compare the attributes AND feet to get a true reflection of how it works.

I am quite pleased with myself now. icon_cool.gif

This is an amazin thread btw. I have used this theory to test for myself and yeah I believe you are right when comin to to conclusion you have. what puzzles me however is that I tested this with 6 created players all with PA 200 (3 players have CA 100, 1 player CA 150 and 2 Players CA 200). So when I start the game the 2 players with CA 200 have 5 stars obviously in both current and potential ability, however the other players have 3 stars max for potential ability, how does this work out when their PA is the same as the CA 200 players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an amazin thread btw. I have used this theory to test for myself and yeah I believe you are right when comin to to conclusion you have. what puzzles me however is that I tested this with 6 created players all with PA 200 (3 players have CA 100, 1 player CA 150 and 2 Players CA 200). So when I start the game the 2 players with CA 200 have 5 stars obviously in both current and potential ability, however the other players have 3 stars max for potential ability, how does this work out when their PA is the same as the CA 200 players?

1) How old are the players with CA100 and CA150? If a player has CA100 and PA200 but he's 28, there's no way he'd ever reach his potential.

2) There's obviously some variation depending on how good your scout or assistant manager is at 'judging potential'.

3) I'm not 100%, but I think the way that AI staff assess PA has changed in FM2010, and probably for the better. Rather than having an unrealistic ability to see a player's PA, they seem to assess a player's CA and their age, and project forward from there. So if you have two 18 year-olds with CA120, the scout will guess they have roughly the same potential. If you think about it, that's more or less what would happen in real life - you could argue that they might take personality in to account, so a more professional and determined youngster might be more likely to achieve more, or even that a player with good raw attributes (strength, speed, agility, balance) could be rated more highly, but that would be quite difficult to programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of experiments you could run to test that:

1) Create four identical players, all CA100 and PA200, but make them say 17, 21, 25 and 28 years-old, and see how your assistant rates their potential.

2) Create four identical players, all CA100 and PA200, all 17, but give them all different ratings for professionalism, ambition, determination, work rate, etc, and see if that makes any difference to the way the assistant rates their potential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I remember the extensive testing what seemed to prove that training has only effect slightly the CA gain and personality and match experience are the main factor. I can't remember who has made it, but I'm sure Fraser can help me out here, would you? ;)

the only possible flaw in the testing system is the following:

(it was basically testing Chelsea with all the players set to CA140-PA200 and check how personality, training and other factors modify the CA gain within 6 months, until the player is on holiday.

Now that's the problem: the game give the team into the asst. manager's hand. And may also switch the training back to default so even when the training was set to zero level, on holiday it may went back to default(general). We have to take such coding practices into consideration. The actual training may have a major factor in player development and personality and match xp may only be a modifier only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

first thanks a lot to Surferosa and Altazar fot the table, its been really helpfull when i was creating "perfect player".

I dont know if this will help enyone but i finally created almost perfect striker. It has 94,11% by FMRTE v3.0, this has been done with weight points from table above and in FM 2010.

I ve done some calculations and recgonised that you need to destribute 1305 what i call "weight attribute points" or shortly "wap" to ur striker. I ve destributed 480 of this pints to technical at. 338 to mental at. and 487 to physical at. This nubers are all withot free attributes (for striker are: injury proneness, natural fitness, versatility, aggression, consistency, dirtiness, flair, important matches and of course all personal data attributes) becouse you can just put them all 20. I created a leftie so i put left foot 20 right 1, but dont wory becouse if u chech under prefered moves, avoids using weaker foot it will not be a problem. And the only possition he plays at is ST, becouse if u put more than 1 it will affect his attributes and they wont be so high that is also the reason why i put 1 under weaker foot in my case right.

Weight attribute points are simply weight pints multiplied by attribute points ex. finishig has 4 weight points and i want it to be 18 so i do 4x18=72 weight attribute points, then u do that for all the attributes and every time u do that u should calculate how many u have left ex. 1305-72=1233 w.a.p. you have left to destribute to ur player (u can do it in any other way but this was easiest for me). The first time i was calculatig i got 1433 wa points but that didnt work it droped after 10 days of simulation, maybe becouse i chacked avoids using weaker foot in prefered moves. It is very possibile that u can destribute more than 1305wa points but when i destributed 1433wa points it droped to 1305 so i didnt try for any more becouse that was enough for me :) the player is very good, it even says in report that is a lot better than david villa.

I know this is cheating but i am kind of perfecitonist so i want only the best for my created player :) I think that is all if u have any questions u can put them here and i hope i will be able to answer. Please tolerate my english, hope i helped, have lots of fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I remember the extensive testing what seemed to prove that training has only effect slightly the CA gain and personality and match experience are the main factor. I can't remember who has made it, but I'm sure Fraser can help me out here, would you? ;)

It was a poster named CATAFAN. His thread was called something like "The Fastest Way to Player Development".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's the problem: the game give the team into the asst. manager's hand. And may also switch the training back to default so even when the training was set to zero level, on holiday it may went back to default(general). We have to take such coding practices into consideration. The actual training may have a major factor in player development and personality and match xp may only be a modifier only.

Catafan posted a separate graph in his thread where he displayed the amount of CA gain depending on the amount of training he set in the training regimen. Since the graph had big variability and what looked to me like realistic results, I would think its safe to say that the assistant manager was keeping the same training regiment that was set up before the club manager went on vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read a part of this thread. Very interested. Don't know of the posted values are accurate at the moment and if the 'bug' of very skilled players still exist (posted by Ljuba82 in an other thread, but based on the findings of this topic). It seems nice if there where some tests for FM13. Just breathe new life into this thread. This thread deserves a new life. It is excellened work. Are the results different at this moment? An based on this result, some one made some training schedules. How to use this knowlegde for the new training mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ha, should i start doing something about this?

I am a math student also btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ha, should i start doing something about this?

I am a math student also btw.

Could be nice. Altrough FM14 is coming soon. Maybe you have to wait some months?

I am also a math student. But cost a lot of time to gather all data. Big question: Do i have so much time for such research. I guess: No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...