Current Ability and Atrributes Research

[Law_Man]

you cannot tell when you have gone from 10 to 11 in the score. The both read 'unconvincing'. If it goes as far as 'competent' you have obviously gone too far, but there is no way to distinguish the tipping point. I would therefore suggest that orange should be taken as meaning they have lost the 'free' attribute just to be on the safe side.

Could you not just train a player in a new position and then keep a close eye on it and as soon as it changes to 'unconvincing', it most likely that its still only on 10, rather than 11?

3 or 4 CA points depending on position on the field) between scoring 11 for a position and scoring 20 for that position. This seems strange in some ways but that's how it works anyway.

Is that 3 or four points difference or for 11 its 3 points and for 20 its four points?***(see below)

So if I'm reading you right:

(Apart from strikers)

Retraining a player from right/left to left/right but along the same horizontal positional "level" (HPL) on the pitch won't lose their "free" attribute.

Retraining a player directly upwards from one vertical positional level (VPL) to another will not change their "free" attribute between ML to AML, MR to AMR, DMC to MC to AMC.

(Other than those just mentioned)retraining a player from one VPL to another VPL, from one HPL to another HPL, or from one positional to diagonal positional level (DPL) will lose their "free attribute" but will gain another.

All positional re-training will use up CA at circa **3-4 CA points (subject to retrospective correction by Hawshiels)

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by kolobok:

Hawshiels,

It's just crossed my mind. Say a player has reached his PA (so CA=PA). Since I don't use any third party soft, I cannot know it. If I decide to retrain him to a new position, it wouldn't be possible? You plrobably have never faced the situation, but even your thoughts would be much appreciated.

What happens in this situation is that the player will eventually be trained into the new position, but other attributes will have to fall sufficiently to give him enough points to do it.

For example.

If a player has a free attribute such as "heading" which is currently at a score of 20, and his new position means that he loses this free attribute ... he will then have to lose 20 points in total from this attribute alone, or from a combination of the other 'chargeable' attributes. This can take quite some time to lose the attributes as quickly as you need to in order to make this happen, so he may take a couple of years or more to make this transition.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you cannot tell when you have gone from 10 to 11 in the score. The both read 'unconvincing'. If it goes as far as 'competent' you have obviously gone too far, but there is no way to distinguish the tipping point. I would therefore suggest that orange should be taken as meaning they have lost the 'free' attribute just to be on the safe side.

Could you not just train a player in a new position and then keep a close eye on it and as soon as it changes to 'unconvincing', it most likely that its still only on 10, rather than 11?

3 or 4 CA points depending on position on the field) between scoring 11 for a position and scoring 20 for that position. This seems strange in some ways but that's how it works anyway.

Is that 3 or four points difference or for 11 its 3 points and for 20 its four points?***(see below)

So if I'm reading you right:

(Apart from strikers)

Retraining a player from right/left to left/right but along the same horizontal positional "level" (HPL) on the pitch won't lose their "free" attribute.

Retraining a player directly upwards from one vertical positional level (VPL) to another will not change their "free" attribute between ML to AML, MR to AMR, DMC to MC to AMC.

(Other than those just mentioned)retraining a player from one VPL to another VPL, from one HPL to another HPL, or from one positional to diagonal positional level (DPL) will lose their "free attribute" but will gain another.

All positional re-training will use up CA at circa **3-4 CA points (subject to retrospective correction by Hawshiels) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could train a player until it goes orange and then stop. However, it goes orange at a score of around 6 so you may want to train him for a little longer before assuming he has reached the ceiling (i.e. 10). I'm going to play around with this a little more to see if there are any other clues in the game to make this clearer.

The 3 or 4 points I speak of is an additional 3 or 4 points that are used up between the positional rating of 11 and the positional rating of 20. So, as soon as it gets to 11 you automatically lose the 'free' attributes but you also will also lose an additional 3-4 points as his positional score climbs towards 20.

As for the VPL (my wife was looking over my shoulder and asked why I'm reading about "visible panty lines" ) and HPL, you are correct providing we are treating the areas as a single HPL. What I mean by this is that a ML can be trained in AMR without losing the 'free' attributes and hence not losing any CA points this way.

Something I've just realised that I will need to check is that although there is no difference in 'free' attributes between DMC, MC and AMC, I need to check the difference between a DMR/L and a AMR/L.

Will get back to you on this one but your other assumptions are correct there.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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

Hawshiels,

It's just crossed my mind. Say a player has reached his PA (so CA=PA). Since I don't use any third party soft, I cannot know it. If I decide to retrain him to a new position, it wouldn't be possible? You plrobably have never faced the situation, but even your thoughts would be much appreciated.

What happens in this situation is that the player will eventually be trained into the new position, but other attributes will have to fall sufficiently to give him enough points to do it.

For example.

If a player has a free attribute such as "heading" which is currently at a score of 20, and his new position means that he loses this free attribute ... he will then have to lose 20 points in total from this attribute alone, or from a combination of the other 'chargeable' attributes. This can take quite some time to lose the attributes as quickly as you need to in order to make this happen, so he may take a couple of years or more to make this transition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but its a good time to raise it again. The adaptability of a player is seen as a good thing since he can train new positions quicker and retain the skills for longer. But as we've found out, if we need him to 'forget' a position or skill so we can use the 'free' attribute score, this 'adaptability' skill becomes a hindrence.

[lance101]

Are you sure it is adaptability and not versatility? I always thought of adaptability as in adapting to new countries/teams and versatility as in adapting to new positions (and playing them even without having them)

[Law_Man]

So in terms of HPLs:

HPL1 - DL/DR

HPL2 (TBC)- ML and AML/MR and AMR

HPL3 (TBC) - DML/DMR

VPL1 - DMC/MC/AMC

VPL2 (TBC) - SW/DC

The adaptability of a player is seen as a good thing since he can train new positions quicker and retain the skills for longer. But as we've found out, if we need him to 'forget' a position or skill so we can use the 'free' attribute score, this 'adaptability' skill becomes a hindrence.

So does this mean that any player who has postional ability in more than one "conflicting" position (including those that start the game that way) don't have a free attribute?

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by lance101:

Are you sure it is adaptability and not versatility? I always thought of adaptability as in adapting to new countries/teams and versatility as in adapting to new positions (and playing them even without having them)

I did of course mean versatility. Well spotted.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

So in terms of HPLs:

HPL1 - DL/DR

HPL2 (TBC)- ML and AML/MR and AMR

HPL3 (TBC) - DML/DMR

VPL1 - DMC/MC/AMC

VPL2 (TBC) - SW/DC

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The adaptability of a player is seen as a good thing since he can train new positions quicker and retain the skills for longer. But as we've found out, if we need him to 'forget' a position or skill so we can use the 'free' attribute score, this 'adaptability' skill becomes a hindrence.

So does this mean that any player who has postional ability in more than one "conflicting" position (including those that start the game that way) don't have a free attribute? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With regards to the HPLs and VPls ....

As for a player with a conflicting position, he will only have the standard 'free' attributes that apply to all players. i.e. Adaptibility,

Controversy, Ambition, Determination, Loyalty, Pressure, Professionalism, Sportsmanship, Temperament, Consistency, Aggression, Important Matches, Injury Prone, Natural Fitness, Penalties, Corners, Free-kicks, Long throws (as listed earlier in the thread).

Some of the positions though only conflict with one or two of the 'free' attributes so a player will usually retain at least one of the positional 'free' attributes. But if a player is skilled in many positions, he will use up the CA points very quickly as he'll have few (if any) positional 'free' attributes.

[Mitja]

Originally posted by lance101:

Mitja: I think that the real researchers of the game get some other software that tells them what is the "recommended" CA that a player with such ratings should have, meaning that they know that if they put all too many 20's and then CA 120, that the game would adjust the ratings down.

The problem is that the editor we get doesn't tell us that, therefore we don't know if the ratings we choose fall within the range possible with the CA we picked. A possible way around this is perhaps to just pick the ratings and not assign a CA. I haven't tested this myself, but will the game assign a CA reflective of the ratings you picked or a random CA and mess up with all your ratings? The first choice would seem ideal to me.

I tried that. and the game just puts the random number in.

is there any chance that you guys put main ideas of this thread in one quite simple form, so I could at least uderstand some basics of this. I tried to read it from the start, but it looks quite impossibile to me.

[kolobok]

is there any chance that you guys put main ideas of this thread in one quite simple form, so I could at least uderstand some basics of this. I tried to read it from the start, but it looks quite impossibile to me.

I think Law_Man was going to that once he is done with his exam. Though I never understood lawyers, let's hope he can keep his ability to speak clear even after the exam

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by kolobok:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">is there any chance that you guys put main ideas of this thread in one quite simple form, so I could at least uderstand some basics of this. I tried to read it from the start, but it looks quite impossibile to me.

I think Law_Man was going to that once he is done with his exam. Though I never understood lawyers, let's hope he can keep his ability to speak clear even after the exam </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes as Kolobok said it should be out around this time next week, which is good too as it will allow time for more brilliant research.

[Law_Man]

More stuff from PaulC:

quote:

Originally posted by azeri4life:

Yeah I agree with Hamselv here - let's say someone who knows nothing about current football affairs and is new to FM08 - say he had an option to buy either C. Ronaldo or Elano, who do you think he'd buy, based on stats? He, and nor can anyone else, see a player's CA.

What Ched is saying might be fair and true, but it defeats the point of having stats and instead means that we have to look to CA and cheat to discover just how good a player is - that is not the way to play this game.

Someone with an understanding of football might take into account that not all attributes are of equal importance, and that certain combinations can create something greater than their "sum".

Wink

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">is there any chance that you guys put main ideas of this thread in one quite simple form, so I could at least uderstand some basics of this. I tried to read it from the start, but it looks quite impossibile to me.

I think Law_Man was going to that once he is done with his exam. Though I never understood lawyers, let's hope he can keep his ability to speak clear even after the exam </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes as Kolobok said it should be out around this time next week, which is good too as it will allow time for more brilliant research. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got quite a few more interesting things to share with you about training and how much of each stat can be trained in any one year - brilliant stuff for coming up with training schedules.

[p.s. Law_Man: Firstly, good luck with the exams. I'm not sure we need any more lawyers in the world ( ), but I wish you all the best. And secondly, I must apologise for something I said in another thread. You see, I thought you were called the Law_Man after Dennis Law and hence the reason why my comment about "are you drinking again?" didn't go down as humourously as I expected it to. I didn't realise you were actually a legal eagle. I suppose I should not have presumed that you would even know who Dennis Law was - never mind have a username to reflect your admiration for the man. ]

[Law_Man]

I've got quite a few more interesting things to share with you about training and how much of each stat can be trained in any one year - brilliant stuff for coming up with training schedules.

That sounds amazing! More gems from Hawshiels!

p.s. Law_Man: Firstly, good luck with the exams. I'm not sure we need any more lawyers in the world ( Wink ), but I wish you all the best. And secondly, I must apologise for something I said in another thread. You see, I thought you were called the Law_Man after Dennis Law and hence the reason why my comment about "are you drinking again?" didn't go down as humourously as I expected it to. I didn't realise you were actually a legal eagle. I suppose I should not have presumed that you would even know who Dennis Law was - never mind have a username to reflect your admiration for the man. Big Grin]

Cheers and no worries I didn't get the reference to Dennis Law....I just thought it was a general comedy remark...I'm not really one to get offended very easily!

And yes as soon as I ever mention the word "lawyer" you always get the usual....scum of the earth....corporate whore etc....! But I genuinely think you can be those things in the work context (if you have to) and then as soon as you walk out the door you should be a nice person, that's how I try to live my life anyway Although I can't complain about what people say about lawyers as in fairness most lawyers are merchant bankers if you get my drift

ps Dennis Law was a Man Utd and England player wasn't he? (and also played for Man City) or am I getting him confused with someone else? I know he was a top England international though and I'm fairly sure he was a stiker. Didn't know anything about his drinking though!

Relatedly, I got bought a couple of books by my girlfriend last birthday:

One was a biography of Brian Clough called "Provided You Don't Kiss Me" (Duncan Hamilton) which was a fantastic read and apparently a bit of a best seller now. And the other was "My Father and Other Working Class Football Heroes" by Gary Imlach (son of famous "olden days" footballer).

I cannot recommend them highly enough. If you're a bit o a reader you'll love them. The one about Cloughie I especially enjoyed and the Imlach one gave a great overview of the history of English football from the second world war to the state its in now e.g. the abolition of the wage cap etc.

[Cleon]

Can't wait to hear about training

[lance101]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

OK. I've thought about this - especially how to present the information in a way that makes it understandable/usable, etc.

So, lets start with how the CA points are used up by positions. And note that I am now using in-game CA meaning that each 1 point represents a value on the 1-20 scale - NOT the 1-100 scale.

Firstly, there is a difference in the number of CA points that are used up by each of the 3 areas of the park (i.e. DEFENCE, MIDFIELD and ATTACK). I'll give you these in a moment, but firstly we have to break down the costs of each pitch area in terms of MATT (mental attribute costs), TATT (technical attribute costs) and PATT (physical attribute costs).

Note that the table below shows relative points usage. In other words, these points usage numbers are based on a CA of 200. As the CA decreases, the cost of each position decreases in relative terms. So, for someone with a CA of 100, you can half the numbers below, etc.

[in the case of a player with a CA of 50 (or less), there is less of an obvious effect from within the game due to the 1-20 scale, but it is noticable on the 1-100 scale.]

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

AREA TATT-cost MATT-cost PATT-cost

Defence 4 4 8

Midfield 12 8 4

Attack 16 4 8

</pre>

There are also TATT, MATT and PATT costs for each side on the pitch you choose (i.e. LEFT/CENTRE/RIGHT). Here are the costs for the FIRST additional side.

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

TATT 8

MATT 8

PATT 0

</pre>

For the second additional side, the cost of CA points is this.

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

TATT 4

MATT 4

PATT 0

</pre>

So, if you have a player that can play DL/R/C, they will use up 12 TATT points and 12 MATT points more than a DC-only.

These TATT, MATT and PATT point increases seem to be consistent regardless of the area on the pitch (i.e. Defence, Midfield, Attack).

Just wanted to make clear Hawshiels, if what you say here is for real or not... you said latter that there would be no cost of training someone from am l to am r because they have the same free attributes (besides the cost it might have in increasing right foot proficiency)

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by lance101:

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

OK. I've thought about this - especially how to present the information in a way that makes it understandable/usable, etc.

So, lets start with how the CA points are used up by positions. And note that I am now using in-game CA meaning that each 1 point represents a value on the 1-20 scale - NOT the 1-100 scale.

Firstly, there is a difference in the number of CA points that are used up by each of the 3 areas of the park (i.e. DEFENCE, MIDFIELD and ATTACK). I'll give you these in a moment, but firstly we have to break down the costs of each pitch area in terms of MATT (mental attribute costs), TATT (technical attribute costs) and PATT (physical attribute costs).

Note that the table below shows relative points usage. In other words, these points usage numbers are based on a CA of 200. As the CA decreases, the cost of each position decreases in relative terms. So, for someone with a CA of 100, you can half the numbers below, etc.

[in the case of a player with a CA of 50 (or less), there is less of an obvious effect from within the game due to the 1-20 scale, but it is noticable on the 1-100 scale.]

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

AREA TATT-cost MATT-cost PATT-cost

Defence 4 4 8

Midfield 12 8 4

Attack 16 4 8

</pre>

There are also TATT, MATT and PATT costs for each side on the pitch you choose (i.e. LEFT/CENTRE/RIGHT). Here are the costs for the FIRST additional side.

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

TATT 8

MATT 8

PATT 0

</pre>

For the second additional side, the cost of CA points is this.

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

TATT 4

MATT 4

PATT 0

</pre>

So, if you have a player that can play DL/R/C, they will use up 12 TATT points and 12 MATT points more than a DC-only.

These TATT, MATT and PATT point increases seem to be consistent regardless of the area on the pitch (i.e. Defence, Midfield, Attack).

Just wanted to make clear Hawshiels, if what you say here is for real or not... you said latter that there would be no cost of training someone from am l to am r because they have the same free attributes (besides the cost it might have in increasing right foot proficiency) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lance101: This is perhaps a little misleading but I was using it to ease people into the concept more easily of having 'free' attributes. What I am trying to say in these particular post above is that the higher you go up the pitch, you lose 'free' attributes so it costs you CA points. There is no REAL cost of ading positions, only the fact that you lose the 'free' attributes.

[Mitja]

I'm gonna put you some examples of players, who were added/taken off stats. I would be very glad if you could explain why it happens. I hope it's OK with you.

time to put your theory into practice

[Mitja]

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4807/guillonri0.jpg

it's 802 database. can you tell me why the game added +2 points for this guy?

[Joor]

I just did a test with Oddo my RB in Milan.

He got 20 in both DR and FB and 19 LB. He also got 66 in left foot and 100 right. So I changed hes LB position to 1 and hes left foot to 20( in reallife hes awefull with that foot btw).

Now two weeks later meny of the stats have gone up and he looks like Daniel Alves

This could be the reason Elano stats are better than C. Ronaldo - since he can play alot more positions and can also use both feet ?

[Joor]

Or nevermind they can both play in alot of positions, so it must be when a player can use both feet it takes up ALOT of CA points..

[Joor]

Originally posted by Mitja:

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4807/guillonri0.jpg

it's 802 database. can you tell me why the game added +2 points for this guy?

I think I know why.

When the researcher set hes CA in the database but the numbers isnt right for hes CA..then the game change them after you begin a new season.

[Mitja]

that shouldn't be the case. IRE player's got his qualities-stats, he could be suited to play any number of positions and it doesn't make him better player in terms of his quality-stats. the same goes for how good his weaker foot is. look at messi, he's not using his right foot at all, does that make him worse dribbler? if he had his right foot as good as left he'd banned to play football

[Mitja]

Originally posted by Joor:

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

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4807/guillonri0.jpg

it's 802 database. can you tell me why the game added +2 points for this guy?

I think I know why.

When the researcher set hes CA in the database but the numbers isnt right for hes CA..then the game change them after you begin a new season. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, but the problem is that this guy has CA 127 only. if you compare him to someone like carvalho (CA 170 or smth) there's no big difference.

about elano, look at how many positions he can play, more then cristiano anyway....

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by Mitja:

I'm gonna put you some examples of players, who were added/taken off stats. I would be very glad if you could explain why it happens. I hope it's OK with you.

time to put your theory into practice

I'm sure if our top mathematicians can use their findings to work this out they will if its possible, and if so great If not, (as PaulC has said this phenomenon isn't really an in-game issue I believe) then please don't use this thread to post all the points you've been making the GQ forums - this is not the place for it.

[Law_Man]

lance101: This is perhaps a little misleading but I was using it to ease people into the concept more easily of having 'free' attributes. What I am trying to say in these particular post above is that the higher you go up the pitch, you lose 'free' attributes so it costs you CA points. There is no REAL cost of ading positions, only the fact that you lose the 'free' attributes.

Hang on, I'm confused now! I thought that from what you said, in addition to losing "free attributes", gaining proficiency in new positions costs:

The 3 or 4 points I speak of is an additional 3 or 4 points that are used up between the positional rating of 11 and the positional rating of 20. So, as soon as it gets to 11 you automatically lose the 'free' attributes but you also will also lose an additional 3-4 points as his positional score climbs towards 20.

[Mitja]

lol, what's the matter. I think this things work a little more random then you think. prooves law man. law man are using prooves, right? I'll leave this thread but just explain me this: why elano's benn added point stats? that's a fair question dealing with this thread's metter. you can't just say to me f... o.., or can you. what are you scared I can proove your theory wrong. just be constructive and don't act like a child who was taken awey his toy.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1133/elanostatsgn0.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/183/elanocafx7.jpg

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

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

lance101: This is perhaps a little misleading but I was using it to ease people into the concept more easily of having 'free' attributes. What I am trying to say in these particular post above is that the higher you go up the pitch, you lose 'free' attributes so it costs you CA points. There is no REAL cost of ading positions, only the fact that you lose the 'free' attributes.

Hang on, I'm confused now! I thought that from what you said, in addition to losing "free attributes", gaining proficiency in new positions costs:

The 3 or 4 points I speak of is an additional 3 or 4 points that are used up between the positional rating of 11 and the positional rating of 20. So, as soon as it gets to 11 you automatically lose the 'free' attributes but you also will also lose an additional 3-4 points as his positional score climbs towards 20.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me try again, and I'll be specific this time to hopefully avoid confusion.

Gaining a new position in the first place (i.e. something outwith a VPL or HPL) and one which has a score of 11 out of 20 will not cost any CA points. It does however remove the 'free' attribute meaning that it costs points for any score within that previously 'free' attribute.

However, the more proficient a player becomes in that position (i.e. the more he moves from 11 out of 20 up to 18 out of 20 - which I believe is the maximum for any new trained position), he will be charged up to an additional 4 CA points for getting to this level of proficiency.

Does that make it any clearer?

p.s. I'm going to use Mitja's example of this player to explain how this works in an example, however I agree that we don't want to change the direction of this thread. I think this one example will be useful though.

[Mitja]

fair enough hawshiels. my intension wasn't to disturb you. only to take a little of your time to explain me my question. but I had to counter law man's attack on me.

[Powermonger]

Originally posted by Mitja:

lol, what's the matter. I think this things work a little more random then you think. prooves law man. law man are using prooves, right? I'll leave this thread but just explain me this: why elano's benn added point stats? that's a fair question dealing with this thread's metter. you can't just say to me f... o.., or can you. what are you scared I can proove your theory wrong. just be constructive and don't act like a child who was taken awey his toy.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1133/elanostatsgn0.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/183/elanocafx7.jpg

What's with the aggressive post? Nobody in this thread deserves such disrespect for the theories they are discussing.

[Hawshiels]

Mitja: Lets take your example and work through it based on what we know.

Firstly, the player you are using here (Loic Guillon) has:

DC - 20

DL - 16

WB - 10

ML - 12

He has a CA of 127. This means that he has 270-127=243 attribute points below the maximum (the real maximum and not the imposed maximum of 200).

So, the researchers have allocated him the CA score using their software and then they aim to allocate him CA points in each of the attribute areas.

However, what they have done is allocated him points in the areas that are not affecting his CA points so much, so FM raises some of the attributes to bring them up to a total of 127 CA points.

Had he been a DC - only, his attributes would have risen more because he would have had more 'free' attributes in which to score points in-game without being charged for them.

So, lets look at this example.

Had he been a DC, he would have had the following:

Crossing, Dribbling, Finishing, Long shots and Technique as 'free' technical attributes

Creativity, Off the ball, Flair, Teamwork as 'free' mental attributes

However, he is also a DL and ML (the WB does not count because it is only a 10 and does not cost until it reaches 11). This means that he loses the free attributes of 'crossing' and 'technique' (from technical) and 'creativity' and 'teamwork' (from mental). Does this make sense so far?

However, even with the loss of these 'free' attributes, his CA score still didn't come up to the 127 score, so the game MUST add points on. You see, it is more reasonable for the game to assume that the researcher has got the CA correct (as it is a single number), and providing he has the attribute scores correct relatively speaking (i.e. this player has twice as many points for 'teamwork' as he does 'off the ball'), it is quite sensible for the game to help the process by allocating the additional necessary points accordingly - hence the increase.

Try this for yourself and you'll see it is what is happening. What would be better is to look at a player where the stats have dropped and you'll see things clearer still.

I really hope this helps to explain how this works.

[Mitja]

yes it helps, thanks hawshiels.

it means that researchers gave Guillon CA too high in editor db, to reflect it in the game, right?

what about elano? I wanted him as example becouse he has a lot of positions over 10 and not so high CA. but has been added 2 points in many attributes.

[Hawshiels]

I personally think it is really useful using these examples to work it through as this game is VERY complicated (and we'd want and expect) and it will help us all (especially me) provide proof about how this works - because at the moment, all we have is an abundance of evidence to support the theory, but all it takes is a single spanner to disprove it - and no-one is looking harder than me.

[Serdar]

Excellent work by Hawshiels and some others supporting him!!! One should be nuts to assume game code randomly assigns values to players and obviously there are always rules and formulas behind the scene which are as logical as one can understand. No doubt SI has a great experience in this field since they have been working on this over a decade but a good and motivated math guru like Hawshiels and his friends could catch up with them quite well. I guess SI doesnt want to speculate how close they get in these numbers to protect their intellectual property and keep it somehow secret but I think Hawshiels is very close to reality.

This being said on the other hand; I must say I agree very well with Mitja and his view. This is a GAME not a mathematical/statistical tool. FM sells because it reflects real football well, thanks to its massive research force. And game attributes is the way how ordinary users evaluate players. For me it is a design(not programming) bug if I cant see obvious difference when I compare C.Ronaldo or Ronaldhinho with other average players in the game. I dont need to know what attributes are free or I dont need to know physical attributes are having higher affect on the pitch or any other factor which are not self evident to user. Not to mention users are not even supposed to see or know what is CA. I know Ronaldo is superior IRL and I expect him to look superior in FM from any angle otherwise I will start to doubt reality of the game.

To sum up, I think FM works as a masterpiece when it comes to creating players and hawshiels did excellent work to reveal it(hope you guys keep going on deeper) but on the other hand FM is having serious troubles to present the players properly to the user. They assume so much from users to say in short.

P.S. I'm sure over %95 of the users are confused why their average players are going up and down in circles during training despite you get best coaches and facilities. This thread explains very well why it happens but now knowing why it happens like that, I'm again disappointed. I'm sure programming wise it works as it should but design looks very poor. How SI expects users to understand it? and more than how SI expects users to enjoy/approve this feature?

P.S.2. I'm also not happy with the finding; regarding new position affect on CA usage. I bet if this is revealed officially almost no one will train their players to get new positions.

[Law_Man]

ljust be constructive and don't act like a child who was taken awey his toy.

I think that's the point I was making

I wasn't telling you to go, nor could I even if I wanted as you're free to pop in whenever you want. That aside, I think everyone would welcome your anyway

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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

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

lance101: This is perhaps a little misleading but I was using it to ease people into the concept more easily of having 'free' attributes. What I am trying to say in these particular post above is that the higher you go up the pitch, you lose 'free' attributes so it costs you CA points. There is no REAL cost of ading positions, only the fact that you lose the 'free' attributes.

Hang on, I'm confused now! I thought that from what you said, in addition to losing "free attributes", gaining proficiency in new positions costs:

The 3 or 4 points I speak of is an additional 3 or 4 points that are used up between the positional rating of 11 and the positional rating of 20. So, as soon as it gets to 11 you automatically lose the 'free' attributes but you also will also lose an additional 3-4 points as his positional score climbs towards 20.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me try again, and I'll be specific this time to hopefully avoid confusion.

Gaining a new position in the first place (i.e. something outwith a VPL or HPL) and one which has a score of 11 out of 20 will not cost any CA points. It does however remove the 'free' attribute meaning that it costs points for any score within that previously 'free' attribute.

However, the more proficient a player becomes in that position (i.e. the more he moves from 11 out of 20 up to 18 out of 20 - which I believe is the maximum for any new trained position), he will be charged up to an additional 4 CA points for getting to this level of proficiency.

Does that make it any clearer?

p.s. I'm going to use Mitja's example of this player to explain how this works in an example, however I agree that we don't want to change the direction of this thread. I think this one example will be useful though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much clearer thanks Is 18 out of 20 still "accomplished"? Coz Cleon says that its possible to re-train young players to become "natural" in a position.

[Hawshiels]

p.s. If you have been trained in a larger number of positions (still trying to work out the exact way this works), you WILL eat into the 'long throws', 'penalties', 'corners' and 'free-kicks' attribute to help pay for the other attributes. This leads me to believe that we are getting much closer to identifying some underlying weightings - which may be very relevant in terms of how fast each attribute can be trained. These numbers have changed in this version quite alot but I'll get to the bottom of it. Nice puzzle.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Law_Man:

Much clearer thanks Is 18 out of 20 still "accomplished"? Coz Cleon says that its possible to re-train young players to become "natural" in a position.

It would be very unlike Cleon to be wrong so I think I'll just check this again. But if he is wrong, we should make a very public announcement about his erro - I'm sure alot of people would take great satisfaction in that. [Only kidding Cleon ]

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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

Much clearer thanks Is 18 out of 20 still "accomplished"? Coz Cleon says that its possible to re-train young players to become "natural" in a position.

It would be very unlike Cleon to be wrong so I think I'll just check this again. But if he is wrong, we should make a very public announcement about his erro - I'm sure alot of people would take great satisfaction in that. [Only kidding Cleon ] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'm sure he wouldn't say it if he hadn't seen it with one of his own young players so I think its fair to say that its correct, but obviously there's nothing wrong with further testing!

[ObaMartins09]

Not sure I completely understand this thread. What exactly has been found out, can someone sum it up for me?

[Cleon]

A player gaining natural as his position is more age related than anything else. The younger the more chance of it happening. I've seen it happen quite a few times with younger players.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by ObaMartins09:

Not sure I completely understand this thread. What exactly has been found out, can someone sum it up for me?

I'm not sure I understand it because it is a mammoth puzzle, but here goes:

1. We are trying (and think we've found) how the CA can be calculated from the attributes - or rather how the attributes are scored based on the CA and the attribute scores within the database.

2. Within each position on the field, there are a number of attributes that we consider to be 'free' in that regardless of what score this attribute holds (1-20), it does not impact the CA so it can be trained without fear of losing CA points as a result.

3. There are weightings within the game for each attribute (although we've identified only 3 groupings so far) that determine how quickly each one can be trained, and also how valuable the game deems them to be.

There's much for fun stuff in the detail, but we're still working it all out. It has uncovered the fact that SI can use a number of techniques to makes tweaks to the matches. They can:

1. Tweak the engine itself

2. Tweak the original database (i.e. what you see in the editor)

3. Tweak the way in which different positions on the field use the different attributes.

[Law_Man]

Originally posted by ObaMartins09:

Not sure I completely understand this thread. What exactly has been found out, can someone sum it up for me?

Hopefully this will be on the way by this time next week.

[Hawshiels]

p.s. What is the point of this thread?

Well, where we'd like to get to is a point where we can produce training schedules that help to 'max out' the potential of the players. I already have brilliant schedules, but why stop at 'brilliant' when 'perfection' is just around the corner.

Also, there may be 'signs' that we can identify to help determine when a player is 'maxed out' and could/should be sold.

And finally, if we can prove (which I think we have) that a player being re-trained in another position (or foot) costs CA points (because he loses the 'free' attributes of his current position), we will know to focus on buying players already natural in the desired position - even if their attributes are currently slightly lower.

No doubt everyone will have their own ideas about how to use the information.

[LSS]

Originally posted by Serdar:

P.S.2. I'm also not happy with the finding; regarding new position affect on CA usage. I bet if this is revealed officially almost no one will train their players to get new positions.

I actually was expecting something likes this. And I think its a good thing. Kind of. I mean training to play in a new position reduces the time available for other training. If it wasn't so, people would train every player to play in at least on extra position.

[Serdar]

Originally posted by LSS:

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

Excellent work by Hawshiels and some others supporting him!!! One should be nuts to assume game code randomly assigns values to players and obviously there are always rules and formulas behind the scene which are as logical as one can understand. No doubt SI has a great experience in this field since they have been working on this over a decade but a good and motivated math guru like Hawshiels and his friends could catch up with them quite well. I guess SI doesnt want to speculate how close they get in these numbers to protect their intellectual property and keep it somehow secret but I think Hawshiels is very close to reality.

This being said on the other hand; I must say I agree very well with Mitja and his view. This is a GAME not a mathematical/statistical tool. FM sells because it reflects real football well, thanks to its massive research force. And game attributes is the way how ordinary users evaluate players. For me it is a design(not programming) bug if I cant see obvious difference when I compare C.Ronaldo or Ronaldhinho with other average players in the game. I dont need to know what attributes are free or I dont need to know physical attributes are having higher affect on the pitch or any other factor which are not self evident to user. Not to mention users are not even supposed to see or know what is CA. I know Ronaldo is superior IRL and I expect him to look superior in FM from any angle otherwise I will start to doubt reality of the game.

To sum up, I think FM works as a masterpiece when it comes to creating players and hawshiels did excellent work to reveal it(hope you guys keep going on deeper) but on the other hand FM is having serious troubles to present the players properly to the user. They assume so much from users to say in short.

P.S. I'm sure over %95 of the users are confused why their average players are going up and down in circles during training despite you get best coaches and facilities. This thread explains very well why it happens but now knowing why it happens like that, I'm again disappointed. I'm sure programming wise it works as it should but design looks very poor. How SI expects users to understand it? and more than how SI expects users to enjoy/approve this feature?

P.S.2. I'm also not happy with the finding; regarding new position affect on CA usage. I bet if this is revealed officially almost no one will train their players to get new positions.

I actually was expecting something likes this. And I think its a good thing. Kind of. I mean training to play in a new position reduces the time available for other training. If it wasn't so, people would train every player to play in at least on extra position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is ok if it consumes training time and you can not train other attributes as good as possible during new position training. It is also fine that some players may not like this process at all as it says in the game hints section.

what I dont like is; after you gain the new position it actually lowers the absolute possible limits for other attributes that player can reach. Again this may look reasonable from programming point of view but for a user "new position" or "more position" just sounds positive without any downside however FM, behind curtains, makes user pay for that.

[Hawshiels]

Right guys, here is something interesting I've found. It is about the so-called 'free' attributes - corners, penalties, free-kicks and long throws.

When a player trains in a new position, we know that the 'free' attributes are lost for the previous position(s) as soon as he reaches 11 in the new position. Well, there also appears to be another special stage when he gets to 13, but I don't understand this one yet fully.

I'll explain what is happening. At 11 and 13 (these are the only two stages through to 20), the game seems to remove the 'free' status of the four set-piece attributes I mentioned above.

This may be to make the transition into new positions smoother without great loss to attributes, but I've not managed to confirm this yet. But I can't see any reason why 13 is so significant. And for the avoidance of doubt, 12, 14, 15, etc all provides the set-piece attributes as 'free'. It is only at 11 and 13.

[Serdar]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

Right guys, here is something interesting I've found. It is about the so-called 'free' attributes - corners, penalties, free-kicks and long throws.

When a player trains in a new position, we know that the 'free' attributes are lost for the previous position(s) as soon as he reaches 11 in the new position. Well, there also appears to be another special stage when he gets to 13, but I don't understand this one yet fully.

I'll explain what is happening. At 11 and 13 (these are the only two stages through to 20), the game seems to remove the 'free' status of the four set-piece attributes I mentioned above.

This may be to make the transition into new positions smoother without great loss to attributes, but I've not managed to confirm this yet. But I can't see any reason why 13 is so significant. And for the avoidance of doubt, 12, 14, 15, etc all provides the set-piece attributes as 'free'. It is only at 11 and 13.

please correct me if I'm wrong; if I have a player with CA = 150 and PA = 150 meaning he is using all he has already in attributes. when he gets 11 in a new position we should expect a drop in set-pieces very soon and this is done to ensure that other (real) attributes do not need to suffer.

[Hawshiels]

Originally posted by Serdar:

what I dont like is; after you gain the new position it actually lowers the absolute possible limits for other attributes that player can reach. Again this may look reasonable from programming point of view but for a user "new position" or "more position" just sounds positive without any downside however FM, behind curtains, makes user pay for that.

I completely understand your point here and it is something I have wondered about but I'm afraid the precise nature of this win/loss will never really be known to us. And here's why.

Lets say I have a player DC that has passing of 15. If I play him as a DC, the engine will take 15 as his passing score since this is his natural position. However, if I play him as a DMC, will his passing operate at the 15 level or will it drop to 14, 13, 12, or even lower because he is out of position? Who knows?

So, lets say I train this player to play in the DMC position. I will of course have 'lost' my ability to claim the 'free' central defender attributes, but what happens to my passing ability in this DMC position now? It will be 15 you would presume (since I am now natural/competent in this position), meaning that I am now a higher calibre player because I'm now good in two positions on the pitch. So, I've lost out on one hand, but gained in another. But note that this is only a win (or at least a leveling) if I plan to play the player in these two positions. If not, it is a waste of CA points.

Does this make sense?

p.s. I think this issue of the positions is really important, especially when we are now all comfortable playing the arrows (back, forward and side). Perhaps this was the main reason it was put in the game like this.

[Serdar]

Originally posted by Hawshiels:

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

what I dont like is; after you gain the new position it actually lowers the absolute possible limits for other attributes that player can reach. Again this may look reasonable from programming point of view but for a user "new position" or "more position" just sounds positive without any downside however FM, behind curtains, makes user pay for that.

I completely understand your point here and it is something I have wondered about but I'm afraid the precise nature of this win/loss will never really be known to us. And here's why.

Lets say I have a player DC that has passing of 15. If I play him as a DC, the engine will take 15 as his passing score since this is his natural position. However, if I play him as a DMC, will his passing operate at the 15 level or will it drop to 14, 13, 12, or even lower because he is out of position? Who knows?

So, lets say I train this player to play in the DMC position. I will of course have 'lost' my ability to claim the 'free' central defender attributes, but what happens to my passing ability in this DMC position now? It will be 15 you would presume (since I am now natural/competent in this position), meaning that I am now a higher calibre player because I'm now good in two positions on the pitch. So, I've lost out on one hand, but gained in another. But note that this is only a win (or at least a leveling) if I plan to play the player in these two positions. If not, it is a waste of CA points.

Does this make sense?

p.s. I think this issue of the positions is really important, especially when we are now all comfortable playing the arrows (back, forward and side). Perhaps this was the main reason it was put in the game like this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your example assumes that after your DC learns to play DMC he will always play as DMC. I agree that if you just want him to be DMC then learning new position is a gain in any case but what if one wants to use him still as DC in first place and just to cover DMC every now and then. Then this player, after knowing how to play DMC, is much worse when he is back to his original DC position.