CA and it's use for footedness

[Sheva Elite]

Simons is definitely better.

At first I thought Tuncliffe. But when you see Simons has 20 jumping, heading and strength, you know he is going to score all kind of goals. Target men are kinda underrated I think. If he didn't have that he'd be worse because Tuncliffe is a fair bit quicker and better at shooting, but he has no aerial prowess whereas Simons is a beast.

[milnerpoint]

Yeah, but he's a country mile ahead in things like marking, tackling and long throws. You're far more likely to notice a 6 point different in finishing in a striker, than a big difference in marking. Tunnicliffe is a lot quicker as well (pace/accell of 20/19 compared to 17/15).

he is also miles better in areas like jumping, heading, long shot, concentration, decisions, anticipation. The difference in pace will not be massively noticable in the ME, both players will be classed as being very quick, especially with simmons better mental stats, he will have a huge advantage with them alone. simmons is definately the better player of the two.

[x42bn6]

Another argument for getting rid of CA.

[Ackter]

Another argument for getting rid of CA.

I would just like to clarify, this is not an argument in any way, shape or form for getting rid of CA.

Please don't turn this thread into another CA argument or I'll get you banned

[Ackter]

The third of my main assist-providers has now picked up an injury and is out for the rest of the season.

Game's doing it's best to ruin Tunnicliffe's season here

[Ackter]

Before: 32 goals in 33 games

After: 32 goals in 30 games

Not bad when you consider how weakened his supply line was for the second half of the season.

[milnerpoint]

Before: 32 goals in 33 games

After: 32 goals in 30 games

Not bad when you consider how weakened his supply line was for the second half of the season.

It would be intersting to see the difference if you made him either footed, say 15 for each foot, obviously it will reduce his stats, but will it reduce his performances?

[Ackter]

You need to have 20 in at least one.

[milnerpoint]

You need to have 20 in at least one.

ok 20 and 20, or 20 and 15 for the weaker foot. I would do it myself and but im stuck at work

[sjm]

I totally agree that the player attributes are distorted based on the footedness. I remember the same discussion (FM2006?) about C Ronaldo and how his attributes seemed to low. SI pointed out that this was because being able to use two feet meant he was actually a better player than he looks.

But the problem is that it makes comparing players very difficult at a glance. And it doesn't really make that much sense in many cases. If someone is genuinely equally strong with both feet, this isn't suddenly going to make them worse at passing or shooting or whatever as a result with their stronger foot. It just makes them better at using their weaker foot as well.

Now, I'm not a professional footballer, but when I was 5 years old, my dad made me aware that I could use both feet when playing, so I did. By the time I was 16, I was more or less equally adept with both feet. I might have had slightly more power in my stronger foot, but the amount of control I had was the same with both. As I learnt to do this as a young kid, I'd say that in the FM world, being good with both feet should, in this case, be a "natural" ability (much like being born ambidextrous). It definitely hasn't made me worse at passing or anything, as I just learnt to pass and shoot with both feet. In this case, footedness should probably NOT use up any ability points; I picked this up along the way simply by playing football as one does as a kid.

If, on the other hand, you take someone at age 16 (or thereabouts, i.e. the age around which players feature in the game), they've already got to a point where if they aren't used to using their weaker foot, it will take a significant amount of practice to improve their weaker foot - practice that essentially takes time away from learning other skills. That's not to say that you can't learn to use your weaker foot at a later age, but in this case I can see an argument for making this take up ability points. It's no longer a player's "natural" ability, but something they need to consciously work on.

I wonder if the solution is something along the lines of: players begin the game with their "natural" ability with both feet, and this costs nothing. If, during the course of the game, they improve their weaker foot, this should take up attribute points (although I don't think anywhere near as many as now seem to be the case). It would also be great to be able to encourage players to improve their weaker foot, at least when they're still young.

Somewhat OT: Now, if I were a real manager, the first thing my U-8s would be training is to use both feet. It amazes me the number of professional players who miss easy shots on goal because they try and take the ball on the wrong (their strong) foot instead of having the confidence to just tap the ball in with their left foot. Or the number of players who can only ever beat their man on one side - the first time, they might get past the defender, but it soon becomes very obvious that you only need to stop them going one direction, and the player is running nowhere fast.

[Ackter]

I've spent all morning on FM testing this so I'm off out now too

[milnerpoint]

I've spent all morning on FM testing this so I'm off out now too

haha ill take up the mantle over the weekend then, ive got a beast of a striker on another save i dont really play now so ill edit him based on that and see what the results are.

[Ackter]

Best thing to do is create 3 identical players imo.

20/1

20/20

1/20

and holiday one season with each to see what happens.

[bigdunk]

I totally agree that the player attributes are distorted based on the footedness. I remember the same discussion (FM2006?) about C Ronaldo and how his attributes seemed to low. SI pointed out that this was because being able to use two feet meant he was actually a better player than he looks.

But the problem is that it makes comparing players very difficult at a glance. And it doesn't really make that much sense in many cases. If someone is genuinely equally strong with both feet, this isn't suddenly going to make them worse at passing or shooting or whatever as a result with their stronger foot. It just makes them better at using their weaker foot as well.

You need to get over the idea that having a stronger weak foot is making him worse at passing. That's not what's happening. A CA 160 player is a CA160 player, how that ability is distributed can be different, but he should still be a CA 160 player. If you use an editor to improve a player's weak foot ability, he's either a better overall player (in which case he needs a higher CA), or he must be made weaker in some other area to keep him at CA 160. You can't improve an attribute (be it weak-foot ability or anything else) and leave a player at the same CA.

It works in exactly the same way with other attributes like Technique, Composure, Decisions, Concentration, Important Matches, Consistency and so on. A player with 15 Passing and 20 Decisions is probably a better passer than a player with Passing 20 and Decisions 1.

[milnerpoint]

You need to get over the idea that having a stronger weak foot is making him worse at passing. That's not what's happening. A CA 160 player is a CA160 player, how that ability is distributed can be different, but he should still be a CA 160 player. If you use an editor to improve a player's weak foot ability, he's either a better overall player (in which case he needs a higher CA), or he must be made weaker in some other area to keep him at CA 160. You can't improve an attribute (be it weak-foot ability or anything else) and leave a player at the same CA.

It works in exactly the same way with other attributes like Technique, Composure, Decisions, Concentration, Important Matches, Consistency and so on. A player with 15 Passing and 20 Decisions is probably a better passer than a player with Passing 20 and Decisions 1.

Thats exactly right, and a very good point.

[sjm]

You can't improve an attribute (be it weak-foot ability or anything else) and leave a player at the same CA.

That's exactly the problem we're discussing here. I think you've missed the point of what I (and Ackter before me) have said, which basically boils down to the fact that if you have 160 ability points to spend, and a significant amount are burnt up due to being two-footed (as in Ackter's examples above), your other attributes will by defnition have to be lower than another player with the same CA who is only one footed (because you have a finite number of points to distribute, hence this whole discussion about whether CA should be used up by footedness or not). This does not make much sense in the case of natural ability, distorts the attributes and is exactly the reason why everyone was saying "why is Ronaldo worse at dribbling/shooting/technique whatver than Jo Schmo?" back in the day.

Does it make sense now?

Btw, CA doesn't tell you how good a player is, that is soley determined by having the right attributes (as Ackter has also already pointed out).

[milnerpoint]

But the point is a player who is two footed in FM will have a higher CA than a player exactly the same but can only really kick with one foot, as he is classed as being slightly better.

[Wen1234]

Actually I find the footedness issue perfectly fine as it is provided the amount of CA taken to improve footedness corresponds accurately to the amount that it improves performace (and it has to be weighted according to position too, it's not that useful for a GK).

Judging by Ackter's quick play-test, it is more or less the case, which is decent evidence that the system works. CA is simply a sum total of everything that makes the player effective, and two-footedness is certainly part of it.

The only difference is that it's weighted more heavily (i think this is fair because it affects many other stats, from crossing, shooting, passing, first touch, etc) and you have a scale of very weak - weak - average - strong - very strong compared to 1-20.

You have to weigh every stat for every position in terms of how much CA it uses, you can't expect a perfect result in terms of how it translates to performance (esp. given each position can have a different role) so I'd be happy if it's approximately there.

[Wen1234]

he is also miles better in areas like jumping, heading, long shot, concentration, decisions, anticipation. The difference in pace will not be massively noticable in the ME, both players will be classed as being very quick, especially with simmons better mental stats, he will have a huge advantage with them alone. simmons is definately the better player of the two.

Actually I have a striker with 20/20 pace/acceleration and it does make a very noticeable difference compared to a player with 15-17 pace/acceleration. He often runs right through the defensive line like they're not even there. A random clearance/header out from defense can suddenly turn into a brilliant 30m through-ball over the top of the defense.

[bigdunk]

How good a player is precisely what CA is used for (or as a rough guide at least, anyway). Yes, attributes and only attributes are used in the match engine, but CA is used everywhere else in-game to measure how good a player is. It's used for squad-building, transfers, scouting, player development, database balancing and so on. If you have the situation where CA is not correctly representing how good a player is in the match engine, it will fundamentally break the game. The weightings used to calculate CA are the link that ensures that the two line up, so a CA160 player plays like a CA160 player. And if a two-footed player plays significantly better than an equivalent attribute one-footed player, then two-footedness needs a high weighting. As I've already said, the issues are whether the game accurately replicates the real life advantages that a two-footed player has, and whether the players in the database (both researched and regenerated) are matching the number and distribution of real-life two-footed players.

And again, this exact same argument applies to those other attributes I listed (Technique, Composure, Decisions etc). If you keep a player at the same CA in the editor, but improve his Decisions, his other attributes will come down to keep his CA balanced. Overall he should be roughly a similar player, but in some situations he will be better and in some he will be worse. With the Ronaldo thing, his dribbling might be slightly lower, but in many situations he will dribble better because he can dribble much better with his weaker foot. The same applies to Decisions - a player with 20 Dribbling and 10 Decisions will sometimes dribble better than a player with 15 Dribbling and 20 Decisions, but at other times the first player will make a bad decision and the second player will be better. But if they both have the same CA, then if you take their whole overall ability to play football (which is a completely nebulous concept, I know), they should be roughly the same.

[milnerpoint]

Actually I have a striker with 20/20 pace/acceleration and it does make a very noticeable difference compared to a player with 15-17 pace/acceleration. He often runs right through the defensive line like they're not even there. A random clearance/header out from defense can suddenly turn into a brilliant 30m through-ball over the top of the defense.

That doesnt really mean a lot unless you did a test with the two players in exactly the same situation against the exact same defenders, same condition and moral at the same point in the same game. Again the mental attributes Simmons has will be a huge advantage for any situation and with the pace he has the difference would be minimal in ME.

[sjm]

But the point is a player who is two footed in FM will have a higher CA than a player exactly the same but can only really kick with one foot, as he is classed as being slightly better.

But that's not the point, is it?

Let's take the example of two identical players with 200 CA then (as Ronaldo was around 190 CA, he was a great demonstration of this issue)... In theory, unless things have changed significantly, the one footed player's key attributes will be around 18-20 and the two footed players will be 16-18 (or similar; at any rate, the two footed players attributes will be lower, due to the ability points in footedness). This does in fact mean that the two footed player is worse at passing (with his stronger foot) than the one footed player. There's always a finite number of points because CA only goes up to 200. Even a player with 200 CA does not have 20 in all attributes.

And this still doesn't deal with the issue that at first glance, a two-footed player will look worse than he really is when compared to another player with similar ability (CA). Purely from a gameplay point of view, being able to quickly compare two players is vital, if, like I assume many of us do, you click on hundreds or thousands of potential signings each year.

As I said above, I don't think this makes sense for someone who is naturally ambidextrous/learnt to use both feet from the moment they started playing football. It obviously makes much more sense later on, when the brain is no longer as plastic.

Here's a different analogy to tie in with what I mean about a "natural" ability vs. something that is learnt:

I have many friends who have grown up speaking 3-5 languages fluently from a very early age: both parents' mother tongues, the local language (not parent's mother tongues) and English (schooling). To me, these skills are free. A child just picks up the languages as it goes along, and doesn't need to consciously put in the effort - much the same as learning to player football with both feet at age 5 means you learn to use both feet for free.

Now in FM terms, these guys would have used up loads of ability points learning these languages (say 40 points, 10 per additional language above 1), despite the fact that it took no effort on their part. This would mean that they now only have a maximum of 160 points to develop their skills in things like physics, maths, musicianship or whatever. This can be rephrased as saying that in this (obtruse) example, someone who speaks multiple languages will by default perform worse at other skills than someone who only speaks one language.

However, this is not borne out by reality. Learning a language as a young child is very easy, and doesn't actually take any effort on your part - you just pick it up as the people around you speak to you. But when you hit a certain age, your capacity to learn new languages diminishes. At some point, it's no longer an innate natural ability, but something you consciously need to put time and effort into to learn; and obviously, spending time learning one skill is time that is lost for learning another skill.

BTW, I would say that this concept this isn't limited to footedness as a theoretical concept. Certain other attributes should really also be "free" just by virtue of a person's genetic make-up or personality. If I'm 199cm, then having a high jumping stat should be for free. If I'm naturally agile, having high agility should be free. I should theoretically only really be using ability points to improve these skills from my natural baseline. However, I understand WHY the CA system is there though, and the issue of distortion isn't present for these other attributes, so I'm not particularly bothered by it. It's the downgrading of other attributes to compensate for being two-footed that's the issue, and the fact that this distorts a player's skills, making them look worse than they are, and making them worse with their stronger foot than they really ought to be.

[RBKalle]

You need to get over the idea that having a stronger weak foot is making him worse at passing. That's not what's happening. A CA 160 player is a CA160 player, how that ability is distributed can be different, but he should still be a CA 160 player. If you use an editor to improve a player's weak foot ability, he's either a better overall player (in which case he needs a higher CA), or he must be made weaker in some other area to keep him at CA 160. You can't improve an attribute (be it weak-foot ability or anything else) and leave a player at the same CA.

It works in exactly the same way with other attributes like Technique, Composure, Decisions, Concentration, Important Matches, Consistency and so on. A player with 15 Passing and 20 Decisions is probably a better passer than a player with Passing 20 and Decisions 1.

But that has NOTHING to do with how mental attributes influence technical ones...

Let's say we have two players:

Player A: Passing 16, Dribbling 14

Player B: Passing 18, Dribbling 19

I immediately think "B is better"... then I find out A is ambidextrous, while B uses his left leg just to walk...

So their CA is the same, but visually there's a huge difference... Also it's debatable whether the two-footedness is advantageously portrayed in the ME...

I mean: sure Player A can Pass and Dribble using both feet equally well, but is his "Ambidextrous 16" Pass better than B's "one-footed 18"?!

Moreso, is A a "Passing 16" on the universale scale of passing, meaning he's 16 with both feet, or is he 16 just because the CA weighing/distribution doesn't allow him to go higher due to his two-footedness?

Had he been a one-foot-only player, would he have been rated Passing 16 anyway?

See, the point is: CA and attributes are usually regarded and treated as absolute, so Pace 18 can run faster than a Pace 14... but somehow all of that stops being absolute for players who are good enough with both feet, so their attributes are suddenly relative.

[whilewolf2]

Surely its the other way around the one footed players passing is relative being 18 only on his right foot and some lower number on his left. The two footed player's passing is absolute being 16 on either foot provided booth feet are rated 20.

All attributes interact in the match engine. Passing is only absolute if the ball is at rest and the passer has unlimited time to make the pass otherwise other attributes start to be used in the calculation like technique for striking a moving ball.

Regarding the two players in your example B is better on his stronger foot. So long as B is hitting a still ball under no pressure on his favored foot he is more accurate then A.

[bigdunk]

But that has NOTHING to do with how mental attributes influence technical ones...

Let's say we have two players:

Player A: Passing 16, Dribbling 14

Player B: Passing 18, Dribbling 19

I immediately think "B is better"... then I find out A is ambidextrous, while B uses his left leg just to walk...

So their CA is the same, but visually there's a huge difference... Also it's debatable whether the two-footedness is advantageously portrayed in the ME...

I mean: sure Player A can Pass and Dribble using both feet equally well, but is his "Ambidextrous 16" Pass better than B's "one-footed 18"?!

Moreso, is A a "Passing 16" on the universale scale of passing, meaning he's 16 with both feet, or is he 16 just because the CA weighing/distribution doesn't allow him to go higher due to his two-footedness?

Had he been a one-foot-only player, would he have been rated Passing 16 anyway?

See, the point is: CA and attributes are usually regarded and treated as absolute, so Pace 18 can run faster than a Pace 14... but somehow all of that stops being absolute for players who are good enough with both feet, so their attributes are suddenly relative.

As far as I understand it, the attributes are basically strong foot attributes, so a two-footed passing 16 player will pass at 16 with both feet, a very one-footed player will pass at 16 with his strong foot, and some lower value with his weak foot. There's no such thing as relative attributes, but all of the attributes interact, and they all come into play in different situations. The problem is, people seem to want to be able to make easy comparisons and say player A is better than player B, end of discussion. But that's not going to happen, because the value of different attributes changes depending on many things - tactics, teammates, oposition, weather conditions, form etc. Again this applies to all attributes - in a straight footrace then pace 18 is faster than pace 14, but if the pace 14 guy has better anticipation, he may react to the ball quicker and get a head start, or if he accelerates quicker, he'll be quicker over short distances, or if he's stronger he may be able to hold off the faster player, of if he has better positioning or off the ball he may be in the right place before the quicker player has even read the situation. Then you've got things like determination, work rate, decisions, concentration, stamina, fitness etc, all of which can afect which player is 'faster'. You can never make simple comparisions between players, and two-footedness is just another part of that.

In real life, who's the better player, Lionel Messi or Peter Crouch? I suspect pretty much every person on here is going to say Messi, but if that player is going to play as a lone striker with no support and you are going to spend the entire match pinging 80 yard long balls up to his head, then which is the better player now? It's not such a straightforward decision. The same applies to footedness - if you take a winger and tell them to hug the touchline, to never cut inside, to always cross from the byline, then they'll never use their weak foot. But if you give them license to cut in and shoot, to cross from anywhere, to drift off their touchline, then they'll make much more use of their weak foot. Who's the better player depends on the way they are being used.

[Ackter]

It's made a massive difference.

In January of the next season Tunnicliffe has netted 66 goals in 34 matches.

Either-footedness does not make up for the attribute points that are lost.

[bigdunk]

It's made a massive difference.

In January of the next season Tunnicliffe has netted 66 goals in 34 matches.

Either-footedness does not make up for the attribute points that are lost.

In one particular team, playing one particular tactic, with one particular manager etc...

Out of interest, what formation/style are you playing, and if it's a front two, is he on the left or right normally?

[Ackter]

He's a loan poacher at the head of a 433.

The massive upturn in his scoring is down to the return of my three top assist players for this season - the three had for the last 1 1/2 seasons where he was 'only' able to score 60 in the first and 30+ in the other.

[Ackter]

In one particular team, playing one particular tactic, with one particular manager etc...

The exact same team, tactic and manager he was playing under when he could use both feet...

[bigdunk]

I'd guess if he's a lone poacher, then he's basically not doing much more than sticking the ball in the net and not making much use of his weak foot. If he was a maybe deep-lying forward and had much more opportunity to dribble, pass, cross etc, he'd make much more use of being two-footed. It's difficult to tell without seeing any of your matches and I'm not saying your results are wrong, but for example, you could easily produce a similar thing with two players that had finishing 20 heading 1 and vice versa - you could set up a tactic where one fails and the other succeeds and a tactic where it's the opposite - it's all about how you make use of your players strengths, and you probably weren't making use of Tunicliffe Version 1's decent weaker foot.

[bigdunk]

The exact same team, tactic and manager he was playing under when he could use both feet...

That's exactly my point!

This formation may be suited to a pure one footed finisher. Another formation may he suited to a slightly less talented two-footer.

[Ackter]

He's lone striker with supply coming from both sides - ideal for an either footed player.

He receives the ball deep a lot, dribbles a lot too.

[Ackter]

Tunnicliffe says hi

[santy001]

He's not quite beaten Keirrisons best yet

However, 2 footedness does have a massive weighting (as it should) and it also varies depending upon position. For example, a striker pays the highest price for both footedness, whereas a goalkeeper pays the least. A striker has to 'pay' more per point than he does for his finishing, first touch, composure etc. Only pace & acceleration are more highly weighted than this. This means if a player is fast at top speed and accelerating, and I'm not wanting to say too much incase it gets me in trouble but in the researching database the difference between 1 for weak foot and 20 for weak foot is around 30 CA. If a player has a pace of about 15/16 and 20/15-18 for his footing his stats will ultimately suffer.

Putting all those stats in, he came out as 200CA from what I could see and they are sustainable at a 200CA. Lucky you having a 200 PA player (or did oyu bump it up in the editor)

[Lazaru5]

118 goals!!!

OMG! I'll give you Stuart Fleetwood and a half eaten packet of crisps for him... (Fleetwood would score more than Tunnacliffe, honestly... )