torehj Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Often when I look at how suited a striker is for a role, the Complete Forward comes out really bad for no good reason. Cauley Woodrow of Fulham: The cake-diagrams says his is a perfect fit for the roles "deep lying forward", "advanced forward" and "target man". He also got a few roles that fit him fairly well, and than there is the "complete forward"-role. The cake-diagram says it fits him only 2 out of 10, 20%. Looking at his ability, there is no extreme weaknesses (long shots 9, concentration 10) of the important ones for the role. Why does the game feel he does not fit the role at all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar2010 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Because the CF has a high amount of key & secondary attributes. Basically it will always rate lower than any other striker roles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share Posted November 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said: Because the CF has a high amount of key & secondary attributes. Basically it will always rate lower than any other striker roles. But the drop is so extreme. He is actually as well suited to play wing back as he is playing "complete forward".. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 What's the cake diagram? Is there some new feature I have somehow missed in FM17? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share Posted November 29, 2016 1 minute ago, Powermonger said: What's the cake diagram? Is there some new feature I have somehow missed in FM17? I'm not sure what its called. I just mean the "cake" with ten pieces that says how well a player fits a role. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Hmm ok, so different to the attribute overview radar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share Posted November 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, Powermonger said: Hmm ok, so different to the attribute overview radar? I dont know what that means. Its called "suitability for role and duty" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjericho Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 He means that wheel in the tactic screen that goes from green to red depending on how a role suits a player Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oulzac Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Just now, torehj said: I dont know what that means. Its called "suitability for role and duty" The player has to also be trained in that role and play in the role, before they have a high suitability for it. Just because his stats show he can play it, that doesn't mean he will be good at it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YasoKuul Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 12 hours ago, oulzac said: The player has to also be trained in that role and play in the role, before they have a high suitability for it. Just because his stats show he can play it, that doesn't mean he will be good at it. If the stats are okay I ignore the "suitability for role and duty" as it's only an indication. The players will be better for your preferred role if you play and train them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar2010 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 14 hours ago, torehj said: But the drop is so extreme. He is actually as well suited to play wing back as he is playing "complete forward".. Swings & roundabouts the cake/pie diagrams don't really show it as accurately as I would like. Roles/duties with a low number of key/secondary skills will always score higher than roles/duties that have a high number of key/secondary skills. Before the diagrams were incorporated into FM I actually created several spreadsheets several years ago which showed the same information but to accurately balance the different roles/duties I added an extra layer so that the base roles/duties were all working from the same baseline. For the diagrams in FM to do the same and show an accurate representation of the role/duty SI also need to add that extra layer. As it stands though I use it more as a rough guide to the type of striker/midfielder/defender a player is. Personally I tend to stick strikers for example into one of three rough categories in my mind - A) Target man type who plays with back to goal & holds the ball up, B) Quick, pacy striker who plays off the shoulder of the last man or C) Technical, creative striker who is good with the ball at his feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar2010 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 13 hours ago, oulzac said: The player has to also be trained in that role and play in the role, before they have a high suitability for it. Just because his stats show he can play it, that doesn't mean he will be good at it. Thats just not true at all I'm afraid. Training a player in that role/duty simply puts CA points earned or transferred into the attributes required for that role/duty ahead of any other attribute. Improved attributes in the required ones for that role/duty will then have the knockon effect of improving the players suitability for that role. Playing in that position will improve his positional ability but playing in that role/duty does absolutely nothing for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eple Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I see plenty of strikers that have the highest role suitability for CF-role. It needs to be well rounded strikers though, and due to the cost of attributes towards CA and the amount of attributes needed for that role, it tends to be top quality strikers for their level. Using a CF that lacks in a needed area can be damaging so I think it's good that most get a low pie chart score. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 1 hour ago, eple said: I see plenty of strikers that have the highest role suitability for CF-role. It needs to be well rounded strikers though, and due to the cost of attributes towards CA and the amount of attributes needed for that role, it tends to be top quality strikers for their level. Using a CF that lacks in a needed area can be damaging so I think it's good that most get a low pie chart score. For a Complete Forward is says: "A Complete Forward possesses all the technical attributes of a Deep-Lying Forward, the goal scoring ability of a Poacher and the strenght and power of a Target Man." For me, that would mean that if a player fits the roles Deep-Lying Forward, Poacher and Target Man, he would also fit the role Complete Forward. Woodrow role diagrams: Deep-Lying Forward; 10/10 suitability Poacher: 8/10 suitability Target Man: 9/10 suitability Complete Forward: 2/10 suitability Chris Martin, also at Fulham, has almost exactly the same attributes as Woodrow (just a little better), but he gets a 8/10 suitability for Complete Forward. I dont see why.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eple Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, torehj said: For a Complete Forward is says: "A Complete Forward possesses all the technical attributes of a Deep-Lying Forward, the goal scoring ability of a Poacher and the strenght and power of a Target Man." For me, that would mean that if a player fits the roles Deep-Lying Forward, Poacher and Target Man, he would also fit the role Complete Forward. Woodrow role diagrams: Deep-Lying Forward; 10/10 suitability Poacher: 8/10 suitability Target Man: 9/10 suitability Complete Forward: 2/10 suitability I don't know what goes into it but looking at his attributes (5 years into the game, I assume they are similar) I can tell that if you used him as a CF he would waste possession a lot due to not being quick enough to dribble past players. The CF dribbles A LOT, especially as a lone striker. Although I guess Chris Martin would be even worse at that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Indemnity Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Certain roles with high creative freedom seem to have some sort of CA gate in terms of how the game assesses a player's suitability. But if he has the actual attributes to play the role, just play him in it. The suitability stuff is a UI guideline, not an indicator of how well he'll do. I actually have Woodrow in my Norwich save (as a third-choice striker/prospect) and play him as a lone CF(s) at times. He does fine. And I think he has pretty good suitability for it, probably because this is late in the second season and his CA has improved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westy8chimp Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 don't get too hung up on player position preference/suitability ... you can play a CF (whom if perfect for the role can hold the ball up, head it, dribble, shoot etc...) but if your tactic is short passing low crosses etc you would want a technical CF who can control the ball, hold it up, link with others. why not play a DLF then... you could ... but all roles come with an element of or absence of fixed PI. focus on how you want Woodrow to play ... if it's as a big man (TM type) but you don't want the rest of the team to constantly focus on him ... you can use the CF role with hold up ball, roam from position, move into channels etc. It's a combination of the whole team shape and style, with the role you pick, the duty you pick and the PI/TI you add in to compliment the roles and formations. the pie/gauge is just a quick reference for the default outlook. It doesn't adjust it based on anything you do ... so it can largely be ignored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Hook Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Double Indemnity said: Certain roles with high creative freedom seem to have some sort of CA gate in terms of how the game assesses a player's suitability. But if he has the actual attributes to play the role, just play him in it. The suitability stuff is a UI guideline, not an indicator of how well he'll do. I actually have Woodrow in my Norwich save (as a third-choice striker/prospect) and play him as a lone CF(s) at times. He does fine. And I think he has pretty good suitability for it, probably because this is late in the second season and his CA has improved. This. RPM, Complete forward, RD that I can think of off the top of my head have CA minimums attached to them. As most everyone has said, ignore the game's role suitability suggestions and play the player in the role you want that you have determined he is right in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toothless Gibbon Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 There is definitely a problem with it IMO. Jelavic has just gone from 7/10 to 2/10 for CF in the space of a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 58 minutes ago, westy8chimp said: don't get too hung up on player position preference/suitability ... you can play a CF (whom if perfect for the role can hold the ball up, head it, dribble, shoot etc...) but if your tactic is short passing low crosses etc you would want a technical CF who can control the ball, hold it up, link with others. why not play a DLF then... you could ... but all roles come with an element of or absence of fixed PI. focus on how you want Woodrow to play ... if it's as a big man (TM type) but you don't want the rest of the team to constantly focus on him ... you can use the CF role with hold up ball, roam from position, move into channels etc. It's a combination of the whole team shape and style, with the role you pick, the duty you pick and the PI/TI you add in to compliment the roles and formations. the pie/gauge is just a quick reference for the default outlook. It doesn't adjust it based on anything you do ... so it can largely be ignored. I do ignore it, but my point was that there is something wrong with it. If it worked well, I would not have to ignore it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phnompenhandy Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 24 minutes ago, Toothless Gibbon said: There is definitely a problem with it IMO. Jelavic has just gone from 7/10 to 2/10 for CF in the space of a week. So what? The point is, how is he actually playing? What match ratings is he getting - is it the same whether he has 7 or 2 out of 10? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, phnompenhandy said: So what? The point is, how is he actually playing? What match ratings is he getting - is it the same whether he has 7 or 2 out of 10? A beginner to the game would never know this. To him this says: Never use this player in this role! The game is hard enough for beginners without stuff like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phnompenhandy Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Just now, torehj said: A beginner to the game would never know this. To him this says: Never use this player in this role! The game is hard enough for beginners without stuff like this. Yeah, it's counter-intuitive. That I do agree with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toothless Gibbon Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Just now, torehj said: A beginner to the game would never know this. To him this says: Never use this player in this role! The game is hard enough for beginners without stuff like this. Exactly. I'm not saying it is affecting my experience of the game - I just believe there is an issue with the way it is being calculated / displayed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Indemnity Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Toothless Gibbon said: There is definitely a problem with it IMO. Jelavic has just gone from 7/10 to 2/10 for CF in the space of a week. Presumably he's getting older and his CA has declined below the minimum the game thinks is necessary. Doesn't mean he can't still do the job. I would guess the gates are there to discourage new or inexperienced users from overloading their team with highly creative roles when they don't have top players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westy8chimp Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Double Indemnity said: Presumably he's getting older and his CA has declined below the minimum the game thinks is necessary. Doesn't mean he can't still do the job. I would guess the gates are there to discourage new or inexperienced users from overloading their team with highly creative roles when they don't have top players. he aged 1 week lol. to the OPs post... there may be invisible factors we don't know about. raise it in bugs as only SI can say there is or isn't an issue with how Woodrows CF rating is calculated. I, and other users, are just saying it doesn't matter. as this is the discussion forum not the bugs forum we assume you wanted some feedback.. not just a yes or no answer that we aren't in a position to give. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Indemnity Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, westy8chimp said: he aged 1 week lol. And in that week his CA declined past a certain threshold. This is working as intended. Just the UI is sometimes (deliberately?) opaque about these sorts of changes, and sometimes unhelpful if you don't understand everything in context. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oulzac Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 6 hours ago, Cougar2010 said: Thats just not true at all I'm afraid. Training a player in that role/duty simply puts CA points earned or transferred into the attributes required for that role/duty ahead of any other attribute. Improved attributes in the required ones for that role/duty will then have the knockon effect of improving the players suitability for that role. Playing in that position will improve his positional ability but playing in that role/duty does absolutely nothing for him. I have no clue what your on about honestly. I'm not talking about CA or PA or stats. I'm only talking about the green bar for suitability of a role in a position. As is the OP. Playing a player there and training them in that role does in fact raise that color bar to the right (more green). I've done this many times. EDIT: AH! Now that I've had another cup of coffee and re read this I fully understand what you mean. In my case their suitability went up because the stats for that role increased in the CA past a threshold. That explains why it went up. Not just because I was doing it. Note to self, stay off forums before two cups of coffee. Apologies for the rude reply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar2010 Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 52 minutes ago, oulzac said: I have no clue what your on about honestly. I'm not talking about CA or PA or stats. I'm only talking about the green bar for suitability of a role in a position. As is the OP. Playing a player there and training them in that role does in fact raise that color bar to the right (more green). I've done this many times. EDIT: AH! Now that I've had another cup of coffee and re read this I fully understand what you mean. In my case their suitability went up because the stats for that role increased in the CA past a threshold. That explains why it went up. Not just because I was doing it. Note to self, stay off forums before two cups of coffee. Apologies for the rude reply. I'm just happy you have a better understanding of how it works Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 If a striker has 2/10 suitability for the role Complete Forward and a 1/10 suitability for a Goalkeeper-role, does this means that 'the game' thinks he is 10% more suitable for the Complete Forward-role than the Goalkeeper-role? (I do understand that he would perform better in the Complete Forward-role than in the Goalkeeper-role) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHovel Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 So i have few questions. A player with low aerial abilities isnt suitable for complete forward? (Not recommanded even if he is suitable to play the role) And another question: from what i understand here, the diagram has nothing to do with player performance in this role? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eple Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 41 minutes ago, MHovel said: So i have few questions. A player with low aerial abilities isnt suitable for complete forward? (Not recommanded even if he is suitable to play the role) And another question: from what i understand here, the diagram has nothing to do with player performance in this role? It depends on your tactics I would say. It's not crucial, but you might end up losing possession more often than you'd like. If you play it out from the back and do short passing, then less so. My CF is a lone striker with relativly weak jumping (11) and usually ends up in roughly 15-20 aerial challanges pr game. He wins about 20-30%. Most are goal kicks and clearances, but usually about 1 in 5 is a cross or a corner in the box. He would be much more effective if everything was equal but he was better in the air ofcourse, but for that role I value agility, balance, quickness, mental- and technical attibutes a lot more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maaka Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 10 hours ago, torehj said: If a striker has 2/10 suitability for the role Complete Forward and a 1/10 suitability for a Goalkeeper-role, does this means that 'the game' thinks he is 10% more suitable for the Complete Forward-role than the Goalkeeper-role? (I do understand that he would perform better in the Complete Forward-role than in the Goalkeeper-role) If so, then 10 percentage points, not 10 percent. Big difference. He would actually be 100% "more suitable". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westy8chimp Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Maaka said: If so, then 10 percentage points, not 10 percent. Big difference. He would actually be 100% "more suitable". dark math 10% of 1/10 = 0.1 so 10% more suitable than 1 = 1.1 however ... if he is 1/10th better in CF role .. and 1/10th = 10% ... it is also true to say 2/10 is 10% more suitable than 1/10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maaka Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, westy8chimp said: dark math 10% of 1/10 = 0.1 so 10% more suitable than 1 = 1.1 however ... if he is 1/10th better in CF role .. and 1/10th = 10% ... it is also true to say 2/10 is 10% more suitable than 1/10 10% of 1/10, right. But the question was about if 2/10 was 10% better than 1/10, which it's not. 2/10 is 100% better than 1/10, as 0,2 is twice as much (100% more) than 0,1. 0,1 plus 10% is 0,11 - not 0,2. Nitpicking? Yes. But I kinda hate it when people don't bother using the right definitions, and instead use definitions that are dead wrong. Same goes for "your" vs. "you're". Hate it. Sorry. (Has nothing to do with you, btw, if you thought so.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
torehj Posted December 1, 2016 Author Share Posted December 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, Maaka said: 10% of 1/10, right. But the question was about if 2/10 was 10% better than 1/10, which it's not. 2/10 is 100% better than 1/10, as 0,2 is twice as much (100% more) than 0,1. 0,1 plus 10% is 0,11 - not 0,2. Nitpicking? Yes. But I kinda hate it when people don't bother using the right definitions, and instead use definitions that are dead wrong. Same goes for "your" vs. "you're". Hate it. Sorry. (Has nothing to do with you, btw, if you thought so.) Well, I guess I meant to ask if 2/10 was twice as suitable as 1/10.. But it's not really the math that is interesting. It's more the fact that the game says that for a striker the suitability-difference between the roles Goalkeeper and Complete Forward is 1 "points", while the suitability-difference between the roles Deep-Lying Forward and Complete Forward is 8 "points". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westy8chimp Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, torehj said: Well, I guess I meant to ask if 2/10 was twice as suitable as 1/10.. But it's not really the math that is interesting. It's more the fact that the game says that for a striker the suitability-difference between the roles Goalkeeper and Complete Forward is 1 "points", while the suitability-difference between the roles Deep-Lying Forward and Complete Forward is 8 "points". yes it is definitely nonsensical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maaka Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 40 minutes ago, torehj said: Well, I guess I meant to ask if 2/10 was twice as suitable as 1/10.. But it's not really the math that is interesting. It's more the fact that the game says that for a striker the suitability-difference between the roles Goalkeeper and Complete Forward is 1 "points", while the suitability-difference between the roles Deep-Lying Forward and Complete Forward is 8 "points". That would seem strange, yes. But I suspect there's more to it than we can see right away. Hopefully someone with more insight could clarify this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.