Asunto: Questions & Answers

More than 50% from main ?

Well diffrence between CF and WF maybe isnt so big. Couse after calculation you can get like 7.49 for WF and 7.51 for CF. 7.49 will be rounded down to 7 and 7.51 will be rounded up to 8.

Like jabcek said..

ok, but if you have a player that the trainer is for side forward and he puts in the two position. Never he will try more ration in center than side.

Excuse me for my english.

This was really hard to understand but i will try to anwser

You are saying that you are training him for the WF. How do you know that your training is more optimal for WF than CF? From the guide you dont get any numbers! You should try to change your training ratios to get his rating higher at WF then CF.

I think that they are two posibilities. The game motor have a bug with de side forward or if you trainer all players with 100-65-50-35, you change for the side forward to 100-60-45-30 for example.

I make a test because I have different side forwards but I don't understand that playing to center is better.

I don't know if I understood you correctly but hopefully I did.
Yes, different positions can have different ideal ratios, so for example 100-65-45-35 need not be as good for one position (CF) as it is for another (WF).

I actually made a similar observation. I used to train my forwards like 100-50(Pas)-70(Tec)-70(Spe)-60(Hea). A player always got a 7 when in the central forward box but just a 6 when put in the side forward box. Like in your case the technique of 65-70% can't be responsible I think, it must be the 50% in passing.

What make confusion :

From guide >
Side forward need:
tec and speed - high
pass - mid
head - low

Center forward need:
speed - high
tec - mid
pass and head - low

So if you look that - you can think that side forward need more skills, or at least center forward need more speed.

But I think there is a lot of space for shoot left for center forward. But shoot isn't count in player rating, and that's why center forward usually gets bigger rating then side forward.

If you want better rating - cut shoot a little and train more speed for side forward.

The sum of all secondaries attributes are same for each position ?

That was said by Vlady some time ago, yes. So you can see very good for forward positions that skill ratios must be different for different positions

The question for me is if shoot and non-position primary skills count to that sum, something Novakoni is suggesting I think. Or if vlady was just referring to the four position-relevant skills from the guide. Thats how I understood him.
I always wanted to find the discussion again to have another look but never had the time to search 150 or so pages. Anybody done that?

My understanding is that sum(pass+tech+speed+head) is the same for all positions when dealing with ratios and compared to primary. The value of each attribute varies by importance of the secondary AND position.

I think that shoot is not summed in. So that is why Forwars have smaller rankings than midfielders or defenders.

Well, Vlady said something not-specifically, as usually

I was thinking that sum of pas-tec-speed-head should be the same for all positions.

Vlady said that skills with same imortance don't have to be the same numbers. So there is sub-levels.

Ideal positions to solve mistery is center and side forwards.

So I was going with this logic:
secondary skill = pas+tec+speed+head

I coudn't solve this problem with 2 sub-levels, and I went for 3 sub-levels, and came to this:

low imp. - 4,5,6
mid imp. - 7,8,9
high imp. - 10,11,12

Center forward = speed 12/32, tec 9/32, head 6/32, pas 5/32 ------> 12+9+6+5 = 32

Side forward = speed 10/32, tec 10/32, pas 8/32, head 4/32
or
Side forward = speed 11/32, tec 10/32, pas 7/32, head 4/32

---------------------------------------------
All in all - to make same SUM for side and center forward - speed for CF must be more than for SF.

But if I look my players - seems like thats not the case. Looks like CF need less skills, and thats why I think there is a space for shoot for CF.

Maybe someone else could solve mistry