主題: Questions & Answers

I do (at about 40%-50%). And I would say it should have some effect.
At some point vlady confirmed that dependent on the place you put a player in his square his 'strength' is distributed. That means if I put a midfielder on one of the lower three spots of the central midfield square, as I would do for a DM, he contributes to a certain extent to the 'strength' in the defensive square(s). And I would think that in this case it should be better for him to have higher Def because that is what is needed there.
At least that's how I see it.

Ya I have some with as much as 70% in the off-primaries. I know that is high... but you need that atty whenever you're in that zone. So makes sense to have good offensive atty for a side midfielder who is located at the top of the SM box.

you, obviously

I turned a leftback into a winged mid (he's got 52 defence ...)

but he might turn out to be put on central midfield though (too few mids, so not just yet)

no clue if it has any influence though

I look at it this way, outside of my last 4 games which I've sucked... my team has much lower average OR, much lower ratings, yet I get good consistent results against much stronger teams on paper who I know don't train off-primaries based on my scouting reports

explain: "who don't train off-primaries" ???

off-primary = def and mid for forwards, or off and mid for dmen etc.

Thanks to all.
I am training a OFF mid and a DEF mid and I wanted to know if someone else was doing it and if it was a waste of training or it was a good investment.

Ohhhhhh ya! Mids especially. All are off or def. Those that are "balanced" are trained equally in both and not simply ignored.

I honestly thought I missed someone else his post . You are allowed to mention my name though, .

you are absolutely right

according to my research the notes of the players can be equal but in pratice small details of training can make the difference in a match.
you can have two players with ratio 7 but if your player have more defence it will give more consistency to your defenders the same for attackers if he have good offence

ok, wasn't sure

how can you distinguish between luck and skill? There is no way of knowing whether the 7 player was the reason of your good defending, or whether you got lucky.


As brotherke said before: I am training a defensive winger, no clue if it has any influence.

That's just it, no one has a clue whether something matters or not, because we see no difference.

I have suggested it many times before, but multiplying the individual player rating by 10 would already help a lot in seeing a difference in performance.

Problem is - there is no individual plays - and that's the reason why you can not make specialist (like vary vary fast winger who will destroy opponents slow defender and so on).

For now, as I can see you can only make big mistake if your players have un-proportional primary skills. Why? Because all secondary skills have direct influence on Team Individual Rating. So you don't waste secondary skills if player have too much of them. But if he have too big primary skill - it will be limited due his small secondaries (influence on Team Work Rating).

Off course, Team Work takes 50% of Team Strength and Individual Skill only 25% - so it's question of good balance.

But - I don't like how it works - average of all players secondaries gives Individual Team rating and that's it. I would like to see individual plays in Match Engine.

Sorry if I was too much confusing.