What do you think about scout report ?

Only 6 ability opinion

some way off that standard

isn't far from that standard

isn't too much difference

better than

a lot better than

twice the player of

It should be more that 6. Like, " In different class ", " A bit weak compare to " , " Slightly better than "

It is not reliable especially when you managed semi professional club at the lowest league. You have no idea about all the player ability. Scout / Ass report is important.

Every time you want to buy new player for you team the team report would be " isn't too much difference "

If anything I think the scout reports are already too detailed and accurate, I find it quite easy to build decent squads just by using the scout reports and pretty much ignoring the player profiles.

If you are managing a semi professional club in a lowest league then the chances are that in real life that club wouldn't even have a scout who exclusively works for them. Player scouting at the very lowest level should really be more about word of mouth and recommendations from contacts rather than detailed scout reports from an employee of the club.

Something needs to be done about the star ratings though. There's no consistency through the game. If you start using graphics like stars to rate players, then users become attached to this and the ratings from 1 to 7 that follows.

An example: You sign a youngster with a PA of 190. Obviously he's going to be world-class if he develops right, no doubt about that. Your Scout at your big club gives him 4 stars for 'Potential'. Some users are immediately baffled as to why he's only getting 4 stars for Potential when he's clearly got world class ability, surely 7 stars would be correct?

Well "alledgedly" the Scout is comparing him to current members of your squad, the Scout has more or less said, this new guy is about the same level as [insert player] in your current squad, so isn't much of an improvement. The lower down the leagues and clubs you go, this 4 star rating would increase for the same player, to perhaps 7 stars, if your club is languishing in the lower leagues, in which case the guy is probably twice as good as your best player.

It's difficult to notice stand-out youth talent this way at a big club, since if you already have world-class players, other potential world class players would only have 4 stars at a max. It's understandable why it's done this way, because even someone like Robbie Savage would be a quality signing for a Semi-Professional side and probably merit 7 star ratings. So the stars are in relation to his ability matched to your club.

Now we move onto the part which i think just contradicts the scout report to some extent. After the years have passed, that guy you checked on 5 seasons ago is now indeed world-class and developed nicely. Your Ass-Man team report lists him as 6-7 stars for his excellent ability. But hang on a minute your best Scout only gave him 4 stars all them years ago?!

I think the 2 different star rating systems are contradicting each other to some extent. If you've played FM long enough, you'll realise that the Coach/Ass Man Reports and Scout Reports stars ratings are not linked to each other, but for beginners or the uninitiated, it's an inefficient way of displaying ability.

First off, the ability stars are in comparison with the players in your first team squad, so they are relative. Secondly, the stars for potential should be wild guesses - I mean how often do the best scouts in the world accurately assess a teenager's potential. We hear about the one or two kids from the academies of Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea etc , but how about the dozens who appeared to have had great potential but never made it?

Disregard the star ratings, use the scout report as a guide only unless you have a top rated scout and use your own judgement in most of the cases, are the rules that I follow.

If anything I think the scout reports are already too detailed and accurate, I find it quite easy to build decent squads just by using the scout reports and pretty much ignoring the player profiles.

Quite agree - I would much rather have a lot less detail given about a player via scouting, with more showing up in the coach report. Or at least, let scouting take a lot longer to get accurate readings from.

I'm quite a fan of Dave C's old "slow reveal" programme; I'd like to see only the absolute basics about a player revealed on "Get Report", with the conclusion being more like "Worth scouting" or "Not worth scouting" rather than the current detail level.

Beyond that, I'd set it up so that we have one report from each scout, but it improves in detail the more matches the scout has watched of that player. For example, at one match, it would be very basic (like a bad coach report, currently) no matter how good the scout's ability is. More matches over time would reveal more about the player, with a good six to twelve months of scouting required to reach the "most detailed" level.

Something needs to be done about the star ratings though. ... (Long and eminently sensible post followed)

I really agree with much of what you said, swisso.

The seven-star system reduces conceptually so easily, mentally, its a great tool .. as long as all seven stars are utilized, and as long as the underlying values don't change too frequently.

If the underlying values change too often, then I have the following problem: I might be looking at my shortlist screen, comparing a 6-star report from six months ago, which would have been worth 4-stars today, with a 6-star report from today, and I can't tell the difference. Then, when I sign the player, and my coaches report him as a 4-star player, I think that they system is badly broken - not seeing what had really happened.

If all seven stars aren't used because of the relative weighting problem, then you lose some of the precision in the system - it becomes very tough to tell the difference between two 4-star players.

The solution I'd propose is to quit using the system in relation to the club Reputation. Instead, use it in relation to the Reputation of the club's current League.

So - if I'm an EPL club, a seven-star player (current or potential) equals a world class superstar, a Ronaldo, etc. This is true whether I'm reigning champions Man U. or recently-promoted Burnley. A six-star player is a European-quality. A five-star player would be a strong top-half starter. A four-star player would be a strong bottom-half starter. A three-star player would be a strong relegation-battling starter. A two-star player would be rotational or stop-gap at best, a weak relegation-battling starter or a top Championship player, and a one-star player would be "clearly not EPL standard".

Yes, when I'm managing Man U, that means my entire staff are six- and seven-star players ... but that's what we expect: we expect Ronaldo to be seven stars, because we think of him as world class, and there oughtn't be anybody more highly rated.

It also helps my scouting: I know 4-star players are decent EPL players but wouldn't expect them to be top stars for my Man U. side; I know I need to find six and seven star potentials because that matches my current starting lineup.

As just-promoted Burnley, I can look at my lineup, see that its primarily three- and two-star players, and I can understand that the one-stars just aren't going to cut it, and that I need to get more three- and four-star players if I'm going to hope to stay up. If I see a five-star-potential 17-year-old, I can understand that he's going to be better than anybody on my club, but he's not going to be a world-beater if my ambition is a Champions League berth five seasons from now .. and that's exactly the kind of information I need.

I really agree with much of what you said, swisso. (another long and eminently sensible post followed)

I'd definitly favour a league-based approach to scouting, especially with wildly-varying club reputations from 9000 down to 5000 in certain top leagues.

The current system just has so many cracks that can't be papered over. I moved from Barcelona to Lyon and immediately noticed the star-ratings on scout reports were different from club to club. At Lyon i already have top players there at their full potential; Hugo Lloris and Jeremy Toulalan, yet my scouts are rating the future youngsters in those same positions as 6-7 stars. At Barcelona none of the future youngsters managed more than 4 stars in any scout report. The club reputation is distorting my view of the future youngsters if i base my views on star ratings.

Yeah, that's just one more problem with the star system - changing clubs changes the "base" value, which makes obsolete all of your old scout reports. I've found I pretty much have to queue up a new scouting of anybody on my shortlist as soon as I change clubs, or else comparing stars is worse than meaningless, its actively misleading.

The one issue i have with it is often the star rating just renders actually looking at a players attributes useless. I mean if you have a scout who rates someone as 7* ability and potential then they will be amazing. The amount of players ive seen with fairly poor attributes yet rated as world class is amazing, yet i can find a player with better attributes and a worse report and the player with better attributes ALWAYS PLAYS WORSE. I dont see how that makes sense? I've almost completely rendered my own judgement as useless and generally rely on my 20 PA and CA scouts!

And it is annoying to have it based on your clubs reputation, i mean, its becomes almost impossible to find a world class player when they are all given 4*. (Perhaps where your judgement does come in) as you almost get to a stage once you have built up a team where you feel there is no-where you can improve because everyone seems to be being rated the same!

I've come to a conclusion that if a scout rates someone as 4* when your club has a world class reputation, chances are that player will be world class, and theres always a chance his rating will increase!

One thing that annoys me is the AssMan reports, you can have a team that looks full of around 6 or 7* players, then the second you win the league they become 3 and 4* players, now regardless if ive won the league opr not surely they are still class. So ot get to my point i agree with people saying that it shouldnt be based on club rep, as it can largely be confusing.

Also on a final side note, i find that star ratings tend to differ on form as well? For instance Aguero just went on a good run of form for me and argentina so his rating wen from a 5* to 7* and better than Bojan? In the space of about an off season and 10 games.