Attributes manual for FM 2010 YES/NO

hey everybody

We all know that there are a lot of player and non player attributes (most are hidden) of which nobody knows the influence to the game.

e.g.: "hardness of training" attribute for coaches etc... what does it mean? what is it? if it has no importance at all, why is it in the game???

I think SI should think about including a manual for all the hidden and non-hidden attributes in the game, with some explanation like;

-what the attribute is for?

-for which functions(roles/staff/positions) is it important?

-what is the influence of it?

-how does it increase/decrease?

etc.

Shortly: I would like SI to inform us about all the attributes they have put in their game (for players and non-players)

If it's hidden, why do we need an explanation? Unless you're using FMRTE, in which case, tough cookies.

There's already an explanation of non hidden attributes in the manual.

If it's hidden, why do we need an explanation?

I agree with Elrithral. If the attributes are hidden then why do you need an explination?

Non-hidden attributes, yes. Hidden, no.

As Elrithal says though, there is one already- the manual itself.

Non-hidden attributes, yes. Hidden, no.

As Elrithal says though, there is one already- the manual itself.

I am also wondering why if an attribute is hidden we should know the explanation.......?

Yes for the non-hidden ones of course.

I agree with Elrithral. If the attributes are hidden then why do you need an explination?

agreed!

But we already have the manual, and I'm sure you'll be able to find a PDF of it on steam somewhere.

I thought the manuel already explained what they were? The in game help explains what stats are good for different types of players as well

There's a pretty good set of descriptions in the manual already, that is good enough for me. I'm not interested in learning about hidden attributes, although I imagine people who use editors regularly might be.

No .

I think they could improve the coaching side of it

No for me. I just dont think its necessary.

The visible attributes are expalined in the manual. The hidden ones shouldnt need an explanation as they are, well, hidden meaning you aren't technically supposed to know about them. If you can see them through an editor..... then stop being a dirty cheat , joking. Im also pretty sure that someone somewhere will have come up with explanations/reasons as to what the hidden attributes are.

Voted no because there already is an attributes description. A separate list of hidden attributes and their functioning/meaning would be good for the editor forum though.

Would that not ruin the surprise?

Hidden attributes should be visible.

Hidden attributes should be visible.

right, if we don't have to know something about it, why has SI create them ?

If it's hidden, why do we need an explanation? Unless you're using FMRTE, in which case, tough cookies.

There's already an explanation of non hidden attributes in the manual.

What the man said.

I wonder how many bugs are induced by game editors?

I think the hidden attributes should be defined in the manual to make the user aware that they are there and that they affect the game in certian ways. It would then lead the player to work out why things have gone wrong instead of being clueless as they don't know what does/can affect the game.

Voted No for the main reason staed here by everyone else.

Altough i assume most of these attribute will be self explanatory will they not? Don't know myself as i dont look in the editor for them.

I mean surely hardness of training for a coach is how hard he will train the players?

E.G if he has a 1 for hardness of training he will barley even talk to them, spend 5 minutes with them and then head of to the pub. If he has 20 he will probably train them to the absolute maximun permitted by your training schedule and try to get the most out of them.

A while ago many on here said that adaptability and determination mattered for scouts when they didn't.

Determination, motivation and level of discipline didn't start to matter til 9.3.0 when again we said they were important before hand.

I think they should clarify what certain roles need at the very least, and clarify why they need what they need. Seems obvious but really, if you think about it, DDM are there to make finding 5-7 star coaches a little harder. IRL an undetermined person won't really do a good job motivating and training the squad if he himself is a lazy bum (low determination). On FM that lazy bum can be a 6 star coach.

hey everybody

We all know that there are a lot of player and non player attributes (most are hidden) of which nobody knows the influence to the game.

e.g.: "hardness of training" attribute for coaches etc... what does it mean? what is it? if it has no importance at all, why is it in the game???

I think SI should think about including a manual for all the hidden and non-hidden attributes in the game, with some explanation like;

-what the attribute is for?

-for which functions(roles/staff/positions) is it important?

-what is the influence of it?

-how does it increase/decrease?

etc.

Shortly: I would like SI to inform us about all the attributes they have put in their game (for players and non-players)

I actually agree, which puts me in a minority of Posters in this thread. The manual is not definitive and it should be. Am not sure we do need to know the hidden attribute detail, but it is a game, to play the game it helps to know how it works. Much like the ME, without giving away any copywrite details I should like to know exactly how the ME makes its calculations so I can work out on probability which AMR is most likely to get past his oppo DL and put in an effective cross (acc 17, pac 18, OTB 15, cross 11 - or - acc 13, pac 12, OTB19, cross 19). I know there are many other factors effecting that particular example but you will get the idea.

Strange poll result considering the posts in this thread;

most posters seem opposed to the idea but the "aye" voters have a comfortable majority.

Personally I wouldn't want the mechanization behind the hidden attributes to be revealed .

But I can understand why people using The Editor (curse him!) would like to have more info on them.

The name pretty much sums it up for me though: hidden should be hidden.

That said, I would love to see a complete revamp of the manual (especially with the tactics wizard being implemented this year, we could do with a extensive tactics chapter explaining all the different options and mentality systems ea; WWFan: are you listening? )

I think the manual is fine as it is. But I do think an explanation of the hidden attributes should be somewhere in the official Data Editor of the game. That editor is obviously meant for the end user, so we should know what everything means.

the poll results are clear...

if yes, it will make some people happy, it won't ruine the game for nobody...

keep it as it is

I do spend a lot of time in the editor, and I would love to have offical explanations of certain stats - because half the time Im not entirely sure if im editing the correct thing.

Im sure that people here have the answer to this - but its just and example - Injury proneness stat - yes its hidden, but if im trying to introduce a player into the database, I want to know which way to score this. Is 1 'bad' and thus the player is very injury prone, or is 20 'bad' and the player is very injury prone.

If you think about it - both make sense if you dont know the answer - all the other stats are positive - with 20 being the best and 1 being the worst. But, if you look at it the other way then 20 is the 'most' and 1 is the least.

Therefore without offical answers (or trial and error) you can logically assume that the injury proneness stat is most at 1 or most at 20.

Thats the sort of thing I would love for SI to put into writing - for people that dont use the editor - well its irrelavent, for those of us that do, its very important.

Clearly, if you score 1 out of 20 in terms of injury proneness, then you aren't very injury prone at all. If you have maximum injury prone points (20), then you are as injury prone as you can possibly be.

Seems pretty clear to me. Unless I'm wrong, then it's a mess.

The problem I have is some of the 'hidden' attributes shouldn't be as such. Injury prone - players get injured a lot , they are (Michael Owen for example)

Consistency - why hidden - pretty obvious if their ratings vary a lot and score for two or three games then don't hit a barn door.

Important matches - often obvious IRL who are /are not big game players in my opinion, same for pressure. What intrigues me is is 'important matches' a good or bad attribute? Do they raise their game for big matches or are they naturally good in them? Quite a difference.

Ideally there should be a method that gradually reveals 'hidden' attributes for players so you get to learn them I think.

Clearly, if you score 1 out of 20 in terms of injury proneness, then you aren't very injury prone at all. If you have maximum injury prone points (20), then you are as injury prone as you can possibly be.

Seems pretty clear to me. Unless I'm wrong, then it's a mess.

Well - yes. But then you think about it the other way around.

A score of 20 is the best you can be (20 in finishing means you have the best shooting score)

Therefore 20 is good, 1 is bad.

Injury proneness as you have it has 20 as 'bad'.

logically it doesnt make sense.

I already understood your point. It could be looked at that way, but only if the other attributes were not clear in that a score of 20 meant that they had a maximum amount of that particular attribute. 20 in finishing doesn't mean you have the best "shooting" score. It means you have the maximum possible amount of finishing ability. That is, you have 100% finishing. If you are therefore 100% injury prone, what does that mean?

In fact, if it was the way you presented as a possibility, the attribute would have to be renamed "lack of injuries" or "ability to stay fit". There are other negative attributes that could be interpreted the way you said, but an attribute being negative in connotation does not therefore mean that the score is also negative (i.e., must be reversed). That's faulty logic. Ergo, it must be the way I suggest.

There are other negative attributes that could be interpreted the way you said, but an attribute being negative in connotation does not therefore mean that the score is also negative (i.e., must be reversed). That's faulty logic. Ergo, it must be the way I suggest.

Which other ones are negative? I cant think of any. (not saying there arent, just that Ive not found one.)

... I would love to have offical explanations of certain stats - because half the time Im not entirely sure if im editing the correct thing.

... its just and example - Injury proneness stat - yes its hidden, but if im trying to introduce a player into the database, I want to know which way to score this.

... Thats the sort of thing I would love for SI to put into writing.

Which other ones are negative? I cant think of any.

First of all, if you haven't found any other negative attributes... then that defeats your whole argument. You said that there are too many that are ambiguous - using the injury proneness attribute as one example - but then you asked which other ones exist. If it was only that attribute with the problem, then only that one would need explaining and the job would be done. You wouldn't need this manual that you're asking for.

But putting that flaw in your argument aside... one such other negative attribute is "controversy". 20 points in that category imply that a player is 100% controversial. Simple, although using your argument would make it unclear as to whether a low score would mean he was fully controversial or not. Which obviously it wouldn't. I'm not going through the whole list just to find more, but they obviously exist.

First of all, if you haven't found any other negative attributes... then that defeats your whole argument. You said that there are too many that are ambiguous -

Not at all - ambiguous doesnt only have to relate to whether they go 'up or down' but as was stated earlier - ambiguous can also relate to 'what the hell does this mean' - hardness of training. In this case, its the title of the stat, rather than the rating of the stat thats ambiguous.

and yes - you are quite right, controversy is also a negative stat.

Hidden attributes should be visible.

I totally agree with you here!

Not at all - ambiguous doesnt only have to relate to whether they go 'up or down' but as was stated earlier - ambiguous can also relate to 'what the hell does this mean' - hardness of training. In this case, its the title of the stat, rather than the rating of the stat thats ambiguous.

and yes - you are quite right, controversy is also a negative stat.

another negative stat: dirtiness