attributes : to be or not to be ?

FM is based on reality so, in my opinion, we should not have the real view of each attribute, which depend on your scouting performance and time of scouting.

So maybe the attributes should remain hidden for at least 6 months after buying the player ( more easy to implement ) , or should be "your scout's attribute" and the real one should appear after long experience with your team ( complete refund of the system )

So what will be your other idea to buy a player without seeing the real attributes, and trust your staff and yourself to hire the player in your team.

Thanks.

fog of war?

Interesting idea. And I agree it would be more realistic, though a good coach should be able to assess the attributes of own players a bit quicker than that.

Yet, I prefer the game as it is. There would be too much frustration caused by that for me.

fog of war?

re-read his suggestion. It goes way beyond that.

Nah, scouts and coaches can suss out players pretty quick. Players are assessed pretty vigorously and there is normally no mystery as to their ability unless they have come from abroad on the recommendation of a friend of a friend.

people have to remember this is a GAME. i've not heard of another system that would be more fun... excpet maybe a description for each stat like passing = outstanding (range between 10-14) exceptional (range between 14-18) for example...

but even this would be quite wooly when seeing how good the players really are...

the current system works well imo. i hate fog of war though - it just means extra clicks to get the player scouted and that's not fun is it? it's just extra clicks and makes things take longer.

Nah, scouts and coaches can suss out players pretty quick. Players are assessed pretty vigorously and there is normally no mystery as to their ability unless they have come from abroad on the recommendation of a friend of a friend.

I do feel that, if i send a 'not very good' (look at me self censoring) scout to do a report on a player, then any attributes that are revealed should be inaccurate. If I get that same scout do watch the guy for 3 matches then the report should be even more accurate (but still potentially wrong) In any case an average scout watching someone 3 times should be better than a top scout getting a quick report.

I appreciate your view and think it's a good idea (anyone sensing a but?) but (there she is) It's pretty vital in FM to know the stats of your players and like DP said, the current system works well.

mightymind, why would an arbritrary "6 months" give you access to their real attributes? If you want realism, then the logical conclusion is not to have any displayed at all.

After all, even though we've all seen famous players throughout their career we all have different opinions on what their attribute ratings should be (witness the discussions that happen in the offical club threads in the Data Issues forum).

But, as DP says, you have to remember it's just a game. And one which would be unplayable if true realism was applied to attributes.

The reality is that any staff can make mistake in buying player, it happened in several clubs.

In FM and any other foot management game, you can hire a player without risk, because the stat are the "real one".

I really don't have good idea for the way to change it, but to be realistic, we should have this "risk" of buying.

I do feel that, if i send a 'not very good' (look at me self censoring) scout to do a report on a player, then any attributes that are revealed should be inaccurate. If I get that same scout do watch the guy for 3 matches then the report should be even more accurate (but still potentially wrong) In any case an average scout watching someone 3 times should be better than a top scout getting a quick report.

Exactly. Which is pretty much how the game works so there is absolutely no need to change it.

The reality is that any staff can make mistake in buying player, it happened in several clubs.

In FM and any other foot management game, you can hire a player without risk, because the stat are the "real one".

I really don't have good idea for the way to change it, but to be realistic, we should have this "risk" of buying.

Of course there's risk in buying players in-game. They might not be able to settle into your country; they may not be able to fit into your tactical framework; they may not get on well with other players in the squad etc

These are risks RL managers face. They don't face the risk of buying a player they think can pass the ball only to find out he can't 6 months after he joins the club.

The reality is that any staff can make mistake in buying player, it happened in several clubs.

In FM and any other foot management game, you can hire a player without risk, because the stat are the "real one".

I really don't have good idea for the way to change it, but to be realistic, we should have this "risk" of buying.

imo the risk of failure is usually down to mental attributes.

for example, gabriel obertan - man united have taken a risk but they know his 'stats' inside out. his success of failure will probably depend on a range of things including luck and his mental abilities to handle the pressure.

it's not going to be down to his first touch or dribbling which we all know are exceptional.

it's the mental side, imo, that needs a bit of rework in FM so there is more chance for a player to not settle and hence has to move on.

The reality is that any staff can make mistake in buying player, it happened in several clubs.

In FM and any other foot management game, you can hire a player without risk, because the stat are the "real one".

I really don't have good idea for the way to change it, but to be realistic, we should have this "risk" of buying.

There are still plenty of risks involved in any transfer to be fair. Not every good player also plays well at your club and not every player fits into every tactic.

I had Pato and vdV suck at my club. That's good enough for me to spare the extra bit of realism which makes the game even harder.

I think you need to go and play Lllama style.

http://community.sigames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19

Even less realistic - we do not depend on a scout to judge a player's ability once he is at the club!

We implicitly convert things into a numerical format (i.e. Kuszczak's dribbling is worse than Scholes's who is worse than Nani) and numbers are the most obvious way of visualising things.

If we'd relied solely on scouts Francis Jeffers would still be at Arsenal.

If we don't want to change this, so what is the use of our scout, and what is the use to improve the scouting report, as you have all the attributes in hands to decide yourself. So, In FM scout is only for making appear the hidden attributes ?

If we don't want to change this, so what is the use of our scout, and what is the use to improve the scouting report, as you have all the attributes in hands to decide yourself. So, In FM scout is only for making appear the hidden attributes ?

A scout is useful to judge a player's underlying personality (i.e. dirtiness is invisible but a scout can detect this) as well as their potential.

But once a player trains and plays for your team, you implicitly rate them through numbers and therefore the easiest way of presenting this information is via numbers.

I agree that you rate implicitly, but it will be your "rate", in function of how he is playing, example :

- your real stat ( means your scout' rate and report ) told you that he is having 20 in tackling, but when you see him playing for 3-6 months you came to know that his rate should be 10 as he is really not excellent in tackling ( means you and you scout failed in evaluating the player in tackling ! )

So the attribute of tackling should be changed in function of your "rate" or "your" evaluation in training and matches. The rate should increase or decrease not only in fucntion of training, but also in function of the average performance ( measured for ex every 5 matches ) in each attribute. Than you can decide to train him differently or transfer him !

This is reality !

A scout is useful to judge a player's underlying personality (i.e. dirtiness is invisible but a scout can detect this) as well as their potential.

But once a player trains and plays for your team, you implicitly rate them through numbers and therefore the easiest way of presenting this information is via numbers.

Just think like this :

a unknown player in Brazil scouted by Manchester will not have the same attribute rates if Paris St Germain ( France ) is scouting ( they don't have the same vision of each attribute of the player, the same scouting performance, the same needs etc... ).

Exactly. Which is pretty much how the game works so there is absolutely no need to change it.

It doesn't though. A quick scout report will revel some stats, but they will be accurate. Watching a player 3 times will always give you all the stats and they will be accurate.

I'd rather get a scout report and have something like

Finishing 14-18

Composure 12-16

Pace 14-18

Then after scouting once or twice

Finishing 16-18

Composure 13-15

Pace 17

Then after signing him (and especially if i have a bad scout)

Finishing 15

Composure 17

Pace 15

If we don't want to change this, so what is the use of our scout, and what is the use to improve the scouting report, as you have all the attributes in hands to decide yourself. So, In FM scout is only for making appear the hidden attributes ?

To me they are invaluable for estimating on the PA of the players. How else should we know that?

I don't know the formula of how good/bad scouts operate in the game but it seems to be a lot better than your method. Jeez- in your method it's bang in the middle!

Think about it! your method sucks.

In FM you scout a player, and after 2 days you get all the infos.

If each scouting takes 2 weeks for ex, there will be the risk that during those 2 weeks, an excellent scout of another club will contact the player before you ( because is better than yours ! )

The scouting report should depend on the scout performance of course and time.

It doesn't though. A quick scout report will revel some stats, but they will be accurate. Watching a player 3 times will always give you all the stats and they will be accurate.

I'd rather get a scout report and have something like

Finishing 14-18

Composure 12-16

Pace 14-18

Then after scouting once or twice

Finishing 16-18

Composure 13-15

Pace 17

Then after signing him (and especially if i have a bad scout)

Finishing 15

Composure 17

Pace 15

I don't know if some of you think that scouts are crap at identifying talent but the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. The OP suggests that it is 'realistic' to sign a player and then not know his stats for 6 months! That is NOT realistic.

The excellent scout ( to be defined ) will give you in 2 weeks ( to be defined ) :

- the full scout report

- the real stats

A worst scout will give you in 2 weeks :

- a small report

- hidden attributes

A bad scout will give you after 2 weeks more ( 2nd trip ) :

- a full report

- hidden stats

A bad scout will give you after 2 weeks more ( 3rd trip ) :

- a full report

- real stats

A normal scout will give you after 4 weeks ( 1 trip ) :

- a full report

- real stats

So the risk exists :

-you wait and another club buy the player

- you buy the player after 1 trip and you will get or no surprises ( attributes appears )

This is my idea to make it simple and keep the attributes as it is right now !

Calm down, it's just a suggestion, be positive !

I don't know if some of you think that scouts are crap at identifying talent but the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. The OP suggests that it is 'realistic' to sign a player and then not know his stats for 6 months! That is NOT realistic.

I don't know if some of you think that scouts are crap at identifying talent but the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous. The OP suggests that it is 'realistic' to sign a player and then not know his stats for 6 months! That is NOT realistic.

I agree with that, but If I am managing Dover in the blue square south and have one part time scout and I ask him to compile a report on a player playing for a team in the blue square north I don;t expect his report to be that accurate. Any reveled stats she be either a range, or subject to change.

-----

I am a Gills fan in real life, and unlike some teams, I don't know much about half of our new signings. A few years ago we signed a winger from Barnet called Barry Cogan looked the business, quick, decent cross, skillfull and everyone was raving about him for.... about two weeks, by then we realised he wasn't that commited, had very little strength no determination, and that if put under pressure hsi crossing wasn't even that good!

Scouts should work in the same way.

Mightmind - the game already works along those lines.

I'm sure it could be tweaked but everything you are suggesting is pretty much how it already works.

Mightymind, it seems your point can be split into two....

1) You don't want scouts to give you the real stats.

While fog of war may not be perfect this would be a good way to play the game in this way.

2) You don't want to know the real stats until at least 6 months after you sign a player. Is that correct?

If so, you are fighting a losing battle because hardly anyone else wants this to happen. Perhaps it's best to know when to quit hey.

You argue that the 2nd point adds to realism but you are losing sight of the fact that this is a GAME, and any movement towards realism has to be balanced against PLAYABILITY.

There are loads of aspects of the game which aren't completely realistic but add to the playability. If complete realism was the only goal then:

* There would be no stats shown to the user at all. You would have to form your own opinion of how good your players are just by watching them.

* There would be no match ratings. You would have to watch the full game yourself and decide who was/wasn't playing well.

* You would not be able to enter into financial negotiations with players you are trying to sign. You would probably just have to supply a list of players to your board who would then succeed or fail in signing the player.

* Press conferences would be even more frequent, even longer, and even more boring.

* You would have no say in which commercial feeder clubs your club chooses.

* A club could not sign a formal parent/feeder club agreement with another club (Applies to English FA)

* There would be no transfer list, as no such list actually exists.

All of these things sacrifice realism to aid game-play.

FORGET THE 6 MONTHS IDEA, it was a stupid suggestion, but see this maybe it can match :

The excellent scout ( to be defined ) will give you in 2 weeks ( to be defined ) :

- the full scout report

- the real stats

A worst scout will give you in 2 weeks :

- a small report

- hidden attributes

A bad scout will give you after 2 weeks more ( 2nd trip ) :

- a full report

- hidden stats

A bad scout will give you after 2 weeks more ( 3rd trip ) :

- a full report

- real stats

A normal scout will give you after 4 weeks ( 1 trip ) :

- a full report

- real stats

So the risk exists :

-you wait and another club buy the player

- you buy the player after 1 trip and you will get or no surprises ( attributes appears )

This is my idea to make it simple and keep the attributes as it is right now !

Mightymind, it seems your point can be split into two....

1) You don't want scouts to give you the real stats.

While fog of war may not be perfect this would be a good way to play the game in this way.

2) You don't want to know the real stats until at least 6 months after you sign a player. Is that correct?

If so, you are fighting a losing battle because hardly anyone else wants this to happen. Perhaps it's best to know when to quit hey.

You argue that the 2nd point adds to realism but you are losing sight of the fact that this is a GAME, and any movement towards realism has to be balanced against PLAYABILITY.

There are loads of aspects of the game which aren't completely realistic but add to the playability. If complete realism was the only goal then:

* There would be no stats shown to the user at all. You would have to form your own opinion of how good your players are just by watching them.

* There would be no match ratings. You would have to watch the full game yourself and decide who was/wasn't playing well.

* You would not be able to enter into financial negotiations with players you are trying to sign. You would probably just have to supply a list of players to your board who would then succeed or fail in signing the player.

* Press conferences would be even more frequent, even longer, and even more boring.

* You would have no say in which commercial feeder clubs your club chooses.

* A club could not sign a formal parent/feeder club agreement with another club (Applies to English FA)

* There would be no transfer list, as no such list actually exists.

All of these things sacrifice realism to aid game-play.

FORGET THE 6 MONTHS IDEA, it was a stupid suggestion, but see this maybe it can match :

The excellent scout ( to be defined ) will give you in 2 weeks ( to be defined ) :

- the full scout report

- the real stats

A worst scout will give you in 2 weeks :

- a small report

- hidden attributes

A bad scout will give you after 2 weeks more ( 2nd trip ) :

- a full report

- hidden stats

A bad scout will give you after 2 weeks more ( 3rd trip ) :

- a full report

- real stats

A normal scout will give you after 4 weeks ( 1 trip ) :

- a full report

- real stats

So the risk exists :

-you wait and another club buy the player

- you buy the player after 1 trip and you will get or no surprises ( attributes appears )

This is my idea to make it simple and keep the attributes as it is right now !

So, talk me through how this would work if I sent a bad scout (let's say JA1 / JP1) to look at Messi......

Sorry but Messi has the open attributes, it will work only for unknown players.

Who does not want Messi in their club !

So, talk me through how this would work if I sent a bad scout (let's say JA1 / JP1) to look at Messi......

Sorry but Messi has the open attributes, it will work only for unknown players.

Who does not want Messi in their club !

Ok, so what's the definition of an "unknown player"?

people have to remember this is a GAME. i've not heard of another system that would be more fun... excpet maybe a description for each stat like passing = outstanding (range between 10-14) exceptional (range between 14-18) for example...

but even this would be quite wooly when seeing how good the players really are...

the current system works well imo. i hate fog of war though - it just means extra clicks to get the player scouted and that's not fun is it? it's just extra clicks and makes things take longer.

Yes, I agree with you here!

"Unknown" player is what is in FM database :

- hidden = unknown

- clear attributes = "famous"

I don't want any revolution, I just want that our staff takes some responsabilities ( nobody is perfect )

I agree that everything has to be rated in a game of course but the rate depends on who is giving the rate ( we all are giving rates in our personnal life, but we can make mistakes even )

Interesting ideas; I do agree that the attributes (not stats, those are different) should be a little more vague depending on how you've scouted a player. I also think the "star rating" for each player should be more tied to a player's form than it currently is. After all, even bad players can go through streaks where they just can't stop scoring; if I have a player like that, I should be able to cash in.

"Unknown" player is what is in FM database :

- hidden = unknown

- clear attributes = "famous"

I don't want any revolution, I just want that our staff takes some responsabilities ( nobody is perfect )

I agree that everything has to be rated in a game of course but the rate depends on who is giving the rate ( we all are giving rates in our personnal life, but we can make mistakes even )

You've misunderstood. How would the game decide which players are unknown (and therefore hidden) and which players are famous?

Interesting idea, but would end up making the game not fun.

I think the solution for keeping the same principe of attributes ( to keep the fun of course ) will be considering that :

- a scout ( any one ) will have the complete infos and attributes after many scouting times ( 3-5 )

- each trip for scouting should take a long period ( 2-3 weeks ) in order to increase the stress ans patience pb.

- each report will increase the report and make appear slowly some attributes ( randomly or no ? )

- the best is the scout, the more attributes will appear quickly and better will be the report.

- and to add a small summary video of few matches of the player where the camera should be on him ( to judge by yourself )

- at the end of scoutings, the attributes should appear as it is now with full report.

In this way, the scout is usefull, and you get more stress, more realism, with the same fun.

My philosophy is : if you have a good scout you will get quickly want the player is real ( than you decide to buy or not ) , a worst one will get the same infos, but it will take more time ( wait more or take the risk by seeing yourself the video and some uncomplete infos. )

Waiting for your suggestions for this please.

people have to remember this is a GAME.

But it's a simulation.

I've already written what I'm going to say.

In real life, if you send a scout, when he comes back he doesn't say "I don't know if that player is fast" if he's poor...

He gives you a distorted idea of the characteristics of that player.

And at the same time it's not realistic that you send a scout on 15th June and he tells you exactly the characteristics.

The differences between good and poor scouts are not in giving/not giving report, but in giving different opinion.

How many "the new Maradona" have we seen? How many of them did we wanted in our favourite team? And regarding how many of them did we say "good luck we didn't buyed it..."?

Scouting system can be improved.

But it's a simulation.

I've already written what I'm going to say.

In real life, if you send a scout, when he comes back he doesn't say "I don't know if that player is fast" if he's poor...

He gives you a distorted idea of the characteristics of that player.

And at the same time it's not realistic that you send a scout on 15th June and he tells you exactly the characteristics.

The differences between good and poor scouts are not in giving/not giving report, but in giving different opinion.

How many "the new Maradona" have we seen? How many of them did we wanted in our favourite team? And regarding how many of them did we say "good luck we didn't buyed it..."?

Scouting system can be improved.

but the boundaries of the simulation states it needs to be fun.

what would you say if i wanted to make the days go through in real time?

you would say 'that's ridiculous!'

i would say 'but it's a simulation'

it needs to stay fun - not having stats makes it less fun to judge your best players. unless you have an alternative.

So to keep fun and increase stress, what you think about this :

I think the solution for keeping the same principe of attributes ( to keep the fun of course ) will be considering that :

- a scout ( any one ) will have the complete infos and attributes after many scouting times ( 3-5 )

- each trip for scouting should take a long period ( 2-3 weeks ) in order to increase the stress ans patience pb.

- each report will increase the report and make appear slowly some attributes ( randomly or no ? )

- the best is the scout, the more attributes will appear quickly and better will be the report.

- and to add a small summary video of few matches of the player where the camera should be on him ( to judge by yourself )

- at the end of scoutings, the attributes should appear as it is now with full report.

In this way, the scout is usefull, and you get more stress, more realism, with the same fun.

My philosophy is : if you have a good scout you will get quickly want the player is real ( than you decide to buy or not ) , a worst one will get the same infos, but it will take more time ( wait more or take the risk by seeing yourself the video and some uncomplete infos. )

Waiting for your suggestions for this please.

but the boundaries of the simulation states it needs to be fun.

what would you say if i wanted to make the days go through in real time?

you would say 'that's ridiculous!'

i would say 'but it's a simulation'

it needs to stay fun - not having stats makes it less fun to judge your best players. unless you have an alternative.

So to keep fun and increase stress, what you think about this :

I think the solution for keeping the same principe of attributes ( to keep the fun of course ) will be considering that :

- a scout ( any one ) will have the complete infos and attributes after many scouting times ( 3-5 )

- each trip for scouting should take a long period ( 2-3 weeks ) in order to increase the stress ans patience pb.

- each report will increase the report and make appear slowly some attributes ( randomly or no ? )

- the best is the scout, the more attributes will appear quickly and better will be the report.

- and to add a small summary video of few matches of the player where the camera should be on him ( to judge by yourself )

- at the end of scoutings, the attributes should appear as it is now with full report.

In this way, the scout is usefull, and you get more stress, more realism, with the same fun.

My philosophy is : if you have a good scout you will get quickly want the player is real ( than you decide to buy or not ) , a worst one will get the same infos, but it will take more time ( wait more or take the risk by seeing yourself the video and some uncomplete infos. )

Waiting for your suggestions for this please.

but isn't this similar to the fog of war?

i know i will get the stats eventually, it will just take more clicks.

it's boring having to wait and click to get scouts out everytime.

i think your feature works as an improvement on the existing fog of war but it should be an option like it is currently.

but the boundaries of the simulation states it needs to be fun.

If you ask me if actual scouting system is "funny" I would say no, it's boring.

what would you say if i wanted to make the days go through in real time?

Wait, this is absolutely extreme and insane...

not having stats makes it less fun to judge your best players.

I didn't say anything about this

But scouts giving wrong stats is an idea to begin, for example.

Yes but the time of scouting ( weeks instead of a day ) a player with a bad scout will add the risk that another club with a better scout will buy the player before you.

Or you buy the player before and you can get a palyer who won't be what you were expecting to get ( it's happenned in real ! )

but isn't this similar to the fog of war?

i know i will get the stats eventually, it will just take more clicks.

it's boring having to wait and click to get scouts out everytime.

i think your feature works as an improvement on the existing fog of war but it should be an option like it is currently.

If you ask me if actual scouting system is "funny" I would say no, it's boring.

Wait, this is absolutely extreme and insane...

I didn't say anything about this

But scouts giving wrong stats is an idea to begin, for example.

1. scouting being boring: it's made fun currently because your scouts come back with a list of recommended players - that's fun.

2. it is extreme but it's a point that the game needs to stay as a game. it's not a complete simulation, like a flight sim.

3. in real life, if a scout gives wrong 'stats' to a manager, they would be able to spot this straight away in training or in games. as we don't have the ability to see this properly (because it's a game, we don't have to attend training) how would we know the stats are wrong?

it would be a mess!!!

Really like the idea and have been wanting this for quite some time.

That and the opportunity for players that come up the ranks to have no position, for me to train them. Just because they have certain positions doesn't mean they're the right ones...

it's made fun currently because your scouts come back with a list of recommended players - that's fun.

yes, but we're discussing a step forward. How scout (name) scout (verb ) the players? The kind of response they give to you. The recommended players list is a nice plus, but it's not the "core" thing.

3. in real life, if a scout gives wrong 'stats' to a manager, they would be able to spot this straight away in training or in games. as we don't have the ability to see this properly (because it's a game, we don't have to attend training) how would we know the stats are wrong?

we know because of performance on pitch and because of assistants and fans report that begins to tell "maybe this player...".

Quaresma? D'Alessandro? Kluivert

it would be a mess!!!

It would be greaaaaaaaaatttttttttt

This "your scout's attribute"-idea is great. It would made the game more realistic.