Back to basics: new player's attributes system

If you support simplification of player's attributes in proposed or similar way, vote "Y". If you not support this, vote "N".

Thanks.

Why would you want less attributes?

Sorry but I'm with glosrob, I think the current amount of attributes is fine. Maybe they could be laid out in a similar way to your idea, but the more information I have available while selecting a player the bette IMO

The less attributes would make looking for a player worse, improving a player worse, would make the player screen a hell of a lot more boring! The amount we have at the moment and the attributes we have are near perfect, but not having a go at you or anything, just stating my oppinion!

Why would you want less attributes?

because there are a lot of duplicates. And there a lot of attributes with unpredictable impact on game and tactics.

Lots of duplicates? Such as?

Edit: Sorry I am not meaning to sound harsh if I do, just I dont quite understand why you'd want this so am trying to see it from your point of view.

Lots of duplicates? Such as?

Edit: Sorry I am not meaning to sound harsh if I do, just I dont quite understand why you'd want this so am trying to see it from your point of view.

Strehgth vs Takling

Passing vs Creativity

Fitness vs Stamina

Pace and Accelerate

This is almost similar abilities

I vote for Y

You honestly think tackling and strength are similar?

So a heavyweight boxer is good at tackling?

Strehgth vs Takling

Passing vs Creativity

Fitness vs Stamina

Pace and Accelerate

This is almost similar abilities

You could not be more wrong.

Strehgth vs Takling

Passing vs Creativity

Fitness vs Stamina

Pace and Accelerate

This is almost similar abilities

They arent similar :confused:

Strength is how strong they are, tackling is how well they tackle. eg Drogba is very strong, but a rubbish tackler.

Passing is how well they pass the ball, Creavity influences how well they use possession to their advantage.

Pace is how quick they are in general terms whereas Acceleration describes how quickly they can go from nothing to this "pace".

They may intertwine and have an effect on each other in certain incidences, but they arent similar stats.

Strehgth vs Takling

Passing vs Creativity

Fitness vs Stamina

Pace and Accelerate

This is almost similar abilities

Creativity - being able to look for the space and find opportunities

Passing - being able to execute the pass

Pace - speed the player runs at a top speed

Acceleration - from standing still, getting of the mark, how long it takes to hit top speed.

Natural Fitness - Base level of fitness. If this is low, after his peak, his stats will lower a lot quicker.

Stamina - ability to endure high level physical activity for a long period of time.

To me, your far off the mark, all these are completely different? I will look at all of these differently when looking at a player.

None of those are the same.

Strength denotes a physical attribute, it will determine how well a player can hold of challenges and knocked of the ball. Tackling is a technical attribute and denotes how well a player times a challenge.

Passing is a technical attribute and denotes how accurate a player is at passing. Creativity is mental, although it is linked with creative to determine a players through ball ability, it also denotes how a player is able to play as a playmaker by using skill etc.

Fitness (natural fitness) is how fit a player is, this will not change, it shows how a player responds after long periods in the side and how they'll recover from fatigue. Stamina is how well a pl;ayer maintains this fitness in a match. Eg a player could have 20 for NF and 4 for stamina, so he'd be 100% fit at the begining of a match but this would drop significantly through the match.

Pace is how fast they run, and acceleration is how long it takes to reach that speed. So you could have a player who's not all that fast Hleb for example, but his acceleration is high because he's in full flight pretty musch straight away.

They arent similar :confused:

Strength is how strong they are, tackling is how well they tackle. eg Drogba is very strong, but a rubbish tackler.

Ok. What difference between Height and Strength? Anyway if u stronger u able to tackle more effective.

Passing is how well they pass the ball, Creavity influences how well they use possession to their advantage.

But it is all about Ball Control abilities.

Pace is how quick they are in general terms whereas Acceleration describes how quickly they can go from nothing to this "pace".

I know, but it is all a speed. Player with very high pace can't have slow acceleration.

They may intertwine and have an effect on each other in certain incidences, but they arent similar stats.

Yes thay intertwine a lot. And there are main and secondary attributes and I do not thik that it is good

I know, but it is all a speed. Player with very high pace can't have slow acceleration.

My very first Ford Escort could do 90mph but to get up that far took absolutely ages.

100mph = pace (top speed)

the time taken to get from 0-100mph = acceleration

Ok. What difference between Height and Strength? Anyway if u stronger u able to tackle more effective.

Height = how tall you are

Strength = how strong you are

e.g. Javier Mascherano - strong as they come but relatively short. Peter Crouch very tall but also relatively weak.

Height isnt even remotely similar to strength in any sense :confused:

As for your other comments, they just arent the same thing at all, as others have pointed out to you in this thread.

Height isnt even remotely similar to strength in any sense :confused:

As for your other comments, they just arent the same thing at all, as others have pointed out to you in this thread.

Do not be aggrieved if u are not high but height impact on strenght for sure! And height/weight balance too.

My very first Ford Escort could do 90mph but to get up that far took absolutely ages.

100mph = pace (top speed)

the time taken to get from 0-100mph = acceleration

Ok, lets add a new skill - how quikly player take a brake after acceleration.

Height weight balance??? So basically their BMI (Body mass index) - which means chuff all in sport, as the entire World Cup winning England Rugby of 2003 team was overweight according to a standard BMI! Pointless!!!

Height has no impact on strength, ask David Haye!

Height weight balance??? So basically their BMI (Body mass index) - which means chuff all in sport, as the entire World Cup winning England Rugby of 2003 team was overweight according to a standard BMI! Pointless!!!

Height has no impact on strength, ask David Haye!

Do u remember Ronaldo whan he has good BMI? And what hapende with his speed, agilty and career whan he run to fat... So it is depend on each other defenetly.

But that's because he was unable to run due to injury and hence lost his edge. Since I've had a desk job, I've put on weight, but I'm the fastest I've ever been because I still run - something to do with my metabolism as to why I can't shed the lbs. Adriano is quick but heavy, Hulk (Porto) is quick but heavy. Michael Owen is small but slower than he used to be (due to injury), Scholes is small, but never been that quick.

I'm soory but I see no need for that in the game as it has no relation to anything.

You're not making it simpler, you're making it more complicated.

There need to be distinctions between ability to spot a pass (creativity) and actually do that pass (passing). Look at, say, Richard Dunne- quick when he gets going, really slow off the mark.

Braking? Ridiculous. The difference would be minimal, and it's pretty hard to judge.

Height doesn't necessarily relate to strength, some of the strongest people I know are only around 5', some tall people are quite "flimsy", like Crouch.

If you start involving the BMI in ME calculations, people will only get confused.

It is only going to over complicate things by trying to make things less complicated

And due to your stats you mentioned as similar this idea/thread has totally fallen apart!

This is the funniest thread in a long time!

Imagine the shambles of a game we would have if these attributes were implemented!

Maybe you have a case for further categorisation of attributes but not for removing any.

Nothing worng with the current system which i know and love.

It seems the community has dismissed the idea. Case dismissed.

It seems the community has dismissed the idea. Case dismissed.

Yep. If this ever was introduced (and lets face it it never will as it's absurd) i'd never play the game again!

Awful idea, if you need a simplistic look at a player check the diagram.

Can I cast my vote for more attributes?

I can't understand why on earth someone would want less.....

If everybody deslike it, seems it is not as good idea as I thought.

But personaly for me it is still more preferable.

I think if player have dribbling 20 and passing 20 and low all other skills he is very qality any way. But in "current FM's attributes system" key attributs are dilute with non-key and it mean that such player will be not very qality at all. And this is a big problem for game.

Can I cast my vote for more attributes?

I can't understand why on earth someone would want less.....

Really? I'm an advocate of sticking with what's there at the moment what else could be missing?

I have a better idea. Let's just get rid of all attributes and group them into one big attribute "ability". So two right-backs are only separated by "ability" - one has 19, one has 12. We all know which one is better.

If everybody deslike it, seems it is not as good idea as I thought.

But personaly for me it is still more preferable.

I think if player have dribbling 20 and passing 20 and low all other skills he is very qality any way. But in "current FM's attributes system" key attributs are dilute with non-key and it mean that such player will be not very qality at all. And this is a big problem for game.

That rather reminds me of Aliaksandr Hleb! Very good dribbler and passer but about as ineffective as you get.

You could argue one or two could be tied together like Dirtiness and Sportsmanship, or Eccentricity and Flair, but certainly not in those groups.

You can have the world's best sideways passer who couldn't pick out a good, longer pass if he had all the time in the world.

You can have the world's worst passer who has outstanding vision as well.

If everybody deslike it, seems it is not as good idea as I thought.

But personaly for me it is still more preferable.

I think if player have dribbling 20 and passing 20 and low all other skills he is very qality any way. But in "current FM's attributes system" key attributs are dilute with non-key and it mean that such player will be not very qality at all. And this is a big problem for game.

i see what you're saying but surely that is realistic. a player may have great technical ability but it doesn't mean he has great flair or creativity to utilise it often, do you see? i mean, let's compare for example tom huddlestone vs xavi, both are 18+ passing but it's xavi's creativity and combination of being excellent at many other aspects of football that make him several million leagues above the fat useless tard that is huddlestone who just about only has technique and not much else.

i see what you're saying but surely that is realistic. a player may have great technical ability but it doesn't mean he has great flair or creativity to utilise it often, do you see? i mean, let's compare for example tom huddlestone vs xavi, both are 18+ passing but it's xavi's creativity and combination of being excellent at many other aspects of football that make him several million leagues above the fat useless tard that is huddlestone who just about only has technique and not much else.

Funniest thing I've read in ages

IMO there is no such thing as an irrelevant attribute

N

Why didn't you do a poll :S?!

Do u remember Ronaldo whan he has good BMI? And what hapende with his speed, agilty and career whan he run to fat... So it is depend on each other defenetly.

Even when he was fat he could score like no one else.

Your points are extremely flawed and just plain wrong. In short: No. Glad you don't work for SI.

I have a better idea. Let's just get rid of all attributes and group them into one big attribute "ability".

I like that

No No No No No

If you want simplification go play fifa manager ............ the mobile phone edition

No.

But SI really needs to document the attributes better, with an accurate description of them, and all the situations they can affect. Because right now, a lot of people have no clue how things work.

That goes for tactics as well by the way. The tactics creator is a step in the right direction because of the descriptions and recommended abilities for each role, but it's really just an abstraction of the actual system. If people were given proper information, they wouldn't need it.

SI needs to realize that their game is a game, and not a replica of reality. It is their interpretation of reality, and such they need to explain how they interpret it for the players to understand how to play the game.

I wouldn't mind if the attributes were grouped together similarly to the OP's idea there, but I see no need to remove attributes altogether.

In saying that, I'm also perfectly happy with the current system. So I answer 'meh'...

if u have so few attributes so many players would be similar! and you will really only have 3 type of players D, M, and F/ST

Really? I'm an advocate of sticking with what's there at the moment what else could be missing?

I wouldn't mind seeing Marking broken down into both Zonal & Man.

Passing- could be divided into Short, Medium & Long.

Shooting- long shots could be added (if it's not already, I forget for sure).

I'm sure there's more I'd think of if the game was infront of me right now.

some guys should just take up game coding and make their own football management game

Strehgth vs Takling

Passing vs Creativity

Fitness vs Stamina

Pace and Accelerate

This is almost similar abilities

You are right!*

*This is almost similar to you being wrong.

I wouldn't mind seeing Marking broken down into both Zonal & Man.

Passing- could be divided into Short, Medium & Long.

Shooting- long shots could be added (if it's not already, I forget for sure).

I'm sure there's more I'd think of if the game was infront of me right now.

I've always thought of 'marking' as the marking of a player within your zone - all the time, for man marking; for zonal marking, positioning becomes more important. On passing, you could have a point - though not 'medium' passing, perhaps. Again though, personally I've always thought of it that a rating of 12-16 gives decent/tidy short passing, while 17+ indicates a good long passer.

Long shots exist already.

You sure like to suggest a lot of backword changes, Are you sure your not a troll sent my championship manager??

That goes for tactics as well by the way. The tactics creator is a step in the right direction because of the descriptions and recommended abilities for each role, but it's really just an abstraction of the actual system. If people were given proper information, they wouldn't need it.

SI needs to realize that their game is a game, and not a replica of reality. It is their interpretation of reality, and such they need to explain how they interpret it for the players to understand how to play the game.

Absolutely agree - very astute points

I wouldn't mind seeing Marking broken down into both Zonal & Man.

Passing- could be divided into Short, Medium & Long.

Shooting- long shots could be added (if it's not already, I forget for sure).

I'm sure there's more I'd think of if the game was infront of me right now.

zonal marking = positioning, no ?

Passing = kind of agree.

shooting : Longs shots are in. Medium range or shot accuracy would be nice to see.

You should just look at CM10 and then you'll feel even mroe confused! they rank attributes from 0-100! Then you'll know how special the current FM format is!

So my answer is a N