Imporoved Scouting Module

I'd prefer to have a system in which the scout, when watching a match, reports upon a best player on the day (easy to do via match rating) plus a few other players (2-3) that caught his eye. He would then submit his report and you chould choose for him to continue or disregard his scouting of those players in the future, thus:

Scouting Options

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Provide detailed report

<LI>Keep a close eye

<LI>Put on the backburner

<LI>Disregard

Provide a detailed report: The scout chooses to attend matches in which that player is appearing and submits a fully detailed report as soon as possible (2-3 weeks)

Keep a close eye: The scout keeps an eye on the player's performance levels and focuses on him if attending a match in which he is playing. However, he doesn't deliberately attend these matches. A detailed report takes a 3-6 months

Put on the backburner: The scout notes his performance levels and slowly builds up a picture of the player. A detailed report takes 6-12 months.

Disregard: The scout never reports on him again

Each scout can manage roughly thirty assignments at any one time:

Detailed report: Two players

Keep a close eye: Eight players

Put on the backburner: Twenty players

In addition to this, he continues to provide first glance recommendations of new players. It then becomes up to the manager to manage the scout's long and short-term targets.

For this to work, we probably need a greater 'fog of war', which includes PPMs, height, weight, footedness, etc. An early report on a totally unknown player would focus totally on the scout's interpretation of the match report plus an estimation of six key stats for the position. These stats could be customised by the manager, i.e. DC (Jumping, Heading, Tackling, Passing, Positioning, Stength), MR (Dribbling, Pace, Crossing, Flair, Passing, Stamina) etc.

Scout Report

John Smith is a 19-year old, tall (6'4"), both-footed defender. He is good in the air, winning more than 90% of his headers. He is also strong in the tackle, winning every challenge he attempted. However, his distribution looked suspect (52% pass completion) and his positioning might do with some improvement (made two minor mistakes). He also got booked and was lucky not to be sent off for dissent (argues with officials). Match Rating: 7.2

Attributes

Jumping (14-18)

Heading (12-16)

Tackling (14-18)

Passing (6-10)

Positioning (8-12)

Strength (14-20)

The margin for error could be dependant on the scout's ability, thus:

Judging Ability: 20 (all attributes within a two point scope)

Judging Ability: 14 (all attributes within a four point scope: as above)

Judging Ability: 8 (all attributes within a six point scope)

Judging Ability: 2 (all attributes within an eight point scope)

These settings would provide easy gradients between the scouts, so, for example, a scout with JP 17 would reveal 3 attributes within a two point scope and three within a four point scope.

Obviously, for a player already with the requisite stats already unfogged, these reports would be more exact.

Thoughts?

Not a bad idea-Certainly one worth looking into.

However, I would think that these would be a bit complicated to put inside the game.

Yup, sounds well-thought-out and viable as always wwfan. The assman always gives a report of the best player in your reserve fixtures, so the seeds are there.

Maybe you can't comment on this, but as part of the testing team for FML, and presumably knowing something (or at least being in a position to make a decent intelligent guess) of which features might be in FM09, are your thoughts ones that actually get the ear of the developers? If so, are you only welcome to comment on tactics, or any areas?

Originally posted by phnompenhandy:

Yup, sounds well-thought-out and viable as always wwfan. The assman always gives a report of the best player in your reserve fixtures, so the seeds are there.

Maybe you can't comment on this, but as part of the testing team for FML, and presumably knowing something (or at least being in a position to make a decent intelligent guess) of which features might be in FM09, are your thoughts ones that actually get the ear of the developers? If so, are you only welcome to comment on tactics, or any areas?

I'm a terrible tester when it comes to anything outside of the engine. The FML engine is superb and will be the starting point for the development of the FM09 engine. That much I do know

As for any other feature...??

Originally posted by wwfan:

As for any other feature...??

I'm betting the real truth was in that spooky line that followed .....

Anyone on a train to Wycombe, keep you eye out for a file or Cd that's been left behind. No, not the Al-Qaeda one, the IMPORTANT info

They should fix the whole comparing players relatively to your players crap. Its a completely nonintuitive way of doing it. Use an absolute scale for gods sake.

Its also annoying if the player with best potential in the world only gets rated as a good buy, just because you already have a good team. And of course some crappy defensive winger will be rated highly just because you dont have any in the team.

Originally posted by jakobx:

They should fix the whole comparing players relatively to your players crap. Its a completely nonintuitive way of doing it. Use an absolute scale for gods sake.

Its also annoying if the player with best potential in the world only gets rated as a good buy, just because you already have a good team. And of course some crappy defensive winger will be rated highly just because you dont have any in the team.

My scout doesn't rate anyone highly if they're a sweeper or something even though I haven't got any in my squad.

I agree with the first point though.

This is what I hate the most about the scouting module, I think in one of the earlier versions I would sent my scouts out and every now and again they would return after every game with a report of a player that they would have seen during a game, but now we don't have that option.

So, anything that improves the scouting module like this is always going to get a from em.

Originally posted by phnompenhandy:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

As for any other feature...??

I'm betting the real truth was in that spooky line that followed .....

Anyone on a train to Wycombe, keep you eye out for a file or Cd that's been left behind. No, not the Al-Qaeda one, the IMPORTANT info </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if I did have any extra knowledge I am not telling you about, which I don't, I live further away from Wycombe than you do, and that's saying something

I feel the "fog of war" should be a lot more restrictive. Also, if a scout watches a game and notices a player he otherwise hadn't come across performing well, he could quite easily misrepresent the players ability.

For example, he sees a defender whose an absolute beast. He wins every header and every tackle, and the opposition striker barely gets a look in. He appears to be half a yard quicker than the man he's marking, and seems to cut out most forward passes. As a result, the scout is very impressed, and suggests that the player is a good signing. From what he's seen, the player appears to have very high stats in key attributes (Heading, Jumping, Positioning, Tackling, Marking and Anticipation) and thus the scout gives high ratings.

After further scouting, it becomes apparent that the defender was either having the game of his life, or the standard of the opposition striker was very poor. It turns out that what appeared to be good anticipation on the defender's part, was in fact poor positioning, and in subsequent games he was exposed quite a lot. Similarly, whilst good in the tackle, he actually struggled aerially against more powerful strikers. After a few matches, his attributes start to take shape more accurately.

Similarly, this "fog" should react to games played against you, and anything televised. Players playing in these games gain a lot more exposure, and dependant on their performances, the whole footballing world would be able to make some sort of assessment on the players strengths or weaknesses.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that scout reports should canvas more than just performances. If a scout is asked to gleam some information about a player, I'd also like to know about his committment to training, as well as any perceived improvements/decline in ability.

I appreciate that this is awfully unlikely, as it would require a more intuitive database, but I can dream nonetheless.

Originally posted by wwfan:

I live further away from Wycombe than you do, and that's saying something

Stockport?

Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

I live further away from Wycombe than you do, and that's saying something

Stockport? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close

Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

I live further away from Wycombe than you do, and that's saying something

Stockport? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know when you sink a long pole through Wycombe, through the centre of the Earth to see where it comes out: you can see my house from there. Which means you must have secreted yourself on that mission to Mars.

Bugger, I live in Wycombe as well

Great first post.

I like the idea.

This bit, particularly:

Scout Report

John Smith is a 19-year old, tall (6'4"), both-footed defender. He is good in the air, winning more than 90% of his headers. He is also strong in the tackle, winning every challenge he attempted. However, his distribution looked suspect (52% pass completion) and his positioning might do with some improvement (made two minor mistakes). He also got booked and was lucky not to be sent off for dissent (argues with officials). Match Rating: 7.2

Would love to have that as part of a scout report.

The initial idea is a good one. I like the scouting options proposed

On the Fog of War issue, I agree with the basic idea, and that it would be good to (i) add more depth to the perception of player abilities - so they are not either unknown or perfectly known and (ii) add more differentiation between the relative abilities of scouts and more advantage to evaluating a player over time

On the other hand, I'd go about it in a different way.

I'm not convinced that a margin for error of eight points when judging certain attributes is likely for anyone, let alone a person who is paid to evaluate professional footballers. Even my mother could tell that Patrice Evra is quicker than Nicky Shorey after watching them play for a few minutes, and there are plenty of players I've never watched play that I can confidently predict will have certain characteristics higher than 12 or lower than 8 simply from the level they play at, general knowledge of how they have performed and what their fans think of them. (n.b there was a very good post a couple of years back... I think by Dave C... which outlined an approximate order in which the values of attributes should be able to be revealed by scouts)

Having particular players' abilities stored as variable perceived ranges is also unintuitive to look at and leaves unanswered the question of how the fog of war works for players who are unscouted but have moderately well known strengths and weaknesses (I don't think FM would work if most attributes for most players were hidden, but similarly it would be daft if your League 2 manager has perfect knowledge of the attributes of most foreign internationals, but only rough approximations of some attributes of the Conference star your scout has been watching for the past few weeks)

It would be much simpler to have attributes displayed as an absolute 1-5 star rating (a simple transformation of the 20 point scale, which FMM fans know is itself a transformation of a 100 point scale) for the many attributes of many players which are generally known but not scouted in detail. This corresponds to a four point range but is much clearer visually - you can tell at a glance whether a player who has most attributes represented as star ratings is possibly/definitely/not talented enough to step up to your level and where their well known strengths and weaknesses lie.

(It might even be made possible to have an optional view displaying the known 1-20 numbers as star ratings, with the use of colour and half/quarter stars to differentiate them from the approximate ratings)

It's consistent with existing FM interface conventions, and the five * ranges can be easily interpreted in text form for actual scout reports - (e.g. as a poor/below-average/average/good/world class finisher/tackler/passer/penalty-taker)

It would make scouting the lower divisions much more realistic - rather than taking the scattergun approach to finding little-known but established players to scout or take on trial you could actively look for ones with apparent speed/pace/tackling and then have them scouted over a few games to find out how more precisely how their attributes weigh up against the your squad. The ability to filter players based on approximate attributes (a player with a 5* attribute would show up in a search for 17 or greater in that attribute, but not in a search for 18 or greater). You'd find quick (5*), technical (4*) teenagers by filtering for pace/acceleration (>=17) and technique (>=13) - but wouldn't actually know how their pace compared with your own batch of youngsters until you'd sent someone to watch them or they'd become well known players in your region.

Better scouts would produce complete and exact evaluations more quickly, as well as continuing to judge CA better

Because the star-rating system would still allow some comparisons between one player and another, it would also be possible to hide a much larger proportion of player stats behind this thin fog-of-war (not to mention all the dreaded "greys") - making scouting more worthwhile

-

Scouts misrepresenting players viewable attributes on the basis of individual matches would be a major annoyance as well as requiring plenty of extra database space, especially if possibly erroneous assumptions by scouts weren't clearly marked from known values. Sometimes realism isn't such a great thing - since even the slowest player will play more than one season over the course of a real year, FM players will necessarily be more inclined towards snap judgements rather than evaluations of a player evolving over many

Excellent post, i almost missed it (buried under the deluge of Some guy.. threads lol).

Scouting does seem far too precise at the moment, with the fog of war becoming little more than a light haze after a single scouting session.

Your suggestion for an intial report is particularly good. Similarly i like the idea of a degree of error when scouting players - i'm sure someone told ferguson that djemba-djemba was a quality player, so why don't we get similarly dubious scout reports? They're all far too precise at the moment, the only grey area we have is potential and hidden atts, which do make it a little harder finding a gem, but not hard enough.

Let's hope SI consider this.

This is a simply brilliant idea. It may be time-consuming but the rewards be great. Great idea, do you have any more?

Originally posted by phnompenhandy:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

I live further away from Wycombe than you do, and that's saying something

Stockport? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know when you sink a long pole through Wycombe, through the centre of the Earth to see where it comes out: you can see my house from there. Which means you must have secreted yourself on that mission to Mars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ---> Wycombe: 7231 km

Me ---> Wycombe: 17260 km

Don't get to see them much as you might imagine

Thanks for the feedback. Hope it is something we can build upon.

@ arrogantio: I was actually only looking at the margin of error being so great for the opening report. Over time it would decrease and even the worst scout will be able to get a fairly accurate picture of a player. A really good scout would be able to unlock most stats to within a two point margin after a couple of matches. The poor scout would take 5-6. I do concede to your point that some attributes, such as pace, would be much easier to pin down than creativity or balance.

I've always been in favour of ranges for player attributes than being totally masked for players. We should have absolute values for some attributes and no values for others. UNrealistic.

I've always thought ranges are the way to go.

I think the best coaches would be able to identify a good player more quickly. So a lesser coach could judge the same player, but over a greater period of time.

The best coaches could even spot PPMs.

Great idea.

I feel scouting needs a big overhaul. It's certainly improved in 08 but could be so much better.

I think the link between the accuracy of scout reports and attributes needs to be improved.

I've always been in favour of ranges for player attributes than being totally masked for players. We should have absolute values for some attributes and no values for others. UNrealistic.

I've always thought ranges are the way to go.

Sorry should have said WE SHOULDN'T HAVE EXACT VALUES FOR SOME ATTRIBUES AND NONE FOR OTHERS.