Football Manager 2011 - Revolutionary new game mode?

Hi all,

I started playing the game in 1997 and haven't looked back since. CM2, CM3, CM4 and the FM series have stolen more hours from me that probably anything else I've put my mind to and I have some great memories playing CM01/02 network games and later FM08 with my house mates at uni. I've won the Prem with Chelmsford City and done a hell of a lot better with my native Bristol City on FM2010 than Gary Johnson has this season.

Don't get me wrong, the game is still infinitely playable and leagues above anything else out there but I don't get as much out of it as I used to. I'm sure I can't be the only one out there who starts a new game every now and again and gets a depressing sense of deja vu before quitting, so I've come up with an idea - to include a game mode (at the very least) where player stats are completely hidden and inaccessible. I know many people will immediately dismiss this as stupid as that's the format that has got FM to where it is today, but think about it. In the early days of CM, there was no assistant advice, no decent scout reports, no fans spokesman, no board interaction, no training feedback, no back room meetings, no visible match engine, and so the ONLY thing you could go on to judge whether a player was good or not was his stats.

Nowadays, all of these things are included and are getting better and better with every version. But seriously, who actually pays attention to anything any of your staff have to say? How many times do you get a scout report for someone just to see what their stats are whilst completely disregarding whether or not they'll become a leading star, and conversely how many times have you read what the scout has to say before looking at the players stats and wondering what the hell your ca/pa 20/20 scout has been sniffing? How many times have you really wanted to play someone that's come up through your youth system and tipped to become a good player by your coaches, only to look at his stats and predict with near perfect accuracy that he's never going to amount to anything?

Sure, having no visible stats would certainly make the game more challenging, but also in my opinion infinitely more rewarding. If Sports Interactive were to work hard to improve the staff's verbal input regarding promising youth players, potential signings, in form players, out of form players, as well as an increase in the importance of the chairman and supporters, it really could work. That way you could really uncover a diamond of a player that isn't known by the whole FM community and you could give that 17 year old player who's just come through a chance in your first team as suggested by your (infinitely less formulaic) assistant manager. I think this would be FAR more realistic and breathe fresh life into a game. With the rapid advances in AI now it seems like a logical step.

Just as a totally random example, let's look at Wayne Rooney. Do you think David Moyes looked at his stats and saw a load of 17+'s and thought he'd give him a run out? No, he'd watch him in training, talk to his youth coaches, slowly integrate him with the first team etc before giving him a run out on the pitch. The Football manager engine is capable of some pretty decent interaction with staff, so why not take it that bit further? This is 2010 after all. What do you think?

Isn't this what attribute masking is for? So you have to scout players to see how good they are?

Really? So you can set the game up so you can't see any of your own teams stats as well as everyone else's? If so I stand corrected, but regardless of that, the coaches and scouts still talk rubbish, and need to be improved massively before that sort of thing would work properly.

He wants it to apply for your own players too.

I wouldn't like it, it would mean we'd have to watch a representation of training. That would take up our time, and that of the programmers too.

You're missing the point simon, if stats are turned off COMPLETELY, that means there are no stats whatsoever visible for your players or anyone elses, you would have to make judgements on what you saw on the pitch with your own eyes, and the reports you would get from other people. Hence making it far more realistic.

It wouldn't mean you would have to watch a representation of training at all, because you would get decent, accurate feedback from your staff. See what I'm getting at?

Really? So you can set the game up so you can't see any of your own teams stats as well as everyone else's? If so I stand corrected, but regardless of that, the coaches and scouts still talk rubbish, and need to be improved massively before that sort of thing would work properly.

You can still see your own players stats, and stats of players you have scouted. If your talking about totally blind attributes then its a from me. I use my own judgement with regards to my own players and manage to bring through plenty of youngsters, remember you can see how the players training is going and how they are developing. Remember aswell, young players are never going to be the finished article at such a young age, so if they want developing you have to give them a chance in the first team, despite them being inferior to your 1st or even 2nd choice player for that position.

I would like to see this.

It would definately be the way forward for realism and put emphasis on training and scouting.

If it was done right it could work.

It might make it a bit hardcore for some people who can't be bothered with all that.

Fair enough. However, I'm still skeptical about whether staff feedback can be improved enough. I mean, for example, you'd need your staff to tell you how good your players were at each skill so you could choose a role for them.

So basically, you want to only unlock stats by scouting?

Obviously your staff will be watching your players every day, so would have effectively 'scouted' them, unlocking their attributes

It wouldn't mean you would have to watch a representation of training at all, because you would get decent, accurate feedback from your staff. See what I'm getting at?

But then you would need highly rated staff at all levels. Scouts and coaches (if your lucky enough to have them) at BSN/S level aren't the best.

Why do you think every other football manager game has attributes for the players in this way? There is no other way anyone has thought up yet that's any better. How is what you are suggesting going to be any better?

(...) With the rapid advances in AI now it seems like a logical step.

And which rapid advancements would those be? The thing is that rapid advances in AI usually are not open-source or plug and play software.

You can still see your own players stats, and stats of players you have scouted. If your talking about totally blind attributes then its a from me. I use my own judgement with regards to my own players and manage to bring through plenty of youngsters, remember you can see how the players training is going and how they are developing. Remember aswell, young players are never going to be the finished article at such a young age, so if they want developing you have to give them a chance in the first team, despite them being inferior to your 1st or even 2nd choice player for that position.

I agree with you on everything you say there, I've played the game enough to do all this in my sleep. Yes, you can see training and how players are developing, you can integrate them into the first team, and you can monitor their progress. That's fantastic. But at the end of the day it's pretty irrelevant and no matter how much improvement players are making and how many stars your coaches give them, if their stats suck their stats suck. if you couldn't see stats, and could only go off of easily accessible, in-depth (much more so than now) training, progress blah blah blah reports, it would be much more realistic and you would be more inclined to give young players run outs and take risks on foreign players rather than only getting people with fantastic stats. Obviously, you can't watch training, that's not really feasible, but It can't be impossible to provide decent feedback.

Fair enough. However, I'm still skeptical about whether staff feedback can be improved enough. I mean, for example, you'd need your staff to tell you how good your players were at each skill so you could choose a role for them.

Is it really that ambitious to expect staff yo be able to tell you what players' strengths and weaknesses are and what sort of player they are? They can sort of do that now albeit in a very boring and formulaic way

So basically, you want to only unlock stats by scouting?

Obviously your staff will be watching your players every day, so would have effectively 'scouted' them, unlocking their attributes

In real life, what coaches decide to mark players abilities out of 20? It just wouldn't happen. It would all be verbal feedback (and there would be more than like 5 variations as there are now :/)

But then you would need highly rated staff at all levels. Scouts and coaches (if your lucky enough to have them) at BSN/S level aren't the best.

You wouldn't need highly rated staff at all levels, obviously, staff with better pedigree would be able to push players harder and get more out of them than their lower league equivalents, but even at a very low level a coach would be able to describe what sort of player someone is, whether or not their progressing etc. even if it's not as brilliant as those right at the top.

Why do you think every other football manager game has attributes for the players in this way? There is no other way anyone has thought up yet that's any better. How is what you are suggesting going to be any better?

Every other football manager game has attributes like this because they're lazy, unimaginative and basically just want a slice of what CM/FM has had in terms of £££. And i've made it pretty clear why i think this would be better. basically it would be a lot more realistic and rewarding. less robotic and forumulaic. Your goal would not just to fill your squad with as many players as you can who have fantastic stats. Anyone can think, right I want a quick striker. Hmm lets look at pace accelaration off the ball composure finishing etc. It would be much cooler and more rewarding to play against someone who impresses you, or have a scout or other member of staff recommend someone.

And which rapid advancements would those be? The thing is that rapid advances in AI usually are not open-source or plug and play software.

I don't think I understand? Are you trying to tell me I'm misunderstanding what AI is in a roundabout way? If so yeah I'm sorry i'm no computer genius but there's definitely been progress in terms of what the game can do with staff interaction etc.

I think a better idea would be to have an option where you can replace the player's 1-20 attributes with wee arrows like in the training-progress screens. A straight up arrow, slightly up arrow, horizontal arrow, slightly down arrow, and down arrow. So a "slightly up arrow" would indicate the player has 13-16 stat in that attribute, and there's no way of knowing if that is a 13,14,15 or 16. The ambiguity would represent that no one can tell EXACTLY how good someone's shot is, you just go on what you see in training and whatnot, but the rough range of 13-16 would represent that you've watched them in training for weeks, months, years and know approximately where they stand. From there you can pick your team and then see which of your two "slightly up arrow" finishes actually has a better shot over the course of a few months of games.

How about a change in stats appearance? Make it just like morale looks for us.

So instead of seeing Lionel Messi dribbling = 20, we see, dribbling = superb

This is a good idea in terms of adding realism. I mean, let's face it, no one thinks of a player like "his jumping is 16". The players should have a list of how well or bad they can do things. Maybe even "he is as good or slightly better than...." like in Genie. Attribute system feels like playing an RPG

I think its a really good idea!

I dont use the features of staff advice and such as much as i should and this would make me

It would take out bias selections from the game but only flaw is we know skilled players from real life and previous versions

How about we first work out the match engine first and stopping strange come backs before we go make the game even more hardcore than it already is.

FM is already way too difficult for the casual gamer - this would just kill it - even if it were an "optional" addition.

Less fluff in my opinion - game was far more enjoyable with less "work" to be done between games.

This idea is an interesting one, I know for one that I only look at attributes and not any reports when signing players. However, I think that a massive improvement would have to be made to the quality of the coaching reports to make this remotely work (seriously I don't why I have an assistant manager ever, they are useless and sometimes I think they are actually working for the AI rather than us because they so bad). I think at the current quality of coaching reports the assistant manager/coaches would say that a 17 year old Wayne Rooney has no future in the game.

It's actually not too difficult to modify the skin-files so that player attributes are not displayed anymore.

I had a fairly long game (maybe 15 seasons) on FM2007 playing like that, and found that it made the game much more interesting again. In previous versions I always picked a team in the conference and guided them to the premiership, averaging a promotion every two seasons or so. (Not meant as bragging; I know most people on these forums can do it much faster...) Anyway, with no attributes and only scout reports and match statistics to go on, taking a small team to greatness was harder, but still doable: I think I had made it to the championship in 15 seasons (or so) before the save file got corrupted and I couldn't load it anymore.

So the mode the OP is proposing is definitely already quite doable, though more difficult than the normal game. I think my favourite thing about playing without attributes was that I never knew how good the players I bought were going to be. With attributes, you pretty much know what you're getting (at least I sign very few duds when playing with attribs), but without attributes there's always a lot of nervousness when your new signing takes the field for the first time. And quite a few of them turned out to be really bad...

Every other football manager game has attributes like this because they're lazy, unimaginative and basically just want a slice of what CM/FM has had in terms of £££.

So Championship Manager was the first football management sim? It wasn't, there were plenty before it, and every one I can think of had some sort of attribute stats. It's not because they are lazy, it's because this seems like the best way of quickly displaying how good a player is at something.

And i've made it pretty clear why i think this would be better. basically it would be a lot more realistic and rewarding. less robotic and forumulaic. Your goal would not just to fill your squad with as many players as you can who have fantastic stats. Anyone can think, right I want a quick striker. Hmm lets look at pace accelaration off the ball composure finishing etc. It would be much cooler and more rewarding to play against someone who impresses you, or have a scout or other member of staff recommend someone.

What you are talking about sounds like it's going to lead to reading a lot of text in the long run. Which of these examples is easier to process in your head (bearing in mind how many attributes there are in the game and not just 3):

1:

<Coach> thinks that <Player> is an excellent header of the ball

<Coach> thinks that <Player> is a decent passer of the ball

<Coach> thinks that <Player> isn't very good at marking at all

2:

Heading: 19

Passing: 12

Marking: 4

Along with the colour coding which makes everything even easier on the eye to tell where a players strengths are the numbered attributes system wins hands down for me. Now if this isn't exactly the idea that you are talking about then give some examples of how it should be in your mind, as you are being too vague with this revolution you are talking about.

ison, i agree totally with you, it is far more realistic than 1-20. as along as it is just optional so that the people that like using the attributes, they still can. that way everyone's a winner

Sounds like you should try playing LLM... head over to their forum, but make sure to read the rules first

I'm sure someone could knock up a skin that simply kept stats hidden...?

It's actually not too difficult to modify the skin-files so that player attributes are not displayed anymore.

I had a fairly long game (maybe 15 seasons) on FM2007 playing like that, and found that it made the game much more interesting again. In previous versions I always picked a team in the conference and guided them to the premiership, averaging a promotion every two seasons or so. (Not meant as bragging; I know most people on these forums can do it much faster...) Anyway, with no attributes and only scout reports and match statistics to go on, taking a small team to greatness was harder, but still doable: I think I had made it to the championship in 15 seasons (or so) before the save file got corrupted and I couldn't load it anymore.

So the mode the OP is proposing is definitely already quite doable, though more difficult than the normal game. I think my favourite thing about playing without attributes was that I never knew how good the players I bought were going to be. With attributes, you pretty much know what you're getting (at least I sign very few duds when playing with attribs), but without attributes there's always a lot of nervousness when your new signing takes the field for the first time. And quite a few of them turned out to be really bad...

That sounds good bar the fact that I don't think it could work on current versions because the interactivity is so basic and predictable. Like a lot of people have highlighted, a game where there were no visible stats would have to have much more advanced coach/scout/other staff input.

So Championship Manager was the first football management sim? It wasn't, there were plenty before it, and every one I can think of had some sort of attribute stats. It's not because they are lazy, it's because this seems like the best way of quickly displaying how good a player is at something.

What you are talking about sounds like it's going to lead to reading a lot of text in the long run. Which of these examples is easier to process in your head (bearing in mind how many attributes there are in the game and not just 3):

1:

<Coach> thinks that <Player> is an excellent header of the ball

<Coach> thinks that <Player> is a decent passer of the ball

<Coach> thinks that <Player> isn't very good at marking at all

2:

Heading: 19

Passing: 12

Marking: 4

Along with the colour coding which makes everything even easier on the eye to tell where a players strengths are the numbered attributes system wins hands down for me. Now if this isn't exactly the idea that you are talking about then give some examples of how it should be in your mind, as you are being too vague with this revolution you are talking about.

Statistics may be a good way of displaying how good a player is but it's just not at all realistic and turns players into spreadsheets with little to no personality, and CM may not have been the first football management sim but it's definitely what rival developers will have perceived as the bench mark. I think that stats WERE the best way of doing things way back before we could ever hope for such an increase in realism but FM needs to change with the times and continue to strive to become the best football management SIMULATION it can.

The format you've listed in your post is basically what's in the game at the moment and that's the point, it needs to change. I don't want the robotic staff I've grown to repeatedly ignore who aren't capable of stringing together a coherent passage of speech and i'm sure no one else really appreciates their input. I'm no genius but I think if SI focused on this aspect of the game instead of throwing in superficial rubbish to keep people buying their games it would be much more rewarding. I understand what you mean when you say that what coaches etc. say will just reflect the stats but there's ways around this. For example, instead of a coach responding as you've written, maybe it could be something like this:

'Coach X would like to bring it to your attention that young full-back X is the real stand-out performer in training at the moment. If he continues to maintain this level of performance, you could do worse than use him as back-up for player X. He has always been solid when it comes to defending, but he is really starting to utilise his pace and natural fitness and has shown vast improvements in his ability to both attack and track back competently. If need be he could certainly do a job as a wing-back and even as a wide midfielder at a push. Sometimes his decision making can be questionable and he can be caught ball-watching, but at 17 it's not uncommon and isn't really an issue in the long term.'

Do you see why it wouldn't be necessary to know how good he is specifically at heading etc, but with more updates your coaches could periodically come back with more information about how he is performing, and perhaps mention how he is showing signs of improved anticipation when dealing with high balls etc. I know this sort of depth would take A LOT of man hours on the part of SI, but come on this is 2010 and it wouldn't hurt to be a little more ambitious than they've been recently bar the fantastic 2d engine that came out a few years back and has been nigh perfected. Basically, to understand where I'm coming from, I think you have to completely forget there were ever stats involved and look at it from a new angle.

How much better would this be if they could pull it off? I really don't think it's a complete impossibility. Just not easy. They probably wouldn't do it because it's an obvious risk, but meh.

Sounds like you should try playing LLM... head over to their forum, but make sure to read the rules first

I'm sure someone could knock up a skin that simply kept stats hidden...?

Haha been there . A skin would be cool but like i say, i don't think the staff are good enough on this version to make it work properly.

I don't think I understand? Are you trying to tell me I'm misunderstanding what AI is in a roundabout way? If so yeah I'm sorry i'm no computer genius but there's definitely been progress in terms of what the game can do with staff interaction etc.

You were mentioning rapid advancements in AI and didn't mention which advancements you were referring to. There are AI's developed for a lot of situations and there's been progress, but still very far from simulating a conversation between two people, i.e. between a coach and manager or a player and manager.

How much better would this be if they could pull it off? I really don't think it's a complete impossibility. Just not easy. They probably wouldn't do it because it's an obvious risk, but meh.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be better for the following reason: programmers can type in only a finite amount of coach responses, let's say about 5000. So if you load up a database with 10, 20 or 50 000 players, those responses will very soon become repetitive and boring. Something like the press conferences. I like to play databases with 50000 or more players so 1 in 10 players would have the same coach response. If I have 30 players in my squad, there is a good probability that at any given time at least 3 players will have the same coach response. For example;

'Coach X would like to bring it to your attention that Frank Lampard is the real stand-out performer in training at the moment. He excels as an attacking midfielder, positions him self intelligently during the attack faze, his passing is precise and has a powerful long shot.'

'Coach X would like to bring it to your attention that Steven Gerrard is the real stand-out performer in training at the moment. He excels as an attacking midfielder, positions him self intelligently during the attack faze, his passing is precise and has a powerful long shot.'

This way I really can't tell some subtle differences between Lampard and Gerrard in a way that attributes allow me to. To me it would feel like having the same player, only different names.

This could be avoided by typing in responses for all possible attribute combinations, but that is an insane amount of work. If there were only 10 attributes with a 20 point scale, that would require 20^10 responses. If SI started programming this now, it would be ready for FM44517. Even if you would write the code in the way that, for example, heading from 1 to 5 or 10 to 15 would produce the same response, that would require 4^36 different responses (not including the hidden or position attributes) and 4^36 = 47 with 20 zeros following.

It would make more sense if your scouts' attributes would determine what your representation of the stats would be. This is how it is in OOTP. Right now, it's easy as cake to go from BluSQ to the PL. All you need is time. The reason? Free transfers. You can find an assortment of them no matter the league you play. You can determine if they'll be stars for you or not just by the representation of stats. Sure, every player has hidden stats. However, the amount of stats visible to you outweighs those that are hidden.

Since the game has already provided you a solid base of tactics. You only need to do the other two major parts. Scouting and the management of your club. Since squad rotation is actually useless due to lack of proper player fatigue, scouting is really the only essential ingredient. Cheers to the OP for the discussion.

You were mentioning rapid advancements in AI and didn't mention which advancements you were referring to. There are AI's developed for a lot of situations and there's been progress, but still very far from simulating a conversation between two people, i.e. between a coach and manager or a player and manager.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be better for the following reason: programmers can type in only a finite amount of coach responses, let's say about 5000. So if you load up a database with 10, 20 or 50 000 players, those responses will very soon become repetitive and boring. Something like the press conferences. I like to play databases with 50000 or more players so 1 in 10 players would have the same coach response. If I have 30 players in my squad, there is a good probability that at any given time at least 3 players will have the same coach response. For example;

'Coach X would like to bring it to your attention that Frank Lampard is the real stand-out performer in training at the moment. He excels as an attacking midfielder, positions him self intelligently during the attack faze, his passing is precise and has a powerful long shot.'

'Coach X would like to bring it to your attention that Steven Gerrard is the real stand-out performer in training at the moment. He excels as an attacking midfielder, positions him self intelligently during the attack faze, his passing is precise and has a powerful long shot.'

This way I really can't tell some subtle differences between Lampard and Gerrard in a way that attributes allow me to. To me it would feel like having the same player, only different names.

This could be avoided by typing in responses for all possible attribute combinations, but that is an insane amount of work. If there were only 10 attributes with a 20 point scale, that would require 20^10 responses. If SI started programming this now, it would be ready for FM44517. Even if you would write the code in the way that, for example, heading from 1 to 5 or 10 to 15 would produce the same response, that would require 4^36 different responses (not including the hidden or position attributes) and 4^36 = 47 with 20 zeros following.

Maybe I was being a little too specific in trying to demonstrate where I think the series should be going now but I really don't think it would take thousands of years to be able to pull off. Maybe not in the way you put it, but there must be ways round it. A few years maybe. Look at the 2D engine. How awesome is that? Back in the days of LMA manager i never thought someone would be able to make an engine that you can't read like a book. The basic principle behind my original post remains, that with stats it's too formulaic and just not realistic. There's no need to gamble or make decisions based on human judgement, just a knowledge of how the game works. It wouldn't be easy but I don't think it's totally unrealistic.

I don't understand why everyone has been so negative towards this idea. In my opinion, this is exactly the sort of direction FM should be heading in, taking out the numbers from the game and putting in a more easily understandable and realistic interface. Afterall it's what they did with tactics this year, shifting from 'classic' sliders to terms like 'deep lying playmaker' etc.

Maybe not for FM 2011/12 but I'd love to see it implemented a few years down the line.

Maybe I was being a little too specific in trying to demonstrate where I think the series should be going now but I really don't think it would take thousands of years to be able to pull off. Maybe not in the way you put it, but there must be ways round it. A few years maybe. Look at the 2D engine. How awesome is that? Back in the days of LMA manager i never thought someone would be able to make an engine that you can't read like a book. The basic principle behind my original post remains, that with stats it's too formulaic and just not realistic. There's no need to gamble or make decisions based on human judgement, just a knowledge of how the game works. It wouldn't be easy but I don't think it's totally unrealistic.

My point is that currently there is no way around typing in thousands and thousands of different responses. Yes, there were advancements in AI technology, but nowhere near to the point that the computer can by itself create a sentence. It must be typed in.

The 2D engine (as far as I've read about it) actually behaves on a similar principle; there are predetermined basic animations which are triggered when the ME makes some calculation and random variables influence movement so that the animation appears unique from game to game. But you really can't compare a situation where a random variable tells the ME to move player No.3 to coordinates (3.42,7.11) with the situation where the AI has to produce a sentence which must make sense and must appear original.

Hi all,

I started playing the game in 1997 and haven't looked back since. CM2, CM3, CM4 and the FM series have stolen more hours from me that probably anything else I've put my mind to and I have some great memories playing CM01/02 network games and later FM08 with my house mates at uni. I've won the Prem with Chelmsford City and done a hell of a lot better with my native Bristol City on FM2010 than Gary Johnson has this season.

Don't get me wrong, the game is still infinitely playable and leagues above anything else out there but I don't get as much out of it as I used to. I'm sure I can't be the only one out there who starts a new game every now and again and gets a depressing sense of deja vu before quitting, so I've come up with an idea - to include a game mode (at the very least) where player stats are completely hidden and inaccessible. I know many people will immediately dismiss this as stupid as that's the format that has got FM to where it is today, but think about it. In the early days of CM, there was no assistant advice, no decent scout reports, no fans spokesman, no board interaction, no training feedback, no back room meetings, no visible match engine, and so the ONLY thing you could go on to judge whether a player was good or not was his stats.

Nowadays, all of these things are included and are getting better and better with every version. But seriously, who actually pays attention to anything any of your staff have to say? How many times do you get a scout report for someone just to see what their stats are whilst completely disregarding whether or not they'll become a leading star, and conversely how many times have you read what the scout has to say before looking at the players stats and wondering what the hell your ca/pa 20/20 scout has been sniffing? How many times have you really wanted to play someone that's come up through your youth system and tipped to become a good player by your coaches, only to look at his stats and predict with near perfect accuracy that he's never going to amount to anything?

Sure, having no visible stats would certainly make the game more challenging, but also in my opinion infinitely more rewarding. If Sports Interactive were to work hard to improve the staff's verbal input regarding promising youth players, potential signings, in form players, out of form players, as well as an increase in the importance of the chairman and supporters, it really could work. That way you could really uncover a diamond of a player that isn't known by the whole FM community and you could give that 17 year old player who's just come through a chance in your first team as suggested by your (infinitely less formulaic) assistant manager. I think this would be FAR more realistic and breathe fresh life into a game. With the rapid advances in AI now it seems like a logical step.

Just as a totally random example, let's look at Wayne Rooney. Do you think David Moyes looked at his stats and saw a load of 17+'s and thought he'd give him a run out? No, he'd watch him in training, talk to his youth coaches, slowly integrate him with the first team etc before giving him a run out on the pitch. The Football manager engine is capable of some pretty decent interaction with staff, so why not take it that bit further? This is 2010 after all. What do you think?

I look at scout reports and take them extremely seriously. they reveal mentalities and hidden attributes which aren't apparent in the showed attributes

I think a better idea would be to have an option where you can replace the player's 1-20 attributes with wee arrows like in the training-progress screens. A straight up arrow, slightly up arrow, horizontal arrow, slightly down arrow, and down arrow. So a "slightly up arrow" would indicate the player has 13-16 stat in that attribute, and there's no way of knowing if that is a 13,14,15 or 16. The ambiguity would represent that no one can tell EXACTLY how good someone's shot is, you just go on what you see in training and whatnot, but the rough range of 13-16 would represent that you've watched them in training for weeks, months, years and know approximately where they stand. From there you can pick your team and then see which of your two "slightly up arrow" finishes actually has a better shot over the course of a few months of games.

That's been suggested in the past and I think it's an interesting idea. There are a few ways you could manage something like that. Apart from your suggestion, one way would be still to have the numbers, but with a built-in error.

To explain: if you see someone with passing attribute 15, they could have a "real" passing attribute anywhere between 12 and 18. The more you scout someone and watch them play, the more accurate the number is. For instance, if it's a player whom you don't know much about, there might be a very large error - e.g. a 15 attribute could mean as low as 11 or as high as 18-19 - but once you start scouting them a lot or once you purchase them, the error range becomes much smaller.

This approach would deal with quite a few issues.

- Firstly, it means that you don't have absolute precision in relation to a player's abilities, which is probably more realistic.

- Secondly, it avoids the problems created by long text-based descriptions: one person pointed out above that it would get really tiresome reading a bucketload of comments like "<Coach> thinks that <Player> is an excellent header of the ball". Under this system, you still get the convenience of numbers, but you know at the same time that those numbers are somewhat imperfect.

- Thirdly, it simulates the fact that learning about a player is a progressive thing. Under the current system, either you know none of a player's attributes, a few of them, or you know all of them. Under this system, the error can gradually be adjusted as the months and years go on, which matches what happens in reality.

If I'd have realised about attribute masking, I would have done this at the start of the game. Now I've been on this forum and seen all the spoilers, my knowledge is a lot broader than I now wish. Guess I'll have to wait until FM11, unless SI fancy changing every players PA and CA to help me achieve it

i doubt they would ever do this, but my god would it be amazing. i would only play like this.

The match engine doesn't provide anywhere near enough detail visually to make this viable, it also doesn't make much sense as managers in real life don't sit blindfolded in the dressing room awaiting feedback from coaches to tell them who is and is not good.

I think this is a fresh and fantastic idea. I'm like Ison and have been playing the game for many years, and i think the format although still addictive is begining to get stale for many of us who have played the game for over 10 years. it would be much more realistic removing the stats altogether.

As the manager you would need to attend reserve team games and youth team games to gauge what talent you already have within the ranks, whilst also attending other matches as we see so often see in real life.

I appreciate that any newcomers to FM would probably find it hard to take to, as it would mean that you would be playing games less often etc etc. however would be a fantastic option if it could be created.

How often can you start a game with say Leeds (no offence intended) and have won the premiership within 5 years. this is just unrealistic and is only achievable because you know what type of player you are buying because you can see his stats.

Even teams like Liverpool and Man Utd make bad signings: Kleberson, Kromkamp, Djemba Djemba, Josemi etc but because we can see the players attributes it is rare that we would sign a bad player

It would take alot of time to programme but would be a great addition

If I'd have realised about attribute masking, I would have done this at the start of the game. Now I've been on this forum and seen all the spoilers, my knowledge is a lot broader than I now wish. Guess I'll have to wait until FM11, unless SI fancy changing every players PA and CA to help me achieve it

Start a new game with fake player names.

The 3D match engine is nowhere near good enough for this to work.

That's been suggested in the past and I think it's an interesting idea. There are a few ways you could manage something like that. Apart from your suggestion, one way would be still to have the numbers, but with a built-in error.

To explain: if you see someone with passing attribute 15, they could have a "real" passing attribute anywhere between 12 and 18. The more you scout someone and watch them play, the more accurate the number is. For instance, if it's a player whom you don't know much about, there might be a very large error - e.g. a 15 attribute could mean as low as 11 or as high as 18-19 - but once you start scouting them a lot or once you purchase them, the error range becomes much smaller.

This approach would deal with quite a few issues.

- Firstly, it means that you don't have absolute precision in relation to a player's abilities, which is probably more realistic.

- Secondly, it avoids the problems created by long text-based descriptions: one person pointed out above that it would get really tiresome reading a bucketload of comments like "<Coach> thinks that <Player> is an excellent header of the ball". Under this system, you still get the convenience of numbers, but you know at the same time that those numbers are somewhat imperfect.

- Thirdly, it simulates the fact that learning about a player is a progressive thing. Under the current system, either you know none of a player's attributes, a few of them, or you know all of them. Under this system, the error can gradually be adjusted as the months and years go on, which matches what happens in reality.

now this idea i do actually like

Ison - I'm 100% behind this idea. It's only "realistic", if that's what SI want, to not be able to see a definite numerical rating for a player's attributes. I think enough has been said about how managers in real life don't have the same experience when signing players as we do. I'm already trying my best to play like this now. When I look at a player's profile for the first time, I go straight to his match stats. As long as the player is performing very well, I will give him a try no matter how terribly rated he is. I would scout him and, if he keeps up his good form, I would consider a transfer. Of course, this has to be sustained form and not some 3 game thing. Definitely keep an eye for long enough(a season would be good). This for me has greatly improved the game's appeal to me...but I would very much prefer not to have to force myself away from the glaring numbers in the profile.

You're missing the point simon, if stats are turned off COMPLETELY, that means there are no stats whatsoever visible for your players or anyone elses, you would have to make judgements on what you saw on the pitch with your own eyes, and the reports you would get from other people. Hence making it far more realistic.

I would never pay more attention to training and other kind of reports.

And how should I remember each player without looking at their stats? Especially with regens.

To remove player stats will certainly remove many FM fans!

I would never pay more attention to training and other kind of reports.

And how should I remember each player without looking at their stats? Especially with regens.

To remove player stats will certainly remove many FM fans!

They could make it an option...

Sure the aim of the game is to be as realistic as possible. But there is a line. you must not cross it.

At the end of the day, reality is reality and game is game. A realistic game is still a game.

And in a game, there are always limitations that fall short of reality.

what has been suggested here about the player attributes sounds like a really good idea, but it can only work if you are actually interacting with real life human staff and actually spending 40 hours a week at the job.

As of right now, no game company on this earth can produce AI that can think for itself satisfactorily. No matter how advanced, the AI of a game will always prove to be repetitive and contradictory. Because they are programmed.

Daft Idea!!! Sort your head out you mugg.............

The way I could see this working (although I doubt i'd use it anyway) would be to still show the "graph view" of stats, along with feedback from your coaches/scouts on a player's specific strengths and weaknesses. A manager would know, for instance, that their young kid John Brennan (used a newgen here) is a very technical, creative player, is useless in the air, not particularly fast, a poor defender but a decent attacker. This along with his position of MC/AMC would give you an idea on the type of player he is, an idea anyone could see in training, practice games, etc. What it wouldn't tell you, which your coaches would have to let you know, is that he is a decent tackler (15), just can't man mark (6), and while he can get up and direct a header when free (11 jumping 10 heading) his strength (6) is what lets him down aerially.

Sounds dangerously "Champ Man-ish" if I'm honest. Can't see how it could work without being as tedious as the horrible press conferences.

I love it when they say "This system is totally realistic".

This is a game that allows a 29 year old former Sunday league footballer take over as Man Utd manager, just sayin'.

I concur this idea, and in the future would take it even further; You wont get feedback on your players unless asking specifically a coach to watch a specific player over time in a specific skill (eg. Have Marcus Gayle watch John Main in training for a couple of weeks, filing a report like this; Main has been slacking a bit in training sessions lately. He clearly is most comfortable when being given the ball in the backroom. His heading isnt bad, maybe you could try him as backup center defender?) Here the coach (Marcus Gayle isnt a very good coach yet, so he would also fill in some false info. Main can not play CD) gives a short summary of the player. Now its up to you to actually watch Main in games, try him out a bit given various orders, and THEN (voilá) have a NOTEBOOK where you can add various info on him as you unlock them (eg. after playing several games in the poacher role, you have noticed Main has a tendency to break the offside traps often. He is also pacey with good acceleration. In the few games he has been used as a CD, on the other hand, you have noticed his marking and tackling is really poor). All this info can be obtained by studying players in-game. It would also make scouts even more important (as they are irl), as they would be capable of giving you these notes before you decide to purchase a player (e. coach Simone reports on Freddy Adu; Adu is a fast player. He seems to enjoy himself best in 1v1 situations. This is the report of his card. If you want deeper analysis send the coatch to wath him in game (option;send coach x to watch Adu 1 game, 2 games, several games).

That's been suggested in the past and I think it's an interesting idea. There are a few ways you could manage something like that. Apart from your suggestion, one way would be still to have the numbers, but with a built-in error.

To explain: if you see someone with passing attribute 15, they could have a "real" passing attribute anywhere between 12 and 18. The more you scout someone and watch them play, the more accurate the number is. For instance, if it's a player whom you don't know much about, there might be a very large error - e.g. a 15 attribute could mean as low as 11 or as high as 18-19 - but once you start scouting them a lot or once you purchase them, the error range becomes much smaller.

This approach would deal with quite a few issues.

- Firstly, it means that you don't have absolute precision in relation to a player's abilities, which is probably more realistic.

- Secondly, it avoids the problems created by long text-based descriptions: one person pointed out above that it would get really tiresome reading a bucketload of comments like "<Coach> thinks that <Player> is an excellent header of the ball". Under this system, you still get the convenience of numbers, but you know at the same time that those numbers are somewhat imperfect.

- Thirdly, it simulates the fact that learning about a player is a progressive thing. Under the current system, either you know none of a player's attributes, a few of them, or you know all of them. Under this system, the error can gradually be adjusted as the months and years go on, which matches what happens in reality.

I also think this is a good idea.

I like the idea of what the OP is trying to achieve, but I think that as things stand our computers/programmers do not have the grunt to achieve it (as Blab as excellently described). I think you have to construct a game that weighs realism against fun and having no attributes is taking things too far from fun towards realism (for the majority of users).

I actually think SI do a very good job of managing to create the feeling that you are dealing with people with opinions, personalities and ambitions just from 30 or so numerical stats.

Edit: going back to the OP, you would also need to remove the attributes from staff and this would in turn then create a whole new can of worms for describing how good your staff are and upon what basis you would hire them.