Researchers too conservative?

Look, I don't mean to get on the researchers back as they do a great job and it's impossible to please everyone. However, i feel that often when players need to be upgraded the researchers are too conservative in handing out attribute points. For example Vermaelen, who has proven himself to be an excellent acquisition for Arsenal has only gained a few extra points in his attributes. Feel free to tell me i'm wrong or delete this thread if you feel it's disrespectful but i just wanted to know what you guys think?

Same problem with the Nottingham Forest ones. I'm not sure why but Wes Morgan is our best centre half and has been for 2/3 seasons but he's utter gash on this game.

How many games do researchers go to?

I agree completely.

Another noticable player Darren Bent I mean he still looks pretty crap aswell.

Look, I don't mean to get on the researchers back as they do a great job and it's impossible to please everyone. However, i feel that often when players need to be upgraded the researchers are too conservative in handing out attribute points. For example Vermaelen, who has proven himself to be an excellent acquisition for Arsenal has only gained a few extra points in his attributes. Feel free to tell me i'm wrong or delete this thread if you feel it's disrespectful but i just wanted to know what you guys think?

I think that if you have a genuine gripe with a piece of data in the game, post about it in the relevant thread in the Data Issues forum. If you follow the rules and post sensibly you will receive a sensible reply from the researcher of said club.

Same problem with the Nottingham Forest ones. I'm not sure why but Wes Morgan is our best centre half and has been for 2/3 seasons but he's utter gash on this game.

How many games do researchers go to?

I can speak for every English researcher when I say we attend every game possible.

I don't want to slag them off or anything but i feel the point has to be made. Gareth Bale is another one. Over the last few months his performances have been outstanding and his stats for pace and acceleration remaining at 14 seems strange.

I think that if you have a genuine gripe with a piece of data in the game, post about it in the relevant thread in the Data Issues forum. If you follow the rules and post sensibly you will receive a sensible reply from the researcher of said club.

I have done but i'm trying to make a more general point about the researcher's conservatism.

I think it is a bit harsh to stereotype all researchers as lazy so-and-sos. The amount of detail that goes into the game is incredible, across all levels, and should be commended, not criticised. I, for one, know just how hard the researchers work on the game, and for all the thousands of players in the game, I think it is a minor miracle just how few mistakes there actually are.

To be honest, football is always going to be a matter of opinion, that is never going to change.

I think there may well be an attitude that half a season playing well doesn't mean the player is better (ala Vermalaen).

I don't think they're lazy or anything like that in fact I think that overall they do a great job and I know that I couldn't devote that much time to doing it. I just think that they should be a bit more generous with the attributes they give in general, or at least find a way to make the stats more consistent throughout the game. For example, Yaya Toure and Steven Gerrard have the same creativity attribute, something which clearly isn't the case irl.

I don't want to slag them off or anything but i feel the point has to be made. Gareth Bale is another one. Over the last few months his performances have been outstanding and his stats for pace and acceleration remaining at 14 seems strange.

In Bale's case it's obvious that while he is playing incredibley well, he has been mostly injured or on the bench since he first got injured playing under Martin Jol. He's only been a regular at Spurs for what, 10 games? Maybe the data was locked or whatever. His stats will surely be updated in FM11.

no-one said they were lazy... simply to conservative.... i happen to agree in this point..

and yes... for specific data issues i will put queries into the relevent data threads..

but as this is a general discussion about the research done in the newest patch.. i see no reason to take it anywhere else...

im very suprised with quite a few changes (or indeed, lack thereof) in the new patch...

I can understand no changes to the likes of rooney etc (not really an improvement from the player.. simply a change of position and playing style )

but the likes of behrami,lee chun-yong, ashley young, damien duff, saha, zamora, and the examples above are wayyyy below par .. im a little bit dissapointed infact.... and im usually a stoic defender of SI and their games.

also.. the likes of tevez (who is clearly a lot better in game then the best strikers in the game i.e rooney, torres etc), clichy etc are way to good in game yet again..

ahh well... least the editor is there

Bale had been back in the side for about 3 weeks when the researchers where asked to submit their data. Hardly enough time for a seriously considered re-evalution. Vermaelen was also increased for this update. If you have any specific issue I'd ask that you mention it in the relevant data thread to get a response from those who matter.

Cheers.

I don't think they're lazy or anything like that in fact I think that overall they do a great job and I know that I couldn't devote that much time to doing it. I just think that they should be a bit more generous with the attributes they give in general, or at least find a way to make the stats more consistent throughout the game. For example, Yaya Toure and Steven Gerrard have the same creativity attribute, something which clearly isn't the case irl.

Do you know what creativity means in FM?

no-one said they were lazy... simply to conservative.... i happen to agree in this point..

and yes... for specific data issues i will put queries into the relevent data threads..

but as this is a general discussion about the research done in the newest patch.. i see no reason to take it anywhere else...

im very suprised with quite a few changes (or indeed, lack thereof) in the new patch...

I can understand no changes to the likes of rooney etc (not really an improvement from the player.. simply a change of position and playing style )

but the likes of behrami,lee chun-yong, ashley young, damien duff, saha, zamora, and the examples above are wayyyy below par .. im a little bit dissapointed infact.... and im usually a stoic defender of SI and their games.

also.. the likes of tevez (who is clearly a lot better in game then the best strikers in the game i.e rooney, torres etc), clichy etc are way to good in game yet again..

ahh well... least the editor is there

Completely agree and this is exactly the point i was trying to make. Not saying anyone is lazy but i was dissapointed with the lack of change in the database as i was looking forward to being able to sign different players than I usually do. Maybe it's just my dissapointment making me want more drastic changes?

Do you know what creativity means in FM?

i dont... care to share?

Oh look, the annual "researchers are wrong and I'm right" thread. We have guidelines to follow, and we rate players according to these guidelines. If someone points out a problem with a player, sometimes its not that we don't agree, its that we would have to reduce other stats to increase certain attributes. And sometimes having one stat a bit off is better than having 4 or 5 out.

I think it is probably to let the researchers (a.k.a. the professionals) do their job. If you're really unhappy with specific players than post it in the data issues forum or just change their stats in the editor yourself.

Do you know what creativity means in FM?

I presume it's how much a player creates scoring opportunities and their ability to do something different to change the game? What does it mean?

If you have specific points on certain players I'd suggest posting in the data issues thread - http://community.sigames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=165

I have done and these have been ignored.

Even our ground capacity is wrong. Why is this? All it takes is a quick look on the clubs official website...Done in 20 seconds.

honestly... i dont feel anyone in this thread has given any researchers a hard time.... so please... get off our backs.. this is a general discussion thread about the conservativeness of the data changes..... id suggest if this offends researchers , that they are clearly not secure enough in their work...

if your going to put out work in the public domain.. expect constructive critisism

Oh look, the annual "researchers are wrong and I'm right" thread. We have guidelines to follow, and we rate players according to these guidelines. If someone points out a problem with a player, sometimes its not that we don't agree, its that we would have to reduce other stats to increase certain attributes. And sometimes having one stat a bit off is better than having 4 or 5 out.

Sorry if I annoyed you, and i'll be honest and admit that I don't fully understand the research process. Just giving my opinion.

I presume it's how much a player creates scoring opportunities and their ability to do something different to change the game? What does it mean?

It's just the players vision, the ability to see (not pull off) a good pass.

I completely agree with the idea behind this thread, I encourage SI to implement a more regular update regime. It is very difficult to get past some of the 'trolls' guarding the gate in the research forums. They really really are difficult to persuade on certain cases, all I can say is thank god Lukalu isn't English!

honestly... i dont feel anyone in this thread has given any researchers a hard time.... so please... get off our backs.. this is a general discussion thread about the conservativeness of the data changes..... id suggest if this offends researchers , that they are clearly not secure enough in their work...

if your going to put out work in the public domain.. expect constructive critisism

Who was offended?

It's just the players vision, the ability to see (not pull off) a good pass.

Okay. Does that make my original point about Gerrard's creativity compared to others wrong?

Okay. Does that make my original point about Gerrard's creativity compared to others wrong?

I don't know, I've not seen enough of Toure to compare to Gerrard. Just pointing out that creativity is one of the few attributes that doesn't mean what some expect it to mean.

How many players are in the database? And how many players have been mentioned here?

You're mentioning very isolated attributes or players that you think are wrong, there are many more players that are spot on and people here are talking about a very small minority of players stats that they think are wrong.

The researchers do a great job which is rarely mentioned.

Don't SI think it's a bit odd that researchers get ground capacitys wrong when all it takes is a 20 second check on the clubs website?

It's just weird really...

How many players are in the database? And how many players have been mentioned here?

You're mentioning very isolated attributes or players that you think are wrong, there are many more players that are spot on and people here are talking about a very small minority of players stats that they think are wrong.

The researchers do a great job which is rarely mentioned.

I've already stated that the researchers do a great job and I don't really think anyone is attacking the researchers. I've made my points and if you don't agree then fair enough.

How many players are in the database? And how many players have been mentioned here?

You're mentioning very isolated attributes or players that you think are wrong, there are many more players that are spot on and people here are talking about a very small minority of players stats that they think are wrong.

The researchers do a great job which is rarely mentioned.

I agree on a whole but certain examples like Italy need looking at, I don't remember the exact figures but at least 70% of the U20's are 0 PA

Song is considered the weakest link in the Arsenal first team, in my opinion that is an immediate flaw I have noticed with the Arsenal squad, dont the researchers check to see the implications of the date editing?

I agree on a whole but certain examples like Italy need looking at, I don't remember the exact figures but at least 70% of the U20's are 0 PA

That's actually how it's meant to be. If a researcher hasn't seen enough of a player to be confident of giving a PA, then the game will assign one using the same logic it would for a generated youth intake.

I suspect the researchers do tend on the side of conservatism when changing attributes and IMO they are right to do so.

Its all too easy to get lulled into thinking that a player is top class because they're on a good run, having a purple patch, but that is all it might be. Darren Bent is a good case in point. A lot of people have called for his attributes to be improved based on his early season form, when he was on fire. Since then, his form has tailed off, as, significantly, has Sunderland's

Really, you need to assess a player over a long period before being able to make an accurate judgement as to his ability. I think the researchers and database inputters are right to be cautious before making significant changes.

When people talk about attributes being upgraded, especially physical ones such as pace and acceleration they fail to remember that there are very different ends of the scales. Bale imo is about right at the 14 mark because the very top end would be the likes of Agbonlahor, Ronaldo & Walcott who would demand 19/20's then just behind them you'd have the Valencia's, Ashley Cole's, Ashley Young's at the 17/18's and the likes of Rooney & Defoe etc just behind that at 16's, so you have to ask, is Bale on the same sort of level as those players when it comes to pace or acceleration? Considering the likes of Rooney & Defoe would probably beat him to a loose ball over 40-50 yards then it's about right....

That's actually how it's meant to be. If a researcher hasn't seen enough of a player to be confident of giving a PA, then the game will assign one using the same logic it would for a generated youth intake.

mmm then we could see a complete unknown at Ravenna get 195 PA. While I respect your logic there, it certainly is 'dangerous'

Nice to have a direct response though, if only you'd tell me non loaded leagues newgens/regens in future versions will come in at 15/16 years old not 18/19 and that disliked 100 will be toned down if you leave a club

Song is considered the weakest link in the Arsenal first team, in my opinion that is an immediate flaw I have noticed with the Arsenal squad, dont the researchers check to see the implications of the date editing?

by who? He is rated very highly by every arsenal fan i know?

When people talk about attributes being upgraded, especially physical ones such as pace and acceleration they fail to remember that there are very different ends of the scales. Bale imo is about right at the 14 mark because the very top end would be the likes of Agbonlahor, Ronaldo & Walcott who would demand 19/20's then just behind them you'd have the Valencia's, Ashley Cole's, Ashley Young's at the 17/18's and the likes of Rooney & Defoe etc just behind that at 16's, so you have to ask, is Bale on the same sort of level as those players when it comes to pace or acceleration? Considering the likes of Rooney & Defoe would probably beat him to a loose ball over 40-50 yards then it's about right....

Fair point but i could also provide examples of players like Bentley, Gallas and Modric who have similar pace and acceleration attributes to Bale when in real life Bale is much faster than them. I also think that Bale could keep up with the likes of Rooney or Defoe but i suppose that shows how hard the researcher's jobs are. It's all a matter of opinion. Do researchers have any sort of meeting where they discuss particular stats and moderate them against each other? Obviously, this may be difficult to organise but i feel the opinion of more than one person would be helpful.

mmm then we could see a complete unknown at Ravenna get 195 PA. While I respect your logic there, it certainly is 'dangerous'

Nice to have a direct response though, if only you'd tell me non loaded leagues newgens/regens in future versions will come in at 15/16 years old not 18/19 and that disliked 100 will be toned down if you leave a club

The chance of Ravenna getting a 195 PA player though are incredibly small. The PA's will all be weighted according to the club's rep and their youth system, so it's very safe to have youngsters with a '0' PA.

The non-loaded leagues newgen ages does seem to be something that irks some people. Maybe it would be worth a discussion ahead of future versions.

Fair point but i could also provide examples of players like Bentley, Gallas and Modric who have similar pace and acceleration attributes to Bale when in real life Bale is much faster than them. I also think that Bale could keep up with the likes of Rooney or Defoe but i suppose that shows how hard the researcher's jobs are. It's all a matter of opinion. Do researchers have any sort of meeting where they discuss particular stats and moderate them against each other? Obviously, this may be difficult to organise but i feel the opinion of more than one person would be helpful.

This is an incredibly specific issue, and really would be best dealt with directly with the researcher in the designated club thread.

If all players have 44 attributes (something like that) and there are about 300,000 players then we're dealing with 2 of 13.2m attributes here

I think that they have an incredibly difficult job to do, because not only do you have set attributes, but you have to balance them too. For example people like Agbonlahor with 20 speed, 20 acceleration are way off the end of the scale pace wise and may be a lot faster than someone with 19 pace, 19 acceleration. All the attributes have to be balanced as well, for example with C. Ronaldo, I think they've had to devalue some of his attributes just so he has a CA of less than 200! (Free kicks and heading come to mind) Also if you think of the sheer amount of attributes in the game (as Stu Coleman said its 10's of millions) having certain attributes off by one or two points don't effect the overall game. And again you can always just edit it yourself if you feel there's a big oversight.

The chance of Ravenna getting a 195 PA player though are incredibly small. The PA's will all be weighted according to the club's rep and their youth system, so it's very safe to have youngsters with a '0' PA.

The non-loaded leagues newgen ages does seem to be something that irks some people. Maybe it would be worth a discussion ahead of future versions.

The reason it irks me is that as an enthusiast of real life prospects (I was very keen on Opare, Adams, Rabiu, Lodeiro, Osei, Pastore, Tafer amongst others) is as follows.

Nicolas Milian at Colo Colo, IRL he looks to follow Alexis Sanchez' footsteps (and the researchers condone this hence his "-9" previously but on many FM saves due to his age he gets left behind, by one season in Chile will have 19 year olds coming into the game who progress much quicker than he ever will, thus lessening authenticity in my opinion... basically I find regens from these countries can overawe real life talent, and as a person interested in real life wonderkids i think this is annoying. (i mean 2nd season in one my latest save Real Madrid has a classy Russian 20 year old left back) I can accept this 4/5 seasons in but it's not true to have a fake player in the R.M side in 2011.

---

also my other point stands, I don't think Marcelo Lippi is disliked 100 by Juventus, Nor Martin O'Neil at Celtic...etc etc I appreciate FM wants to make it so managers dont get re-hired but this area needs tweaking

Which capacities are incorrect please? Please do post the info in the club-specific Data Issues thread for the club involved, with proof.

I have raised this problem in the Nottingham Forest thread months ago. It has not been changed.

On the game, the capacity is 29,550. The official capacity is 30,576.

Without being a bit arsey about it, why do I have to provide proof? If the researcher can't be bothered to take 20 seconds to check on the clubs official website then I suggest he's the wrong man for the job.

The chance of Ravenna getting a 195 PA player though are incredibly small. The PA's will all be weighted according to the club's rep and their youth system, so it's very safe to have youngsters with a '0' PA.

The non-loaded leagues newgen ages does seem to be something that irks some people. Maybe it would be worth a discussion ahead of future versions.

also I believe you but I haven't really tested this version as much but I remember FM08 whenever I would load a new game at least two "0" mexicans/USA players would have 180+ PA (via genie)

I haven't noticed this as potent on this version tbf

I'd much rather them be too conservative than too generous. Furthermore, if they're too conservative across the board, doesn't that balance out? Honestly, this is one of the most balanced TBS strategy games I've played in any genre, so kudos to all the researchers.

But doesn't the existence of the FMRTE make the discussion moot? If people want to tweak stats they can do so any time they want.

with all due respect erasmus777 I have say 10 friends that play FM and only 2 know how to use the editor, the researchers have a job to be as accurate as possible

I ask for proof just so that the person stating an error can be sure of the error themselves. And so that we can see why you are stating the error (ie 30576 for the capacity), and can discuss this with the researcher and find the info out ourselves too.

Sometimes, even the club's official website is out, depending on how well it i managed, of course! But the more info you give, the better chance we have of finding out the scale of the error.

Fair enough, I'll post it in the relevant thread.

The capacity is also printed in our matchday programmes though, so I know the information on the website is correct.

Why wouldnt a small club have a 195 PA player in their youth team? Most of the best players in the world came through small clubs, not from Milan/ Real Madrid etc youth teams. It seems strange to me that the game stops smaller clubs developing top prospects.