PDA

View Full Version : Is 1-20 enough?



Dave9ffc
22-04-2010, 17:16
The database now contains so many players, is the range of attribute points enough to show the difference between players? Especially with people creating league pyramids that go 10+ down. Obviously it's not going to happen overnight but maybe just doubling them to 40 would make it easier to represent the gulf in class between amateur players and world class. For example an international striker like Iivica Olic has 11 finishing which is ok for about Blue Square Premier, now there is no way his finishing can be considered that poor compared to non league players. Wayne Rooney has long shots 13, Ashley Cole crossing 13, now these are fine compared to the best players but the lower league players compare too well and dropping all stats of poor players to 5 would make it almost impossible to differentiate between them.

Elrithral
22-04-2010, 17:24
13 and 9 might seem close, but they are poles apart. No need to change the current setup imo.

Brian Shanahan
22-04-2010, 17:26
Well you've over forty seperate atributes each with a range of 1-20, so that gives a possible choice of 1.099511627776e+32 different types of footballer. Now the CA/PA system limits that somewhat but even if we take only 10% as being the possible range that's 10,995,116,277,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible different footballers available. I think it will be a while before we see that exact amount of people alive never mind footballers.

Barkermush
22-04-2010, 17:34
Yeah i think so, i'm happy with 1-20.
Although i don't play any lower than the Blue Sqaure North/South.

I played CM10 not long before FM10 came out, and the 1-100 attributes were very hard to get used to, and a real off putter for me.
Especially when for the past 10 years(since CM 2000/01) i am used to playing with 1-20 attributes. :D

The Sean
22-04-2010, 18:01
I agree with the OP. I think you other fellas are missing the nuanced point here. It is not the mathematical range of possible permutations (sp?) that is being argued here; it is the tiny differences over a number of different attributes that separates great from exceptional, good from great, average from good and below-average from average. I, for one, always prefer the 100-point scale (please read on before flaming my post). I think it makes a huge difference when a player of 91 acceleration must defend a player of 98 acceleration. By the 20 point scale, that is most likely a 19 v 20 match-up. To the naked eye, it should be a crap-shoot. The real-life player with 98 acceleration that uese good pace-control should blow by even a player with 91 acceleration. Think of Damarcus Beasley. He has balzing speed--but little else. He can blow by players, which is awe-inspiring in its own right. However, where Beasley struggles is when he has to work the ball around a player in traffic. He loses most of these battles and looks poorer for the effort. I would probably rate him in the 40s (out of 100) in agrressiveness and physicality. That needs to be expressed rather than the 8 or 9 he would receive on FM. Beasley is NOT a world class player. He is not even a top-class American player. He makes the squad on his speed alone, yet this needs to be able to be expressed because it does happen IRL. From the countries (like mine) who do not have HUGE talent pools of incredibly gifted footballers, decisions have to be made to field players who have world class attributes in one or two categories, but nothing else. Also think of Eddie Johnson. He is another American speedster who can do little else. The bottom line is that this kind of change for FM will not make a dramatic difference in the top-flight leagues of the world (EPL, Serie A, La Liga, etc.) but it could dramatically effect the 2nd and 3rd tier leagues of the world, thereby making them more fun to play.

Hershie
22-04-2010, 18:11
It's enough. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

20 is easily enough to make a significant judgement. For instance, you can decide whether or not a player is a 18 or a 17 much more easily than you can for instance rate a player as 90 or 91.

In reality the small differences are not infact to do with minor discrepancies in the attributes themselves, but with the whole picture (ie other attributes of a player). Two players may both be 18 for passing, but the one with higher creativity and technique will probably perform better.

JGM
22-04-2010, 18:14
I agree with the OP. I think you other fellas are missing the nuanced point here. It is not the mathematical range of possible permutations (sp?) that is being argued here; it is the tiny differences over a number of different attributes that separates great from exceptional, good from great, average from good and below-average from average. I, for one, always prefer the 100-point scale (please read on before flaming my post). I think it makes a huge difference when a player of 91 acceleration must defend a player of 98 acceleration. By the 20 point scale, that is most likely a 19 v 20 match-up. To the naked eye, it should be a crap-shoot. The real-life player with 98 acceleration that uese good pace-control should blow by even a player with 91 acceleration. Think of Damarcus Beasley. He has balzing speed--but little else. He can blow by players, which is awe-inspiring in its own right. However, where Beasley struggles is when he has to work the ball around a player in traffic. He loses most of these battles and looks poorer for the effort. I would probably rate him in the 40s (out of 100) in agrressiveness and physicality. That needs to be expressed rather than the 8 or 9 he would receive on FM. Beasley is NOT a world class player. He is not even a top-class American player. He makes the squad on his speed alone, yet this needs to be able to be expressed because it does happen IRL. From the countries (like mine) who do not have HUGE talent pools of incredibly gifted footballers, decisions have to be made to field players who have world class attributes in one or two categories, but nothing else. Also think of Eddie Johnson. He is another American speedster who can do little else. The bottom line is that this kind of change for FM will not make a dramatic difference in the top-flight leagues of the world (EPL, Serie A, La Liga, etc.) but it could dramatically effect the 2nd and 3rd tier leagues of the world, thereby making them more fun to play.

I see what you are saying but I could see this being a researchers nightmare. It must be hard enough already to decide whether a players aggression is 19 or 20, without having to choose 98 or 99 or something. I could see a lot of the subtle differences in attributes just being assigned pretty much randomly.

Just my opinion :thup:

Piadinaro
22-04-2010, 18:32
Maybe a 1-30 system? I think it would be just right.

SCIAG
22-04-2010, 18:40
It's enough. It ain't broke, don't fix it.

20 is easily enough to make a significant judgement. For instance, you can decide whether or not a player is a 18 or a 17 much more easily than you can for instance rate a player as 90 or 91.

In reality the small differences are not infact to do with minor discrepancies in the attributes themselves, but with the whole picture (ie other attributes of a player). Two players may both be 18 for passing, but the one with higher creativity and technique will probably perform better.
The problem is that in the depths of the lower leagues, all players have 1s and 2s for their attributes, and it's impossible to distinguish between them.

I think a 1-30 scale could work. Just add 10 to all current attributes, except the very low ones, and use the extra 10 attribute points to rate very low players. Likewise, the CA scale could do with being expanded to 300.

Dave9ffc
22-04-2010, 18:44
I'm just throwing it out there, I'm not even particularly sure I agree with myself but mainly due to the hassle sorting it out and the fact there would be so much more room for error in stats. However I think having just maybe 12/14 points really of a difference for finishing as nobody would consider a striker in any league currently below 6, is not enough to represent the differences between the best strikers who can range from 10-20 depending on style and the rest going down to Northern Irish Amateur Premier Division or something

x42bn6
22-04-2010, 18:44
The database now contains so many players, is the range of attribute points enough to show the difference between players? Especially with people creating league pyramids that go 10+ down. Obviously it's not going to happen overnight but maybe just doubling them to 40 would make it easier to represent the gulf in class between amateur players and world class. For example an international striker like Iivica Olic has 11 finishing which is ok for about Blue Square Premier

I think that's pretty good for Blue Square Premier level, especially if combined with other attributes.


now there is no way his finishing can be considered that poor compared to non league players. Wayne Rooney has long shots 13, Ashley Cole crossing 13, now these are fine compared to the best players but the lower league players compare too well and dropping all stats of poor players to 5 would make it almost impossible to differentiate between them.

You need to watch lower-league football, there's cracking long shot goals there too.

As a whole, it's a combination of things which differentiate lower-league and top-tier players. Xabi Alonso's not just good at shooting from distance but knows how to find time and space, knows when to shoot (and when to pass) and has good technique. Joe Lumpit in the Blue Square North is OK at picking out the top corner with a lot of time and space but has no technique whatsoever, nor knows when to pass or shoot, so he'll never be as good as Xabi Alonso although Lumpit is by itself not a bad shooter from distance at that level.

Hershie
22-04-2010, 18:46
At a lower level I'd say it's pretty accurate that most players are much of a nothing, and thus those that are better than that stand out. 2 players may both be crap at passing, but one may perform so much better than the other due to other attributes, and I can't see what a bigger scale would really add.

Britrock
22-04-2010, 18:57
I think of ratings as being percentages of ability, 20 is world class and 100%, with 1 being rubbish and 5% (as there's no 0 value). Thus, each increase of one point is an increase in ability of 5%. So an increase of 2 points, which doesn't look like much when you compare two players, is actually an increase of 10% in ability, which actually seems quite a lot.

Personally, having played Madden and FIFA extensively, both with a 1-99 rating system, the FM ratings are infinitely easier understand. Do you really need to know that Lionel Messi (at say 98) is 1% better at passing than Ronaldo (at a 97)? Not really, it just gives you a headache when making decisions. A 1-20 system means that every difference in 1 point is a worthwhile increase.

gumszy
22-04-2010, 19:00
1-30 would be great and would make perfect sense I have been thinking this for a long time now. For example if a player has a stat of 1-10 for poistion this would be poor 10-20 would be average and 20-30 would be world class and this would make it much easier for si to make the world class players look much better than the poor and average players.

Brian Shanahan
22-04-2010, 19:03
The biggest problem I have with 1-100 scales is that the human mind is very bad at distinguishing the difference between two large numbers, an example would be thinking 5 is a lot larger than 1 whereas the mind cannot easily comprehend that in a linear system the difference between 95 and 91 is the same. we tend to think geometrically when we talk about differences so we automatically assume that as 5 is a multiple of 1 and 95 is not a multiple of 91 then the differences are greater at 5 and 1 than at 95 and 91. You get a bit of that in the current scale, but twenty is a manageable number.
The other problem is the sheer range of different postitions that could be generated by a 1-100 scale when talking about 40 different numbers. It comes out at 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+160 and even if we limit it with CA/PA (which would have to be done to a much higher scale to work right) down to 10% (like I said above) of the original range thats still 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+159 variables.

nev147
22-04-2010, 19:05
I agree with the OP. I think you other fellas are missing the nuanced point here. It is not the mathematical range of possible permutations (sp?) that is being argued here; it is the tiny differences over a number of different attributes that separates great from exceptional, good from great, average from good and below-average from average. I, for one, always prefer the 100-point scale (please read on before flaming my post). I think it makes a huge difference when a player of 91 acceleration must defend a player of 98 acceleration. By the 20 point scale, that is most likely a 19 v 20 match-up. To the naked eye, it should be a crap-shoot. The real-life player with 98 acceleration that uese good pace-control should blow by even a player with 91 acceleration. Think of Damarcus Beasley. He has balzing speed--but little else. He can blow by players, which is awe-inspiring in its own right. However, where Beasley struggles is when he has to work the ball around a player in traffic. He loses most of these battles and looks poorer for the effort. I would probably rate him in the 40s (out of 100) in agrressiveness and physicality. That needs to be expressed rather than the 8 or 9 he would receive on FM. Beasley is NOT a world class player. He is not even a top-class American player. He makes the squad on his speed alone, yet this needs to be able to be expressed because it does happen IRL. From the countries (like mine) who do not have HUGE talent pools of incredibly gifted footballers, decisions have to be made to field players who have world class attributes in one or two categories, but nothing else. Also think of Eddie Johnson. He is another American speedster who can do little else. The bottom line is that this kind of change for FM will not make a dramatic difference in the top-flight leagues of the world (EPL, Serie A, La Liga, etc.) but it could dramatically effect the 2nd and 3rd tier leagues of the world, thereby making them more fun to play.

Yes I do agree with alot. I like the 1-20 attributes but I think that it is more down to sentiment and not wanting change even though it may be for the better. Having played since CM96/97 the attributes have always been 20 and have just got use to them so they have become synonymous with FM.

But from a detail point of view a mark out of 20 is not enough (I wonder why CM/FM used 20 in the first place - i feel to see the logic?) becasue the current system IMO does not do justice the varying levels of abilities in World football from world class to the lowest of non league football.


Maybe a 1-30 system? I think it would be just right.

Maybe - when I played the CM demo the players were marked out of 100 i think and i hated it - not becasue it did not make sense but becasue I was so used to FM'S out of 20 system . I mean when we sign young prospects e.g. a CB and we are Barcelona (a top club for this example) he has 12 for heading, marking, and tackling a few key CB attributes) its not unthinkable to assume with the correct training, tutoring, first team action that my the time they are 21/22 then each of tose attributes will be at least 17 (an increase of 5 points - less then 1 point each year) this for me is too much of an increase given their starting attributes and to a degree makes a bit of a mockery of the out of 20 system. I'm not saying the sytem is bad I just think that the abilites of players cannot be truely shown in the 20 point method. I mean if Messi has 20 for Flair for example then there should not be like another 50 players in the game who have 20 for flair which would seem to be the case.

From the top end of world football the spread is just to narrow and does not allow a truely great player in one attribute to truley excel becasue of the parameteres of the 20 system that is in place at the minute.

I don't know what Brian means with the different types of combinations? Yes of course there are many combinations - but given one attribute the differences are very small between each level of footballing ability and thus surely a greater degree of marking gives us the manager a better scale of judging a players ability?

To the people who think the 20 scale is fine - why is it fine? What benefits does it have over a bigger scale to seperate the men from the boys! :D

Yes Hershie talks about dont try and fix something that is not broken - I dont think the current system is broken but if you can improve something IMO then its better to change to make something better then leave something that is not as good as the potential change.

Brian Shanahan
22-04-2010, 19:18
I don't know what Brian means with the different types of combinations? Yes of course there are many combinations - but given one attribute the differences are very small between each level of footballing ability and thus surely a greater degree of marking gives us the manager a better scale of judging a players ability?

To the people who think the 20 scale is fine - why is it fine? What benefits does it have over a bigger scale to seperate the men from the boys! :D

read my post above re understanding differences in a linear scale, the human mind (when educated) can grasp a 1-20 scale, whereas the 1-100 scale is way too complex. Personally I think the 1-20 scale is a good compromise between needed complexity and understandinbility. I've played a few of the post split CM games and one of my problems was always the 1-100 scale they adopted. I also remember them bringing back the 1-20 as an option, clearly if this is the case it was something the fans demanded and the developers realised they were right about.

On the different number of combinations, unless you were going to have whole (large) groups of attributes tracking each other you would end up with an extremely complicated algorithm to work everything out, not alone in assigning attributes, but also in how the players interact.

nev147
22-04-2010, 19:18
Better still its more about the comparisons that can be made between differenet players at the top of the game and thus with the 20 point system you get so many similar players that have similar levels of ability that IMO is not a true reflection of football at the top of the game. The increase attributes points system would bring bigger scrunity across the board and would maybe make more players who were special in a few attributes - such as a speed demon who was a tank or a really gifted technical player - yes these can be seen in FM I am not questioning that but you would decrease the level of repatition of the current players in FM and more so newgens. A greater diversity of player if you like - so players can really stand out and do a specific job that you want doing and taylor them to your needs.

nev147
22-04-2010, 19:21
read my post above re understanding differences in a linear scale, the human mind (when educated) can grasp a 1-20 scale, whereas the 1-100 scale is way too complex. Personally I think the 1-20 scale is a good compromise between needed complexity and understandinbility. I've played a few of the post split CM games and one of my problems was always the 1-100 scale they adopted. I also remember them bringing back the 1-20 as an option, clearly if this is the case it was something the fans demanded and the developers realised they were right about.

On the different number of combinations, unless you were going to have whole (large) groups of attributes tracking each other you would end up with an extremely complicated algorithm to work everything out, not alone in assigning attributes, but also in how the players interact.

Oh yes I see your point and from where you are comming from but it seems I am comming from the feel factor and you are comming from the scientific/mathamatical approach. :eek: Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with that - two different perspectives - and maybe a bigger points system is not practical at the end of the day.

Dave9ffc
22-04-2010, 19:26
I really don't like the idea of 1-100 myself definitely 1-30 or maybe 1-40 as a maximum. I don't think it should be changed just for the sake of it either, only if a good system that does work and significantly better than currently. But I do think for FM 12 perhaps it could massively increase the enjoyment for lower/lowest league management where there is a large enough difference in stats to make it sensible

kingjericho
22-04-2010, 19:30
yes! please don't ever change the 1-20 scale, it's perfect for this type of game. on a football -playing game like pes the 1-99 scale is good but on this game there is no need to have such a wide scale. 1-20 is perfect

DavidG589
22-04-2010, 19:32
Well you've over forty seperate atributes each with a range of 1-20, so that gives a possible choice of 1.099511627776e+32 different types of footballer. Now the CA/PA system limits that somewhat but even if we take only 10% as being the possible range that's 10,995,116,277,760,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible different footballers available. I think it will be a while before we see that exact amount of people alive never mind footballers.

Hmmm... I've always wanted a 1-100 system on FM to see if I prefer it. On reading this post, I'll forget about it.

Brian Shanahan
22-04-2010, 19:35
Oh yes I see your point and from where you are comming from but it seems I am comming from the feel factor and you are comming from the scientific/mathamatical approach. :eek: Not that I am saying there is anything wrong with that - two different perspectives - and maybe a bigger points system is not practical at the end of the day.

Even from the feel factor the only way such a large scale would be of any proper use to a suer, unless he wanted to put an inordinate amount of time into scrutinising numbers is if the number of attributes were drastically reduced, say to 10, or that the atributes were grouped together into a small number of tied groups where all the atributes were at the same level. Do you want to spend half the night trying to decide whether one player is better than another.

At the moment a normal person can tell fairly quickly (just about) the differences between two players.

bterz
22-04-2010, 19:47
It's more than enough. The game is already extremely complicated for casual or new gamers.

Robioto
22-04-2010, 21:02
No need to change it at all IMO. It's just right.

nev147
22-04-2010, 21:08
Even from the feel factor the only way such a large scale would be of any proper use to a suer, unless he wanted to put an inordinate amount of time into scrutinising numbers is if the number of attributes were drastically reduced, say to 10, or that the atributes were grouped together into a small number of tied groups where all the atributes were at the same level. Do you want to spend half the night trying to decide whether one player is better than another.

At the moment a normal person can tell fairly quickly (just about) the differences between two players.

Yeah thats was a bit of a problem on the CM demo - I could not tell who was good or not! :D But some of that was due to my familiarity to FM aswell I guess.

JGM
22-04-2010, 21:09
Im probally the only one, but I feel like a 1-99 system would make it feel too "gamey". I like 1-20 partly for the reason it feels less precise then other games ive played in the past using the 1-99 system. Someone above said CM had both which i guess would be the ideal solution.

I wonder what effect it would have on the size of the databases? I dont know how data is currently stored but i would guess the minimum ammount of bits to store a 1-20 number are used for each attribute- 5, with 1-100 they would need 7, small thing but could impact the size when you consider all the attributes of all the players

Rohkey
22-04-2010, 21:22
1-20 allows for people who judge abilities to have a bit of room for error, it's much more difficult to measure something on a 1-100 scale than a 1-20 scale, and you have to remember the abilities (at least for the real players upon creating your database) are not exact, they are determined by people who have to use their best judgment in assessing them, and the smaller the scale the easier it is for them to do their job effectively.

How do you really determine who crosses the ball better? Based on a few good crosses, every cross they have ever made, their 'average' cross, etc? It's incredibly subjective, as every circumstance has changing variables that make it nearly impossible to assign a number to in terms of value, and if a larger scale were used it would compound the difficult and make it hell for the researchers.

Katarian
22-04-2010, 21:24
1-20 is more then enough. It works pretty well for players in all the offical leagues. I don't want it changed just because it doesn't work that well for editor added lower leagues, it has to improve the supported parts of the game.

As it is it's often hard to tell if a player with 19 finishing is better then a player with 20 finishing, especially as technique, composure, decisions, etc... all play a part in finishing off a chance. How would you tell the difference between a 99 and 100, even without taking into account the other stats that might be somewhere in the 50-70 range.

Kenco
22-04-2010, 21:28
I like the 1-20 system because I am often looking at lots of numbers at the same time, and for some reason it is easier for my brain to take in and compare 9s, 16s, 17s, etc. than it would be to look at 45s, 78s, 84s, etc.

Sometimes less is more.

AB-forever
22-04-2010, 21:35
Maybe - when I played the CM demo the players were marked out of 100 i think and i hated it - not becasue it did not make sense but becasue I was so used to FM'S out of 20 system . I mean when we sign young prospects e.g. a CB and we are Barcelona (a top club for this example) he has 12 for heading, marking, and tackling a few key CB attributes) its not unthinkable to assume with the correct training, tutoring, first team action that my the time they are 21/22 then each of tose attributes will be at least 17 (an increase of 5 points - less then 1 point each year) this for me is too much of an increase given their starting attributes and to a degree makes a bit of a mockery of the out of 20 system. I'm not saying the sytem is bad I just think that the abilites of players cannot be truely shown in the 20 point method. I mean if Messi has 20 for Flair for example then there should not be like another 50 players in the game who have 20 for flair which would seem to be the case.

Just to address this part of your post, the reason Messi stands out is not only because his Flair is 20. It's because he has the skill and decision making to make the most of it. Most other players with as much flair can't use it right.

earmack
22-04-2010, 21:38
I think 20's good, it seems as intuitive as 100, and smaller numbers are more readily digested by our brains.

RBKalle
22-04-2010, 22:01
1-20 works just fine...

1-99 is way too confusing and dispersive for a game like FM, which is already flooded with numbers.

With the current system, once you're familiar with the 1-20 scale, it's quite easy spotting the difference between a 10-player and a 12-player.

The 1-99 scale would be just too much and it would make the job of researchers pure hell... We are already debating whether Player X should have 14 or 15 Acceleration, just think of what would happen with a larger scale...

FM has too many attributes to support a 1-99 rating

Brian Shanahan
22-04-2010, 22:04
Yeah and I wonder how CM do it when they cut the CA/PA down to 100. The only way I can think of is grouping attributes, so that some rise and fall together with changes in the CA.

DeadZone
22-04-2010, 22:06
Personally, I agree with extending it, but only for the sake of lower leagues (same with reputation ranges as well... or at least have it recalculated, but thats for another topic), since once you go too low into a league pyramid the numbers are so close all form of match consistency goes out the window

But in all fairness (putting personal feelings aside a moment), it's more a case of the match engine itself needing to be changed, and allow better reflection of lower league football
After-all, the flaw of the ME lower league handling has been exposed on a major level with Lvl10 being modded in, and tbh the flaws had already started to appear prior to FM10 in lower reputation leagues

Concerning allowing for being able to tell the difference easier... well, sure, it'll be nice, but would it really be worth the effort?

Dave9ffc
22-04-2010, 23:16
Right it's clear to see no-one is in favour of 1-100 so getting back to my original post and opinion what about a smaller increase? It seems quite a few people agree it isn't great for lower league management and even disregarding editor files down to blue square north and south for example the stat range is tiny. So llm's in particular who's in favour of a slight increase or any other way to increase the difference between the best and useless players?

pooman2279
22-04-2010, 23:54
1-20 system is excellent in my opinion. CM's 1-100 scale is a joke frankly, would be a nightmare researching it and the difference between a 50 and a 52 for example would be so little that going to the effort wouldn't be worth it.

khriztian
23-04-2010, 01:30
1-20 is perfect. Not too simple not too confusing.

The Sean
23-04-2010, 01:31
Right it's clear to see no-one is in favour of 1-100 so getting back to my original post and opinion what about a smaller increase? It seems quite a few people agree it isn't great for lower league management and even disregarding editor files down to blue square north and south for example the stat range is tiny. So llm's in particular who's in favour of a slight increase or any other way to increase the difference between the best and useless players?

I wouldn't say no one is. Didn't you read my post?


At a lower level I'd say it's pretty accurate that most players are much of a nothing, and thus those that are better than that stand out. 2 players may both be crap at passing, but one may perform so much better than the other due to other attributes, and I can't see what a bigger scale would really add.

That is ridiculous to call lower league players "nothings." They are still professionals or semi-professionals. This makes them better than me and probably better than you. I have coached high school soccer for seven seasons and sent a handful of players to play in college. Not even D-1 (which is the highest college division in the U.S.) but just local or regional colleges. I have worked with a handful of former professionals in the coaching ranks. They were "nothings" according to your judgment and wouldn't rate as much as 7s or 8s on FM. I can assure you that the 1-20 scale does them no justice. No offense, we are "nothings." If you are good enough to get your likeness into a game like this, you are a "something" in football. Having said that, lower leagues get screwed by the 1-20 scale. For example, the lower league U.S. teams have players with basically the same ratings as 2nd tier European teams. Even as an American, our 2nd tier shold not compare to your 2nd tiers...


The biggest problem I have with 1-100 scales is that the human mind is very bad at distinguishing the difference between two large numbers, an example would be thinking 5 is a lot larger than 1 whereas the mind cannot easily comprehend that in a linear system the difference between 95 and 91 is the same. we tend to think geometrically when we talk about differences so we automatically assume that as 5 is a multiple of 1 and 95 is not a multiple of 91 then the differences are greater at 5 and 1 than at 95 and 91. You get a bit of that in the current scale, but twenty is a manageable number.
The other problem is the sheer range of different postitions that could be generated by a 1-100 scale when talking about 40 different numbers. It comes out at 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+160 and even if we limit it with CA/PA (which would have to be done to a much higher scale to work right) down to 10% (like I said above) of the original range thats still 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+159 variables.

I appreciate your point. However, it is predicated on two fallacious assumptions. The first is that since the current set-up can produce such an inordinate amount of player variations, it can therefore cover the range of known player abilities in the professional ranks worldwide. The second (and this one is more implicit) is that the current system is actually correct in giving some players 1s and other players 20s. The problem with this is that the logic does not hold up. The player with a 20 in a category is not twenty times as great/effective in that attribute as the player who has a 1. Let's take a former American international, Jimmy Conrad as an example. He is a player for the Kansas City Wizards in this game. Not having the game open in front of me, I believe his acceleration is an 8. Now take a player who has an acceleration of 20. The player with the 20 can be thought of as having the fastest 40-time. (40-times is the 40-yard dash to the non-American and it is the gold standard for speed/acceleration) A truly amazing 40-time (using the NFL system of a 10-yard head start before hitting the laser starting point) is 4.2 seconds. Using a linear relationship where 0 is 0% and 20 is 100%, if an acceleration of 20 equates to 4.2 seconds in the 40-yard dash, then Jimmy Conrad's acceleration of 8 equates to 2.5 times that of the 20 acceleration (because is speed/acceleration, lower 40-times are better). 2.5 times a 4.2 seconds is a horrible 10.5 seconds. This is more of a 100-meter dash time. At that rate, he could never catch an opposing player. These underlying assumptions simply do not hold up under testing.

The Sean
23-04-2010, 01:47
First, I thoroughly disagree that soccer/football players are less in-need of a rating scale of 1-100. There is no basis whatsoever that one sport is more or less deserving of being rated on one scale versus another.

Second, I also understand that I am in the minority on the 1-100 scale. I get it. I doubt SI changes it because of me or the other few who see the value in a 1-100 scale.

Third, we have to try to identify then understand the underlying assumptions that SI used when creating their 1-20 scale. I would be bemused if the scale was strictly linear with a starting point of 0 equaling 0%, 10 equaling 50% and 20 equaling 100%. If this is the logic they used when programming, then it has serious flaws (as demonstrated in my previous post). If this is not the logic used when programming, then we have to assume that 20 is still 100% but a 0 is more like an 80%. This would allow for the 1-20 to satisfy the changes we recognize as attribute differences among players. Using the example I did in my previous post, with a 0 being equal to 80% the player with a 20 for acceleration (4.2 seconds in the 40-yard dash, in my example) then the player with an acceleration of 8 would actually have 88%f the acceleration of the 20-player. This means a 40-time of 4.2 v 4.7. This is much more realistic and would explain the differences. I would lean towards SI using the second type of programming logic I described here. If that is the case, then we can assume that SI also buys into the concept of whatever the top number is in the scale, it must equal 100%. If SI has already made that leap-in-logic, then it is a short step to understanding that widening the scale to say 1-40 (at least) with a 0 being 60% would better describe the variance seen among players across all levels of leagues.

The Sean
23-04-2010, 01:58
Sorry, you guys have me all fired up here. I reread a few posts and have simply got to say this. If you think a 1-20 scale works, apply the logic of it to your own experiences. This can work with some attributes where it is subjective-at-best to determine the difference between a 19 or 20 or 5. Try and apply this to acceleration (speed). Do you know anyone who plays soccer at any level (and is in at least decent shape) who is twenty times faster than his competition? This is what the 1-20 in acceleration suggests. Let's be generous. We will give our first competitor a rating of 10 in acceleration and the second a rating of 20 in acceleration. They will race at full-speed from one end-line to the other. Player 1 would only make it to the midfield-stripe by the time Player 2 made it all the way across the field. Using the same 'do you know anyone...' litmus test, tell me of one player you know who is that much faster than his competition. Using this attribute alone, the 1-20 scale is NOT a consistent measure of player ability...

Hamenaglar
23-04-2010, 02:01
Sorry, you guys have me all fired up here. I reread a few posts and have simply got to say this. If you think a 1-20 scale works, apply the logic of it to your own experiences. This can work with some attributes where it is subjective-at-best to determine the difference between a 19 or 20 or 5. Try and apply this to acceleration (speed). Do you know anyone who plays soccer at any level (and is in at least decent shape) who is twenty times faster than his competition? This is what the 1-20 in acceleration suggests. Let's be generous. We will give our first competitor a rating of 10 in acceleration and the second a rating of 20 in acceleration. They will race at full-speed from one end-line to the other. Player 1 would only make it to the midfield-stripe by the time Player 2 made it all the way across the field. Using the same 'do you know anyone...' litmus test, tell me of one player you know who is that much faster than his competition. Using this attribute alone, the 1-20 scale is NOT a consistent measure of player ability...

Who said player with pace 20 is 20 times faster than player with pace 1. Perhaps he is two times as fast.

The Sean
23-04-2010, 02:13
Who said player with pace 20 is 20 times faster than player with pace 1. Perhaps he is two times as fast.

Thank God you said that!!! Completely agreed! I actually said in a previous post that I would be stupified if SI actually used the 1-20 system to be 0% - 100%. I am trying to point out the absurdity of the 1-20 scale. The example I used was that a 0 equaled 80% and a 20 equaled 100%. I could see SI using that, but I would still challenge that SI should at least go to a 1-40 scale, where 0 equals 60%...

RBKalle
23-04-2010, 11:08
Heh, second-guessing the abstraction level of a scale system that is an abstraction itself is a bit of a pointless exercise...

Also, aren't we forgetting to take the CA into account?

Unless I'm mistaken [and it can as well be so], shouldn't a 120CA player with Acceleration 5 be faster than a 20CA player with 5 Acceleration?

Or, anyway, a mediocre Tier-6 player will be worse than a Tier-2 player, despite both maybe having a couple of similar attributes.

Also, the option of having additional lower leagues is a bonus, and it's up to the creators of the add-on giving a realistic reflection of the players he creates.
FM is designed to "support" players who can play at a semi-professional level [be it England's Conference or Swedish 2nd division], so the 1-20 scale is used to define said levels.

An "all 2s player" is someone who's barely able to make it to a semi-pro club, but still he'd be ok for Sunday League.

But even using a 1-40 or 1-100 or 1-1000 scale, we would STILL have the problem of additional amateur players being "too good" or "not poor enough" if compared to the original db ones.

The lower end of the scale will always be the problem, unless SI will just "reserve" the hypotetical 1-10 range [out of a 1-40 or 1-whatever scale] for user created lower leaguers.

But yet again, if the poorest Conference player would get Dribbling 10, many would still complain it being too much compared to Messi's 40 [or any other highest value], and too little compared to the user-created Tier-10 player who'll have 3 or 4...

SeanNUFC
23-04-2010, 11:24
I really don't see the problem with 1-20, its what were all used to now and if it got changed alot of you would come on here moaning about it.

Welshace
23-04-2010, 11:29
a 100 point system? .. just multiply the 1-20 scale by 5 in your head..

my point is the problem lays with your perception of the 1-20 scale..

the difference between a 15 and a 18 in say finishing is huge...

i imagine it would be fairly easy to implement a change to it with a .xml skin file to a 100 point system.. but it would be purely cosmetic of course

Gandy
23-04-2010, 11:31
'Yes' is the short answer, 'yes it is' is the long one :).

SeanNUFC
23-04-2010, 11:48
a 100 point system? .. just multiply the 1-20 scale by 5 in your head..

my point is the problem lays with your perception of the 1-20 scale..

the difference between a 15 and a 18 in say finishing is huge...

i imagine it would be fairly easy to implement a change to it with a .xml skin file to a 100 point system.. but it would be purely cosmetic of course

Spot on. :thup:

Vermundr
23-04-2010, 12:45
5 point system would be better. Just divide by 4. I can't wait to see how my 3.5125232325 striker's shooting does :D

Brian Shanahan
23-04-2010, 15:21
That is ridiculous to call lower league players "nothings." They are still professionals or semi-professionals. This makes them better than me and probably better than you. I have coached high school soccer for seven seasons and sent a handful of players to play in college. Not even D-1 (which is the highest college division in the U.S.) but just local or regional colleges. I have worked with a handful of former professionals in the coaching ranks. They were "nothings" according to your judgment and wouldn't rate as much as 7s or 8s on FM. I can assure you that the 1-20 scale does them no justice. No offense, we are "nothings." If you are good enough to get your likeness into a game like this, you are a "something" in football. Having said that, lower leagues get screwed by the 1-20 scale. For example, the lower league U.S. teams have players with basically the same ratings as 2nd tier European teams. Even as an American, our 2nd tier shold not compare to your 2nd tiers...

I appreciate your point. However, it is predicated on two fallacious assumptions. The first is that since the current set-up can produce such an inordinate amount of player variations, it can therefore cover the range of known player abilities in the professional ranks worldwide. The second (and this one is more implicit) is that the current system is actually correct in giving some players 1s and other players 20s. The problem with this is that the logic does not hold up. The player with a 20 in a category is not twenty times as great/effective in that attribute as the player who has a 1. Let's take a former American international, Jimmy Conrad as an example. He is a player for the Kansas City Wizards in this game. Not having the game open in front of me, I believe his acceleration is an 8. Now take a player who has an acceleration of 20. The player with the 20 can be thought of as having the fastest 40-time. (40-times is the 40-yard dash to the non-American and it is the gold standard for speed/acceleration) A truly amazing 40-time (using the NFL system of a 10-yard head start before hitting the laser starting point) is 4.2 seconds. Using a linear relationship where 0 is 0% and 20 is 100%, if an acceleration of 20 equates to 4.2 seconds in the 40-yard dash, then Jimmy Conrad's acceleration of 8 equates to 2.5 times that of the 20 acceleration (because is speed/acceleration, lower 40-times are better). 2.5 times a 4.2 seconds is a horrible 10.5 seconds. This is more of a 100-meter dash time. At that rate, he could never catch an opposing player. These underlying assumptions simply do not hold up under testing.

I think you completely missed my point here, I wasn't arguing that the system currently does best represent players, I was arguing that the current system gives the best compromise between complexity and usability which are both needed in the game. And on your point the scale used by baseball scouts (commonly held as the most analysed sport there is) is a 2-8 scale. To properly represent things like speed and acceleration you are going to need actual split times, something no game will be able to get, and things that are variable. Also what scale could possibly replicate a player like Messi or Maradona accurately.

My other point was that the numbers of the 1-100 scale would be so vast as to make it almost impossible to code the system in the way it is currently coded, thus actually simplifying the whole process tremendously (and thus actually decreasing the differences).

On the matter of people getting into the game it's not that hard, I've played with and against a number of players over the years who I've seen getting into the database, some who made it professionally, some who should have made it, and some who were only at a level that they would be reperesented because they were too stupid to give up on something that was way beyond them. Myself I only ever played at underage level for the local parish club but I know enough about the game to know that you don't need to be actually good to play at a decent level, fitness and application are often far greater determinants than skill (or how else do you explain the careers of the likes of Crouch and Kilbane).

Katarian
23-04-2010, 15:38
My other point was that the numbers of the 1-100 scale would be so vast as to make it almost impossible to code the system in the way it is currently coded, thus actually simplifying the whole process tremendously (and thus actually decreasing the differences).

The game already stores all the player stats on a 1-100 scale, SI said so ages ago. When you see an up or down arrow on the training screen it shows the stat has increased/decreased, just maybe not enough for a +1 on the 1-20 scale.


Myself I only ever played at underage level for the local parish club but I know enough about the game to know that you don't need to be actually good to play at a decent level, fitness and application are often far greater determinants than skill (or how else do you explain the careers of the likes of Crouch and Kilbane).

Crouch and Kilbane aren't the greatest players in the world, they are technically weak for International players but they are still better then 99.99% of the population.

I'll add again my view that changing the scale because it doesn't work very well for lvl 10 of the English pyramid. or other editor leagues is largely a waste of time. What is the point in spending time and money changing a system and then testing it to improve the game experience in a league you don't support? If SI decide to add leagues that low then yes the system should be changed, but as they aren't (for very good reasons) there isn't much need to waste resources on changing the system. Especially as there are other things that could be added/fixed that would improve the game much more (dynamic league rep, etc...)

Brian Shanahan
23-04-2010, 15:54
Crouch and Kilbane aren't the greatest players in the world, they are technically weak for International players but they are still better then 99.99% of the population.

But my point is that technically both are donkeys. I reckon even though I haven't kicked a ball in anger in about five years, that the biggest difference between me and Kilbane is always going to be physical, and always would have been (I was never built for speed).

Dave9ffc
23-04-2010, 16:02
Katarian I did use down to lvl 10 as an example but there are leagues in the game where the level of play is desperately poor. The Northern Irish Second Division for example is just dire as the Premier Division compares with Blue Square Premiership and maybe North or South for some teams so two levels below that and it is getting close to lvl 10 in England. There are many obscure and wonderfully rubbish leagues in FM and I think they would be improved massively if it was easier to distinguish between players at that level. Currently there isn't a big enough difference between players in lower leagues and it makes it easy to get promoted from the very lowest divisions. Also the editor is there for people to enjoy the game so why shouldn't they get to enjoy playing as low as they like? If the stats are already held up to 100 then surely it's worth seeing what it would be like, perhaps a demo version with new features would be good some year

Dave9ffc
23-04-2010, 16:03
Brian I think you massively under rate the ability it takes to play in the Premiership. How many people have you seen it try it and fail spectacularly, Winston Bogarde, Abel Xavier, it's not easy like.

The Sean
23-04-2010, 16:28
But my point is that technically both are donkeys. I reckon even though I haven't kicked a ball in anger in about five years, that the biggest difference between me and Kilbane is always going to be physical, and always would have been (I was never built for speed).

I don't see how any one of us can compare ourselves to players in the "highest" league in the world, regardless of what we think of their abilities or our abilities. Having said that, your point here emphasizes the gulf between us on this issue. For me, it would be valuable to have a larger scale to draw a greater distinction between what makes one player good for his level but completely out-of-his-depth at another level. Finally, you mistakenly thought I referenced baseball where I actually referenced the National Football League (NFL) and their use of 40-times. Nevertheless, I find you to be a great poster on these forums and I enjoy reading your comments. :thup:

Kenco
23-04-2010, 16:30
But my point is that technically both are donkeys. I reckon even though I haven't kicked a ball in anger in about five years, that the biggest difference between me and Kilbane is always going to be physical, and always would have been (I was never built for speed).

I have to disagree with you on Crouch, he has unbelievable tekkers!

Brian Shanahan
23-04-2010, 16:32
Brian I think you massively under rate the ability it takes to play in the Premiership. How many people have you seen it try it and fail spectacularly, Winston Bogarde, Abel Xavier, it's not easy like.

Franly to play at the level of Kilbane you don't have to be talented you have to be extremely fit. For Kilbane (a natural left winger) to have been able to guide a cross into the box was a pure fluke even at his best, and now that his pace and fitness is gone (due to age) see how much of a liablity he is for country (I don't follow Hull too much, but I bet it's the same against serious competition). Him and McShane were the biggest two reasons why Ireland didn't qualify out of their group.

Anyway this is way off topic, and I'm too busy to start shadowing the real life football forum as well, so this is the last I'll post on Kilbane's donkey impressions.

Katarian
23-04-2010, 16:34
Dave9ffc. Yes there are obsure low leagues in FM that it would improve. The N. Irish 2nd Division is pitiful (I don't even think N. Ireland is important enough to have so many leagues), and it is very easy to get promoted from low leagues, but for me that is because it is too easy to find players that should never be playing at that low of a level.

The lower league experience could be improved massively. It's a question of will spending resources on that over something else improve the game for the majority of players? The same applies to the editor created leagues, will spending resources to improve them improve the game for the majority of players? I don't want masses of resources spent on a feature that isn't under SI's control, where do you stop reprogramming the game for editor added leagues anyway? If they want to improve the game for such low leagues then add them to the core game, and have it researched and tested properly. I think your underestimating the amount of testing that would be needed even for such a simple fix.

Ty
23-04-2010, 16:39
40? Seems like an absurd number imo. :p

shezza88
23-04-2010, 17:01
I wouldn't be against a 1-100 ratings system, but maybe there should be a tick box at the start of the game? Or something you can change in your preferences.

RBKalle
23-04-2010, 18:13
Again, aren't we overlooking the fact a "Passing 12" in an EPL player is a "different" 12 if it's on a Tier 6 player?

If we take the bare attribute at face value it's confusing, and we shouldn't even have players in a top league with ANY attribute lower than, say, 12 or 15...

Because, as poor as he can be, a mediocre EPL midfielder will still be better than your neighbour who's playing for Anytown FC...

Or the typical lower leaguer poacher with Finishing 14 isn't surely more deadly then the average La Liga striker, no matter how many "OMG will ____ ever score?" situations the latter will be part of.

Also, if we change to a 1-100 scale, we'll STILL have our fair share of low 20s, low 10s or even all-single-digits players in the lowest playable leagues, so we'd be back to square one, with players not being poor enough for our tastes when we'd be to create Burkina Faso's Fourth Division...

edgar555
23-04-2010, 18:16
I wouldn't be against a 1-100 ratings system, but maybe there should be a tick box at the start of the game? Or something you can change in your preferences.

Yeah because that wouldn't be at all difficult to code would it?
1-20 is more than enough, it works very well thankyou very much.

Dave9ffc
23-04-2010, 19:26
I don't think this would be so hard to do especially considerimg SI already apparently rate players up to 100. Again I think 100 is too much and 40 or 50 would be better.

Brian I can't believe you are calling Kilbane fluke, he is a decent Premiership player and International player, out of all the millions of people playing football he's made it to the top and you call him basically crap and useless, outrageous in my opinion. If athleticism was all you needed surely every decent athlete in the world would become a footballer for the cash. There's hundreds of fit guys in Non league football yet they wouldn't get close to the Premiership never mind international football.

Anyway back on topic, people are saying the current system is easy to understand yet we're all arguing and no-one is really clear on what stats mean. Does a 12 in the Premiership mean the same as Blue Square? This for example shows the stats aren't clear at the moment as it doesn't allow for a clear comparison between players

edgar555
23-04-2010, 19:28
I don't think this would be so hard to do especially considerimg SI already apparently rate players up to 100. Again I think 100 is too much and 40 or 50 would be better.

Brian I can't believe you are calling Kilbane fluke, he is a decent Premiership player and International player, out of all the millions of people playing football he's made it to the top and you call him basically crap and useless, outrageous in my opinion. If athleticism was all you needed surely every decent athlete in the world would become a footballer for the cash. There's hundreds of fit guys in Non league football yet they wouldn't get close to the Premiership never mind international football.

Anyway back on topic, people are saying the current system is easy to understand yet we're all arguing and no-one is really clear on what stats mean. Does a 12 in the Premiership mean the same as Blue Square? This for example shows the stats aren't clear at the moment as it doesn't allow for a clear comparison between players

I hear what you are saying about Kilbane, but how do you explain Titus Bramble being a Premier League player?

Brian Shanahan
23-04-2010, 19:40
Brian I can't believe you are calling Kilbane fluke, he is a decent Premiership player and International player, out of all the millions of people playing football he's made it to the top and you call him basically crap and useless, outrageous in my opinion. If athleticism was all you needed surely every decent athlete in the world would become a footballer for the cash. There's hundreds of fit guys in Non league football yet they wouldn't get close to the Premiership never mind international football.

As an Irish man whos watched his international career with increasing horror, I can honestly say that Kilbane's international career includes the number of good games which could be counted on the left hand of an epileptic carpenter. Frankly the fact that he's joint record caps record holder with Given is a the real joke. I will concede this though, nobody tried harder than him on the pitch, noone was faster than him, and he's never gotten into trouble.

But on him achieving a Premiership level IMO unless your at a big four club all you need to get into a team is lots and lots of athleticism.

Dave9ffc
23-04-2010, 20:08
I get your point and he isn't Messi but to say he has no talent and is just fit doesn't make sense anyone who can run fast could then become a Premiership player if all you need is luck to make a cross connect now and then. Like I said why aren't there are lots of athletes like Dwain Chambers becoming Premiership players if pace and stamina is all you need. Because positioning, vision, tackling, marking and passing mean nothing? Like why bother with stats in FM for those if all you need is pace? Surely then you could sign a few 20 pace players and win the champions league in FM?

Ty
23-04-2010, 20:58
I feel a well known saying coming on...

"If it isn't broke, don't fix it!"

I feel that works perfectly in this case.

SCIAG
23-04-2010, 21:08
I don't think this would be so hard to do especially considerimg SI already apparently rate players up to 100. Again I think 100 is too much and 40 or 50 would be better.

SI don't rate players (bar a small few- Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs players), researchers don't rate players on that scale.

SCIAG
23-04-2010, 21:18
Also, aren't we forgetting to take the CA into account?

Unless I'm mistaken [and it can as well be so], shouldn't a 120CA player with Acceleration 5 be faster than a 20CA player with 5 Acceleration?

You are much mistaken :p Each attribute is seperate. CA is basically a cap on how high the attributes can go between them. It doesn't make attributes less effective or anything, it isn't used in ME coding.

edgar555
23-04-2010, 21:35
SI don't rate players (bar a small few- Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs players), researchers don't rate players on that scale.

What do you mean, SI rate those clubs? Why?

x42bn6
23-04-2010, 21:52
What do you mean, SI rate those clubs? Why?
Researchers do the research and it just so happens some are employed by SI.

They all work on the same scale, 1-20 (although the engine uses 1-100).

RBKalle
23-04-2010, 23:01
You are much mistaken :p Each attribute is seperate. CA is basically a cap on how high the attributes can go between them. It doesn't make attributes less effective or anything, it isn't used in ME coding.


Hmm, I see.

However if an EPL player has 12 Dribbling with other stats around the same mark, he'll be more effective than a Conference player with 12 Dribbling as his only good attribute?

Both are theoretically equally good at Dribbling, but the other stats will make the EPL player noticeably faster, more effective and accurate?

SCIAG
23-04-2010, 23:40
Hmm, I see.

However if an EPL player has 12 Dribbling with other stats around the same mark, he'll be more effective than a Conference player with 12 Dribbling as his only good attribute?

Both are theoretically equally good at Dribbling, but the other stats will make the EPL player noticeably faster, more effective and accurate?
Yep :) though the Conference player will be up against worse defenders...

RBKalle
24-04-2010, 00:39
Ok.

So that leads to my main point about a 1-100 scale not solving the issue of "lower leaguers in Finland aren't pants enough compared to slightly less inept players in the original db".

If the lowest playable league now has players with maybe 1 or 2 attributes above 10, what would change with a broader interval, if the attribute are still "weighed" according to the league/level?

What now is an "all 5 player with a couple of 8s and one 10" wouldn't become an "all 25 player with a couple of 40s and one 50"... Because that would probably be more like a Div.2 player, maybe Div.3

Our beloved John Doe of Crappytown FC is single-digits now and would probably be single-digits on a 1-100 scale.


The game has a lower threshold, so anything below that isn't "guaranteed to work properly", so to speak :)

If you're dying to create Luxembourg's Inter-bank Championship you'll just have to work with what you have...

The Sean
24-04-2010, 01:58
I accept my position in the minority on this issue. What I really want to know:

What are the intervals represented by the 1 - 20 scale? And don't say 1-20...;)

Also, what is the initial value for the "1" on the 1 - 20 scale? For example, is the starting point 60%?

IanZG
24-04-2010, 09:04
To be fair, Olic is a world class striker, but his finishing isn't world class, a lot of goals he scores are tap-ins and he very rarely produces a cool finish like he did against ManUre. I wouldn't bet against a lower division striker having more goalscoring abilities than Olic, but that player would probably lose out in any other attribute apart from the finishing.

If there were such a big gap between the top sides and the lower sides, how could Hull City go through 4 divisions in, what, 5 years or so. That's how I heard it went, not sure if it's true...

Dave9ffc
24-04-2010, 11:00
Yes Hull got promoted a lot but they didn't have the same team did they? Yes Ashbee and Ricketts until he went to Bolton went through a few leagues but they've changed massively and to be fair they are useless now and are going down. I'd like to hear more from people managing in the Blue Square South or Bulgarian 3rd division and the like and if they think it would be better to increase the range of attributes. I think it works fine for the Premiership but there isn't enough of a drop off

RBKalle
24-04-2010, 11:06
I accept my position in the minority on this issue. What I really want to know:

What are the intervals represented by the 1 - 20 scale? And don't say 1-20...;)

Also, what is the initial value for the "1" on the 1 - 20 scale? For example, is the starting point 60%?


60% of what? :confused:


FM attributes aren't absolute, so we can't really say "20 passing means the player will complete N % of passes, while 10 passing means he'll complete N/2 %".

Many attributes work together to "make" a player and to determine how good/poor he is...


However it's safe to say "1" isn't the numeric equivalent of "he'll trip over the ball and fall flat on his face breaking his nose in the process", and probably not even "Sunday League benchwarmer" level.

FM covers plenty of ground: from World Class pros to lower league part-timers and amateurs.
However all of them are part of the same football universe, so I suppose the 1-4 range is "reserved" for players who are barely adequate to feature in a lower league side.

But let's not forget even a lower league player, as "bad" (compared to Messi & co) as he can be would still probably be "very good" if compared to Sunday League football.


So I really think the game isn't "supposed" to go lower than a certain level... A FM player with all 4s and 5s would still probably kick our ass in a kickabout, without even having to try that hard...

Ranbir
24-04-2010, 11:53
I wouldn't be against a 1-100 ratings system, but maybe there should be a tick box at the start of the game? Or something you can change in your preferences.


I swear a previous FM game had this.

dean66683
24-04-2010, 18:30
id like to see 1-25. that is all.

The Sean
25-04-2010, 05:39
60% of what? :confused:


FM attributes aren't absolute, so we can't really say "20 passing means the player will complete N % of passes, while 10 passing means he'll complete N/2 %".

Many attributes work together to "make" a player and to determine how good/poor he is...


However it's safe to say "1" isn't the numeric equivalent of "he'll trip over the ball and fall flat on his face breaking his nose in the process", and probably not even "Sunday League benchwarmer" level.

FM covers plenty of ground: from World Class pros to lower league part-timers and amateurs.
However all of them are part of the same football universe, so I suppose the 1-4 range is "reserved" for players who are barely adequate to feature in a lower league side.

But let's not forget even a lower league player, as "bad" (compared to Messi & co) as he can be would still probably be "very good" if compared to Sunday League football.


So I really think the game isn't "supposed" to go lower than a certain level... A FM player with all 4s and 5s would still probably kick our ass in a kickabout, without even having to try that hard...

I'd covered the whole % thing in previous posts. Sorry, not trying to confuse anyone. However, I beg to differ that just because an attribute is designed to work in conjunction with other attributes does NOT mean it does not have its own independent and real value (aside from the 1-20). Moreover, that real value has to translate to something in FM. The most obvious example, and therefore easiest to discuss is acceleration. A player with 18 acceleration will beat a player of 12 acceleration to the ball, where all other attributes are the same and both players started at the same spot on the field. This tells us that the ME recognizes independent values for each attribute point. It also tells us that the ME assigns a specific interval for the increase or decrease in attribute value (however, that interval does NOT have to be the same for each increase or decrease in value).Here's two examples.

Acceleration

In this example, 20 can equal 100% of how fast the ME will allow a player to move. 19 might equal 95% of the original value, 18 might equal 90% and so on. This would be an example where the interval between each attribute value is the same.

In this example, 20 can equal 100% of how fast the ME will allow a player to move. 19 might equal 98% of the original value, 18 might equal 95%, 17 might equal 90%, 16 might equal 85% and it could go on and on.

The bottom line is that for the game to be programmed, each attribute value has a specific or "real" value according to the ME, under "ideal" conditions (which are also assigned by the ME). I just want to know what the intervals are (from someone in " the know" at SI) for each attribute and what the starting point is for assigning the "real" value. :thup:

P.S. The attribute values are not relative to the assigned league. They are absolute. A player with 12 passing has 12 passing in the EPL, MLS or Hungarian Seventh Division...

The Sean
26-04-2010, 00:42
I'll give this one "bump" to see if anyone knows the information I am looking for in the previous post. If not, I can do some testing using a 3rd-party editor...:eek:

shezza88
12-06-2010, 09:45
Yeah because that wouldn't be at all difficult to code would it?
1-20 is more than enough, it works very well thankyou very much.

Edgar, im sure one of the championship manager games from a few years ago didn't have a tick box at the start of the game, but you could switch between 1-100, and 1-20 in game. It might have been 2008 or 2005, I can't remember.

Can't be too hard to code, thank you very very much. :thup:

SCIAG
12-06-2010, 11:15
If a 1-30 scale was introduced, then ideally I'd like to see:

* Things stay as they are for top level players, and manager in the top flight.
* The ME adjusts to the new scale.
* Lower league managers have an option to see their player's attributes in the 1-30 scale, which effective "stretches" 1-5 on the 1-20 scale, out to 1-15 on the 1-30 scale. Higher attributes simply have 10 added to them.

Why might that be necessary? Well, I played for a Hellenic League side's youth team. One of our number was in Southampton's academy as well. Anyway, he never made it as a professional or even semi-professional. Maybe he was a passing 12 player, maybe a little higher or lower. None of us came close to him. I'd guess that our second best passer was maybe a 5, and the rest of us would be given 1s and 2s on the current scale. However, I was easily worse than the others, and within those two points, there was a detailed hierarchy. If the two points were made into six points, stuff like that at the lower levels could be reflected more accurately.

chob
12-06-2010, 11:18
I believe the current system works well so should not be changed. SI need to focus on other areas of the game and not mess with the stuff that works.

Wyer
12-06-2010, 11:43
1 of the things that put me off trying Champ Man was the 1-100, I see it as pointless and not needed.
I would like players to be rated better tbh tho, you see Strikers with better finishing playing in lower leagues than you do playing for their country.
A complete overhaul of the player ratings is needed.

lee50_11
12-06-2010, 15:25
It's enough for me:thup:

Sheer Class
12-06-2010, 15:33
The problem the opening poster fails to understand is that he is looking at attributes as singular objects.
A player might have 15 for pace in the conference but he might have 4 or 5 for decisions or anticipation which makes him not use his pace effectively.

A player might have 15-16 for passing but lacks the vision to make those passes over a wide area of the pitch.

A full back might be an excellent tackler but lacks in pace or anticipation to be in the right place.

Or a player with superb finishing but no composure

The Lambs
12-06-2010, 15:50
Sheer Class, makes some very good points that I agree with.

I didn't know if people missed this in the wall of text above, a post by Katarian (http://community.sigames.com/member.php?u=48619) (post number 51) but the attributes are actually stored in the game as 1-100 (or 5-100). That is what the arrows mean when you have them showing the effects of training, an increase/decrease of a point.

I am against any increase in the range of the attributes. If two players have 15 for pace, I don't need to know if one is 15.8 (79) and one is 15.2 (76), they are just both 15. As a manager, you couldn't really tell that small a difference, because people perform different. Otherwise the results of sprint races would be the same in every single real life race.

As pointed out by a few people, you are never ever going to see two identical players, so having to compare a range of abilities to see who is better is fine by me.

emilthedane
13-06-2010, 00:43
My tuppenceworth:

1. The "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" argument doesn't work. There's (almost) always a lot of scope for improvement, even if the current system works well.

2. In my opinion, the 1-20 scale works perfectly from the top level down to a certain level (probably around lvl 10 in England), but I can certainly see why some people would like to have a more nuanced scale from, say, 1-5 or 1-10.

3. There's a couple of different workarounds as far as I can see. One option would be to copy the system used in coach/scout reports where, if a player doesn't merit a "gold" star, he is awarded "blue" stars; similarly, players with e.g. a low CA or plying their trade in lower leagues could be graded on a different scale, either such as the 1-30 scale SCIAG proposed or in another way (negative attributes?).

Another possibility would be to keep the 1-20 scale entirely but putting more emphasis on the level a player plays at, the level of training he receives, the fitness levels he can reach, etc.; in this way, a player would score higher if he dropped down, say, 5 tiers, but his fitness levels etc. (these could be seen as "multipliers") would limit his effectiveness. This solution probably offers more pros and cons. It would make it harder to tell players apart (i.e. you would need to know about the quality of the league to accurately judge a player's ability) but this would also offer new possibilities in terms of scouting; imagine you spot a talented player plying his trade in the third tier of Bulgaria. The player's attributes suggest he would fit into your team, but unless you've got knowledge of the Bulgarian leagues, you have next to no idea how his attributes would translate if played in a better league. This knowledge could obviously be gained by hiring a Bulgarian member of staff, by scouting Bulgaria or by having a feeder team with knowledge of Bulgaria. The difference in attribute representation between, say, the PL and lvl 10 wouldn't need to be that big - a 15 in the PL might be a 20 in lvl 10 - but it would seamlessly change the 1-20 system into a more fluid system that would actually represent a bigger range without upsetting the way things work in the top tiers. I'm generally all for an evolution when it comes to scouting, particularly in the way we (and our scouts) perceive players, and this solution would make it more of a gamble to take a chance on players from unknown leagues. I can think of at least a handful of players who were standouts in a lower but failed to produce the goods against players of a higher standard. Currently the only unknown if you're signing a foreigner is whether he'll be able to settle (EDIT: as opposed to signing a player from your own league/nationality - there's obviously always unknowns when you sign any player). I should add that I wouldn't think that all attributes should adapt; i.e. acceleration is acceleration, jumping is jumping.

Furthermore, a 15 at PL level could still be a 15 at lvl 10; it might only need to be the attributes from 1 to 10 that need to adapt (and if so, on a sliding scale). This would also make it slightly less challenging to spot a lemon - bumping a 5 up to a 7 wouldn't make you sign a player you otherwise wouldn't sign.

4. The two main considerations when it comes to changing the way attributes work will for me always be: how hard is it to code and how hard is it for researchers to accurately judge players? Is it worth it? Expanding the number of attributes would mean a LOT of work, unless the expansion only takes effect at levels that aren't properly researched in the first place (e.g. lvl 10). The fluidly adapting system as outlined above would also take a tremendous effort (from SI, not so much the researchers), but in conjunction with an overhaul in scouting (and generally: how we perceive players - I'd like to see FM move as far away from a CA/PA representation to a more holistic approach when it comes to scouting/scout reports) I feel it would be worth it. Or more accurately: it would be worth it if someone could come up with a better solution than my half-baked idea! I do however think that a simple multiplier (inversely proportional to the multipliers mentioned earlier) could be implemented at very low levels (eg. lvl 10; unresearched/less researched leagues where few players have more than a couple of attributes above 10) without too much coding.

5. Another factor to consider: how much would SI be willing to change the current system to cater for lower league managers? I firmly believe that the 1-20 scale must remain at all but the lowest levels as the number of players that are happy with the current system most likely far, far outweighs those that see the need for change.


-Emil

Matt_no_7
13-06-2010, 01:08
I'd happily deal with either when it comes to my pre-game edit (a whole day of editing and re-editing, oh the joy). I think 0-100 would give a better idea as sometimes i've seen striker with 15 pace just run away from defenders with 17 pace. I mean it shouldn't be too hard. Maximum is 20 and the minimum is 1. So 20 goes into 100 five times, take the stats of a 0-20 scale and times them by 5.

0-20 scale) Player A pace: 18. Player B pace: 16
0-100 scale) Player A pace: 90. Player B pace: 80

Maybe give us an option. We can change how we want to see weight, height and currency within the game to suit us better so 0-20 or 0-100 options could also work as well.

bytheway
13-06-2010, 02:27
why not leave it at 1-20 and add a set colour co-ordinator in?

for example say player A has a 20 for finishing but its on the lower side of twenty, the 20 is shown in red

player b has a 20 in finihshing but it is mid 20's (stable) orange

player c has a 20 for finishing but its near the higher end and as far as it goes its shown in green

just an idea, would show a difference that you would want to see maybe?

x42bn6
13-06-2010, 02:48
why not leave it at 1-20 and add a set colour co-ordinator in?

for example say player A has a 20 for finishing but its on the lower side of twenty, the 20 is shown in red

player b has a 20 in finihshing but it is mid 20's (stable) orange

player c has a 20 for finishing but its near the higher end and as far as it goes its shown in green

just an idea, would show a difference that you would want to see maybe?
Bad idea, as (differences in) colour is meant to draw attention immediately and therefore should be used to denote large differences, like how the colours are grouped right now (although I'd argue there's not enough contrast and it looks silly on the dark skin as it stands).