A new way to view player attributes?

I think attributes need a massive change. Why not make it so every player has attributes as they do now, but make them all invisible...all the time. Give the user the option to add their own values or get their scouts/coaches to asses the players and give the attributes they think, or a range of attributes they think (eg Pace 11-14), and the less they have seen on the players the wider the range. The more well known the players, the more well known/accurate the stats.

If someone is playing in a poorer league than you they can appear to be amazing, with fantastic stats, and then fall short when they come into the league you're in. Also if you sign someone who is unknown, they may play brilliant at first chasing everything and never stop running (like Zaki) and you can see their "work rate" stat at 18-20, even if the true value is 10, but they were just trying extra hard as a new player trying to prove themselves, and eventually either the user could amend it or the coaches would spot it and change their mind too. Most physical stats would be fairly accurate after a short scouting period, because its not that hard to tell if a person is strong or fast.

But with the scouting options, at the moment I can choose to get my scouts to watch a player for 1 2 or 3 games or just give me a report. I dont think Ive ever chosen anything other than the report. I get it immediately and almost always see every attribute. If my key striker gets sold by the board on transfer deadline day, I can still "scout" half a dozen other players until I find a new star and sign them up before the window closes. I can do that and be confident the player will do well because I know all of their attributes.

I think a scout report should be nothing more than my scout asking their coaches what they think of the player. And the report should have no attributes, and simply be a "Crystal Palace coach 'Person X' believes 'Player Y' has a fantastic future, and even now would not look out of place in the Prem. Then give some key stats and compare him to a well known player. For example say his play is similar to Thierry Henry and he has plenty of pace and uses the flanks. Something like that. The accuracy of these reports would be erratic, because your scouts are not actually going to watch that player play, and are relying soley on what they've been told.

This would encourage people to spend more time scouting for talent and I think this would add an extra dimension to the game, extra realism. I want to sign a flop. I want to spend money on a superstar and get a Rebrov. Because at the moment you can look at any player, get a scout report immediately, see all/most of their stats and know if they are any good. Its just too easy to find quality players

Maybe there could be a checkbox at the start of the game next to the attribute masking bit, somthing like make all stats visible or not

I dunno, its probably a really comlicated and poor idea tbf

yeah i like that idea actually, but maybe would not be implemented. I like the idea of having to rely on your scouts more, not just by staring at a spreadsheet of stats.

I think it could also encourage players to spend a bit more on a player that has played and proven themselves in your league or above, because the attributes for lower league or even foreign league players may not be as accurate because they have not played against a certain standard/type of player

FWIW, Out of the Park Baseball has an option for "Stats Only," where a player's ratings are hidden. As the manager, you have to evaluate the players by their performance alone. Scouts give an indication of what they think a player's potential is, but that's it. It makes judging a player very difficult, but is seen by some players of the game as the most realistic way of judging a player's worth.

I would like to see something similar in FM, but only because I grew up in sports management sims with OOTP, where the rule is, "The More Options, The Better." FM is diffucult enough as is, thank you very much, and I wouldn't use such an option if it were available. But I know there are people who would, and who am I to begrudge them that?

Actually wouldn't mind. Think it's a reasonable good idea. It would be more realistic, that's for sure. But would it work with a game that has become almost too difficult to understand?

If it would be easier to understand things in the game, then yeah. Why not?!

i thought of colours instead of numbers!?! like a green if attributes high, through yellow and orange to red for low then all the numbers only show when you've had player for a while.

maybe attributes like pace which are measurable would appear quicker ... and attributes like determination would take longer to show up, thought of that a while ago, but if you were looking at a player and it was bright green in the right places you would sign him ... but did your scouts get it right? maybe poor scouts get it wrong sometimes?

FWIW, Out of the Park Baseball has an option for "Stats Only," where a player's ratings are hidden. As the manager, you have to evaluate the players by their performance alone. Scouts give an indication of what they think a player's potential is, but that's it. It makes judging a player very difficult, but is seen by some players of the game as the most realistic way of judging a player's worth.

I would like to see something similar in FM, but only because I grew up in sports management sims with OOTP, where the rule is, "The More Options, The Better." FM is diffucult enough as is, thank you very much, and I wouldn't use such an option if it were available. But I know there are people who would, and who am I to begrudge them that?

only if the match ratings arent bugged, if that was the case, who would buy a DMC in fm08, a striker in fm09 v910 or a amc in v920..

only if the match ratings arent bugged, if that was the case, who would buy a DMC in fm08, a striker in fm09 v910 or a amc in v920..

If it effects one, it effects them all, right? As long as one kept that in mind, pick the one who is relatively better than those around him. So he only averages 6.3 ... if everyone else is averaging 5.9, guess who's best?