Fog Of War Needs Improving

I have noticed a lot of people saying the game is too easy and asking for difficulty settings. I don't think that is the way forward but I do think an improvement on attribute masking would be a good idea. At the moment I don't feel the that attribute masking on it's own is adequate enough. It is all too easy to send the scouts out and soon get back reports detailing pretty much everything about a player. You can already see how much they are worth and which positions they can play. I think to the seasoned player those two factors alone will give you a pretty good idea of a players ability. For example, if you see a CB playing in League two valued at £500k you have a good idea he is an excellent player and could probably play in a lot higher division before you even scout him. I am proposing an overhaul of the system to make it a complete Fog of War.

1. Hide player values - Everyone has different ideas on the value of a player. To have a player value shown just makes some people think that is what they are worth. I think it would be better to leave it open to interpretion of the scouts and the manager.

2. Hide playing positions - If you were given the squad list of a random team you wouldn't know where each player plays so why do we have that info from the start. Only from extensive scouting should this info become available. If a player can play at CB at LB but your scout has only seen him play at LB that should be all you see until the scouts have seen him for a while and have a better idea of attributes and think he could play there.

3. Slower visability of attributes - If a scout is watching a player for a few weeks he shouldn't come back after 1 game and say his tackling is 13. At first it should give a wider range, say between 9-15. Only after watching him play for a few games, against varying opposition should it become more apparant what his actually ability is. I think a period of 5 games would be about right to get a good idea but that it should still only be an outline and not comprehensive showing of a players abilities.

4. Progression once joined the club - Once you have received the scout reports and he feels no further info can be gathered you may decide to sign him then but it shouldn't be the end. When he joins and he starts training the coaches will then get an even better idea of his qualities. During coaching sessions it may become more apparant that LB is not his natural position and he is more adept at CB so that gets added to his positional lists. The attributes should then also start to level out and give a better indication of a players ability. When the scout report starts it mat range from 9-15, after watching him for a few games it may go to 11-14. Once he has signed and started training/playing regularly for the first team it should give a definitive rating of 13 for example.

5. PPM's show at later stage - When I currently look for midfielders I won't sign anyone who has PPM of shoot from distance. It tends to mean they take long shots all the time and creates a load of failed attacking chances. A scout watching the player may not know he has that PPM. For all the scout knows it may be a tactical decision to make him shoot all the time and not his natural game. The PPM's should only become apparant further down the line once it is obvious the player ignores certain tactical instructions.

I don't currently use FOW as it doesn't do enough to make it worthwhile. A few scouting missions later and you have the same info as if you didn't go with attribute masking unticked. With the above details it would be a whole new ball game. Scouts and coaches become a lot more important and advice worth following. Obviously the quality of scouts and coaches would affect how the reports come through too. It would all lean towards a harder game for the people who find it too easy. I like the idea of trying to figure out a players value and position without having it forced upon me. I think it would mean the ass man, coaches and scouts have a more influencial role in the club. I think the man management attribute could become better used for coaching staff as the higher it is the quicker they could find out about new signings. All in all I believe it would lead to a more intergrated system. If you start trusting yout coaches you would be more inclined to try and sign them if/when you move club. If they fail to come up with the goods you would be more likely to give them their P45 and go looking for better staff.

Anyway, those are my ideas on the current attribute masking system, any other opinions on how FOW could be improved or anyone agree or have other thoughts?

These are good ideas and alot of people would agree with you. But what about those who can't play for long periods of time? Do you think they could wait 6 months of playing time to find a player's best position if they only complete 2 seasons throughout the whole of that years version. What about those who like to pick it up and play. Again, it's more in depth stuff that some people won't want or don't have time to learn.

If SI bought this in they could possibly alienate some customers and lose customers.

But isn't that why attribute masking is already an option? You don't have to go with it but it could make it a more indepth game for those who want it.

It is, but I know alot of people don't use it. LLM lot would probably jump on your ideas. But alot won't.

I don't use attribute masking as it bores me. Having to wait. I like to find players and if I can't scout them before hand or get a rough idea it annoys me.

But isn't that why attribute masking is already an option? You don't have to go with it but it could make it a more indepth game for those who want it.

I agree with you. It's just an improvement to a current feature, and those who don't currently use it will not notice any difference if some of the changes you suggest were implemented.

I think that mental atributes should only be knowed after the player sign for a club.

Good ideas actually

... and SI could add the feature and then have three options for masking: None, Limited (current masking) and full (your ideas, or some similar). Then all will be happy, and no one have to play with a new masking setting if they don't want to.

All that is needed for a higher difficulty is better AI. Obscuring things making it more cumbersome and inefficient to play (or entering the game as a complete beginner being scorned and spat at by 18-year-olds like it is now) is not the way to go.

If the year is 1930 then I'd agree with most of that however, we have a little piece of technology called the internet now. The World is a far smaller place and knowledge is a lot greater. You can almost scout a player online these days without ever having him scouted.

I dont agree with hiding player position like that, I mean, all it takes is an internet search most of the time or a quick email to someone to get to know what positions a person plays at. Sure, you could make it so it's a little "Inaccurate" the information you get till you scout better, but a lot of that kinda information is available readily or could be accessed just going to a fansite or the likes.

I agree with the sentiment of the OP. These should, IMO, have the highest priority:

- Inaccurate attributes: when the only sources are scout reports, the attributes are inaccurate. Don't show a range (eg. 13-16), but just show a number with an unkown margin of error (better JudgePA/JudgeCA would lead to narrower margins). Multiple scoutings of the same player would lead to narrower margins of error.

- Incomplete scoutings: now, if I scout a player, the player sheet is complete. Personality is known, all the attributes are unkown, etc. Multiple scoutings of the same player rarely makes sense (e.g. scout for x matches), as that barely gives you more info than "get report card" already gives you. This behaviour should change.

If the year is 1930 then I'd agree with most of that however' date=' we have a little piece of technology called the internet now. The World is a far smaller place and knowledge is a lot greater. You can almost scout a player online these days without ever having him scouted.[/quote']

WHS

Wikipedia will tell anyone the basic of any player and Youtube will show you their greatest moments. Maybe you won't have an accurate scouting report but you will at least know what the player is capable of at his best and what his role is within his squad along with his statistics for his entire career.

I love the op. I think this is what is needed. Obviously as BiggusD said the AI could be improved but it is far too easy to spot quality players with one scout report and sometimes that isn't even required. I use attribute masking but I don't know why as it makes little difference when it comes to finding talent. I don't use the player search function though and rely soley on scouting reports from assignments and players offered by agents. Even doing that it is too easy to find the superstar newgens.

Agreed. Each coach may have different ratings of a player's attributes and the better the coach is good at judging player's ability, the more accurate judgement would be made regarding the attributes, which is a subjective rating, whereas the objective actual rating of a player's ability should never be known so easily as by merely clicking on "Get scount reports for the player" and then you know every attribute of the player, except for those attributes that can be tested and recorded with concrete data, like speed or acceleration, namely physical attributes.

And as in real life, when you are trying to sign a player and you're currently scouting him, you should get reports regarding the player's character and mood or maybe his lifestyle, his proness to injury. So that mean we should be able to see more 'hidden attributes' that are currently insulated to us. I mean attributes like 'professionalism' 'Sportsmanship' etc. should actually be seen, but only after more efforts in scouting them from staff doing their job and with different accuracy depending on different ability the staff has.

The scout report already gives a personality description such as dedicated professional or loyal and it list things like being injury prone in the strengths/weaknesses part. I want it so a scout can NEVER give an 100% accurate report of ANY player attribute. Ranges, as suggested, would be ok though but even then there should be a limit to how narrow a range can be from scouting alone. I only want accurate attributes listing once a player is in my squad and my coaches have had time to assess him properly. Then, like real life, you would have to judge on reported personality, type of player(should still be fairly clear even using attribute ranges) and most importantly player performance at current club. This would also mean more transfer failures and, for me at least, would make it all the sweater when I did find that gem. You should also have to scout a player for MONTHS to get anything near an accurate report.

If the year is 1930 then I'd agree with most of that however' date=' we have a little piece of technology called the internet now. The World is a far smaller place and knowledge is a lot greater. You can almost scout a player online these days without ever having him scouted.[/quote']

Really? I wait for the day when SAF tells the world he only ever heard about Hernandez through youtube and never bothered to scout him as his wikipedia page told him all he needed to know. Or Messi or C Ronaldo or any of the other world stars of todays game. IRL paying large sums of money for players that "you've heard about" but not scouted would be the way to ruin. You would soon find yourself delivering post or milk or something.

You can find player positions by just studying game programs...

If the year is 1930 then I'd agree with most of that however' date=' we have a little piece of technology called the internet now. The World is a far smaller place and knowledge is a lot greater. You can almost scout a player online these days without ever having him scouted.[/quote']

WHS

Wikipedia will tell anyone the basic of any player and Youtube will show you their greatest moments. Maybe you won't have an accurate scouting report but you will at least know what the player is capable of at his best and what his role is within his squad along with his statistics for his entire career.

I'm not sure that football managers use wiki as a scouting tool tbh. It's one thing knowing what some random on the internets opinion is of a players position and abilities, it's another to have a trusted scout give you a full report. I'm not proposing that all players have positions hidden, just the players that people are not familiar with. It's like how attribute masking works now. The well known players have their attributes shown as everyone knows who they are but the further down the pyramid the less attributes are on display. Let me use a well known player as an example.

Javier Mascharano built his career so far on being a DM. Everyone within football has known that's position for years now. Imagine if he was a brand new player though that no one had heard of playing at some lower division club. If you had sent your scouts to watch him for the past 12-18 months the natural assumption would be he was a CB. Thats where he has played most of his football recently and he is pretty good there. They might see him play the odd game in midfield but it would be more usual to see him at the back. When you receive the scout reports it should list him as a CB and have DM/CM listed as competent. If you then signed him, once he was involved in the training sessions the coaches may give a report about how he is comfortable on the ball and looks a natural DM too. Would add to the training reports and make your choice of staff a lot more important.

All that is needed for a higher difficulty is better AI. Obscuring things making it more cumbersome and inefficient to play (or entering the game as a complete beginner being scorned and spat at by 18-year-olds like it is now) is not the way to go.

I'd love the AI to become better at squad management to make the game more difficult in career games. It's been required for years and still no sign of it improving though.

I'd love the AI to become better at squad management to make the game more difficult in career games. It's been required for years and still no sign of it improving though.

I personally think it is better this year than last but yes there are still improvements to be made.

I've thought the player values system needed overhauling for a while now. What I find particularly frustrating is how unrealistic it is to click on a club and see a list of player values. For example in real life, I can't suddenly find a list of the current values of every single Colchester player, yet in FM I can just click on the team and there they are. Maybe it would be better to be able to click on the team and see certain players values, such as the ones who had been transfer listed, but all others were blank and you either had to take a stab in the dark, scout the player or make an enquiry to the club.

I also think too much importance is placed on the hidden CA/PA attributes when it comes to player values, rather than current form nd cotract length. How often IRL does a player have a good run of form and be sold for over the odds? Take Andy Carroll for example, the only reason he was sold for £35m was because he had a good start to the season, and 2 months previously he had signed a 5 year contract. But how often in FM does this happen?

Really? I wait for the day when SAF tells the world he only ever heard about Hernandez through youtube and never bothered to scout him as his wikipedia page told him all he needed to know. Or Messi or C Ronaldo or any of the other world stars of todays game. IRL paying large sums of money for players that "you've heard about" but not scouted would be the way to ruin. You would soon find yourself delivering post or milk or something.

He signed Bebe with out seeing him play only on recordings. So yes it may not of been through Wiki that he signed someone but he did on the evidence of a few videos.

He signed Bebe with out seeing him play only on recordings. So yes it may not of been through Wiki that he signed someone but he did on the evidence of a few videos.

That worked out well didn't it

My dream is to have an option to change the display of attributes into descriptive labels like "decent" "excellent" or "total cr@p". That would take care of the OP's issues with the current FoW and also make the experience closer to life. Heh, we could even go as far as to tie attributes to coaches at the club - every coach would have their idea of how good a particular player is in a specific aspect of his gameplay. Of course then I would be the only person to play with this option on, I guess.

Although the game needs PA. The scouts, coaches and staff should never have access to that kind of information. It should be hidden for game purposes.

What is potential in the real World?

I'd say its a combination of CA with age.

i.e. a 16 year old with CA=1, PA=200 should be a complete nobody that no scout will ever recommend.

However a scout may well recommend a 16 year old with CA=100, PA=100 as being a brilliant candidate for the future.

So PA never plays a part in reports or ratings.

Try playing with an attribute hiding skin. It takes scouting to a whole new level since, on the whole, you have to do it yourself. And your squad building to a new level of challenge, since you can't see how good or bad a player is just by looking at a panel, and instead have to asses him yourself by watching him play or using the Trial options before deciding wether or not he's worth a bid. Its not for everyone since it means taking in a lot of 3d games, but its a challenge that makes LLM rules for kids (j/k). Seriously though, I agree with the OP. A better fog of war needs to be added. At the moment we have one of two extremes, either we have everything we need to know handed to us on a silver plate in the form of the all-showing attribute panels and indepth coach reports, like now, or we have none at all by using an attribute hiding skin. An incremental middle-ground would be ideal, as long as its optional via preferences.

He signed Bebe with out seeing him play only on recordings. So yes it may not of been through Wiki that he signed someone but he did on the evidence of a few videos.

According to Wikipedia he signed him on the recommendation of Carlos Queiroz, who used to be Ferguson's assistant manager. Surely this is the equivalent of a scouting report in FM. So he didn't sign him based on some comments on the web, but based on a report from someone he trusted who knew the player well.

According to Wikipedia he signed him on the recommendation of Carlos Queiroz, who used to be Ferguson's assistant manager. Surely this is the equivalent of a scouting report in FM. So he didn't sign him based on some comments on the web, but based on a report from someone he trusted who knew the player well.

Or, which I suspect, boosting his friend's club economy by 7.5m. And his favourite coach's future club by 5m.

It's something I used to talk about a lot, years back.

Basically, I think you can divide attributes up into groupings of those that are pretty easy to spot, those that you can refine over a few views, and those that you would need plenty of time to uncover. This would encourage players to scout players multiple times to get the best picture, or make them gamble more. Where you are managing would have an affect here. You'd have to use stats more.

I take the point about the modern world of the internet, and that should be reflected. Clearly, getting a good picture of Lionel Messi is pretty easy and he's famous enough to have a near-full reveal from the start, with huge amounts of detail about who he is. But the same wouldn't apply to Franck Zalo at Nostell MWFC! That would take scouting just to get basic details.

So if we imagine that we send our scout on that first visit to see Mr Zalo, the first report may just say where he played, a general mark out of 10 for how he played, some personal details, some basic physical attributes, and maybe one or two technical attributes that stood out on the day. That first report would also contain a suggestion whether or not the lad was worth scouting further. I wouldn't personally have the scout give ranges, but I'd maybe have a simple traffic light system for confidence. So he may give Franck a 14 for pace, and he's pretty confident with that, so it's green. But he finished sharply too, so he gets a 10 for finishing, but it's red as it could just be a good game.

Over further views, the picture would get fuller. Attributes would change through the traffic lights as confidence grew. And after 5 or 6 viewings, you'd have a decent picture. PPMs would come late. I'd keep some mental attributes in red until you'd bought the player, and had him at the club a couple of weeks (I'd definitely apply FoW to your own squad when you took over, making interaction with staff more important).

You can easily pull some attribute groupings together. You might see Jumping, Pace, Strength as ones where you'd easily get a good, accurate rating. Acceleration, Balance, Agility, Stamina, maybe require more time. Natural Fitness is one for the medical, or time at the club. So you can see there a range of scout 'passes' 3 or 4 matches, to get a full picture of his physical attributes. Crossing, Dribbling, Finishing, First Touch, Heading, Long Shots, Passing, Tackling may all come pretty accurate after two or three views. If he's on free kicks or corners, then that'll come easy too. If he's not, you are not going to get that attribute till you get him in training. Ditto for long throws. Mental attributes should be the harder to see. Things like Aggression, Concentration, Determination, Work Rate, Teamwork will come pretty easily. Anticipation, Positioning, Movement, Influence, Decisions, Composure, much harder.

The big benefit though, I'd get rid of "hidden attributes" entirely. After you've had a player for months, there's no reason you shouldn't see his consistency attribute, his professionalism, etc. So there'd ultimately be a fuller reveal than now.

Obviously, this should all be optional. So you'd have, say, four options in fog of war. You could have no reveals at all, for those few players that want to just judge players on 3D viewings and stats. Second would be the in-depth FoW as described above. Third would be as it is now. And finally you have no FoW for a quicker game.

I also agree about stopping the AI 'seeing' PA. Recommendations of potential should be based, as in real life, on performances and the traits of a player.

The necessary accompaniment to this is to vastly improve interaction and relationships. I'd like to see trust and friendship develop between you and coaches, other managers, scouts, and agents. So you'd be able to ask your 'friends' for recommendations. They'd maybe come to you with suggestions. This is how it works in real-life, especially at lower levels where many clubs have no scouts. An agent that has found you a couple of good players, you'd begin to trust, so you may sign players of theirs sight unseen.

And yes, I said "found" there. Agents should tout players as they do now, but they should also come to you, ask you what you are looking for, and effectively scout for you. So they'd maybe have a suitable player on the books. But if not, as part of their ongoing efforts to expand their stable, they'd find suitable players, sign them up, then come back to you. This, again, is how it happens in real life. It adds a great little interaction from the flipside, where your promising youngster suddenly signs with a new agent, and you start to wonder if he is being eyed up. I think it would help with this issue too: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/296295-Lower-League-in-FM-No-scouting-no-development-no-money-no-talent because your friendly agents would know if you needed bargains.

There are some good ideas but I would prefer to have more of a say in it. Like stated above, if you tick 'attribute masking' then there should be a drop down menu of high, medium and low levels of masking.

Also, you will get heaps of people complaining, like "It takes me so long to scout players and the AI just signs all the wonder kids straight away". As most of us know it's a mad rush to get in on the brazil newgen creation date, so by the time you have scouted them all the AI clubs have just signed the good ones.

Some really good ideas. Slower revealing and a range of attributes has been mentioned in LLM some years ago but nothing ever came to reality.

It's something I used to talk about a lot, years back.

[snip]

There's also some more discussion here: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/272843-Visual-Player-Attributes-Do-We-Still-Need-Them (about a third of the way down) and here: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/262768-What-s-the-point-of-hiding-certain-Attributes

I support the OP together with the idea for "None, Limited (current masking) and full (your ideas, or some similar)" masking options. This way, everyone is gonna be happy. Casual players, and veterans alike.

Fifa 12 for example with their youth scouting in manager mode give you a range of player attributes. Only upon signing them do you see their true stats. Similar thing goes for games like NBA 2k12 with scouting attributes given as A+, B-, D etc. Basic point is that you can never be 100% sure of a player's ability until after you sign him.

Although the game needs PA. The scouts' date=' coaches and staff should never have access to that kind of information. It should be hidden for game purposes.

What is potential in the real World?

I'd say its a combination of CA with age.

i.e. a 16 year old with CA=1, PA=200 should be a complete nobody that no scout will ever recommend.

However a scout may well recommend a 16 year old with CA=100, PA=100 as being a brilliant candidate for the future.

So PA never plays a part in reports or ratings.[/quote']

I agree fully with this, and this is in fact something I've wanted to be the case for a few years now.

I do think PA doesn't affect a player's value as much as it used to on FM2007, but it's still too obvious.

Although the game needs PA. The scouts' date=' coaches and staff should never have access to that kind of information. It should be hidden for game purposes.

What is potential in the real World?

I'd say its a combination of CA with age.

i.e. a 16 year old with CA=1, PA=200 should be a complete nobody that no scout will ever recommend.

However a scout may well recommend a 16 year old with CA=100, PA=100 as being a brilliant candidate for the future.

So PA never plays a part in reports or ratings.[/quote']

Exactly. Irl a player with decent ability may not be noticed because his performance in his current club hasn't proved anything and he might be loaned out, as I recently noticed in the news that Man.Utd and some other big clubs are keep their eyes on a left back loaned to a Spanish club, because he is now producing some stably good performances, whereas in FM the player will either be transfer listed or be regarded as some important player just because the AI knows his CA is quite decent.

some great ideas over here. the SI people should really read this thread.

Increasing the fog of war is all very well, but I think lessening the fog of minimal documentation requires immediate attention.

Increasing the fog of war is all very well, but I think lessening the fog of minimal documentation requires immediate attention.

Amen to that ... though I doubt it will ever happen