Football Manager 2011 - Revolutionary new game mode?

[Stupidmttr]

I don't think I saw this mentioned anywhere......and I don't know if the game is still around, but a guy named something like Mark Howard created a Football management game without visible stats called "Sick As A Parrot" - I even remember having a discussion once with Mark Vaughn on his message board years ago about the different approach needed between the stats and no stats way of designing and playing the game. Some of the problems of this approach have been discussed, but I would suggest maybe finding a copy of that game and seeing some of the good and bad points about this approach - it did really force you to pay attention to your players in a game to try and determine their relative ability, SAAP didn't have the depth to have a backroom staff to help you, so it really was your judgement that counted and it was an interesting concept at the time. SAAP was/is a lot less detailed than FM has become over time, but at one point it looked like a possible rival in the early CM days - not sure I want to go back to that type of play, but I can definitely understand the attraction of the concept.

Kudo's to whomever mentioned "The Double", great game.....my all time favourite from the good old days was Football Director, until CM (now FM) came along and took over the world.

[bredin]

Fleshing our the reports is a good idea.

Turning the game into Report Manager is not.

[mustin09]

Sports Interactive there is one thing i dont understand with football manager 2010. witch is in the spainish league and italian league u have given most players pictures of them on there profiles why none on no english clubs ? would be alot and why not use english club badges ?

[twatty]

Again, too much to read this all through. But Ive had same thought as OP. But you have to understand the developers as well, if the game was that hardcore that you couldnt see player skill, you would have to read what scout says, what your coaches says. I dare to say that more than 50% of people buying FM11, wouldnt do it again year later.

There for, I would love to have an optional skill level implemented. No scout on earth would find out accurate stats on anyone straight away. You would have to scout player for weeks even. And even then, some of the skills wouldnt be visible. And some stats could be raw estimations, maybe signalled with different colours saying this area needs more scouting and this im pretty sure about. This would take the game from realistic to freaking realistic.

But I have no idea how the games are written or so, so dont know would it be hard to implement two or three skill levels into the game?

Maybe launch two games, "FM" and "FM hardcore".

Please contact me before using these ideas SI

;D

[Luckz]

Sports Interactive there is one thing i dont understand with football manager 2010. witch is in the spainish league and italian league u have given most players pictures of them on there profiles why none on no english clubs ? would be alot and why not use english club badges ?

You can download that stuff, not hard to find at all..

[Taquin]

dunno if this is the right place to post this but i hope SI took note of the news coming in from the FIGC. it can be read here http://www.football-italia.net/jul02w.html they're reducin the non eu players from 2 to 1

[CaptainPlanet]

Full attribute masking.

I like it. I like it a lot. Please seriously consider this mode SI.

[Haiku]

Hey guys. I was thinking about this idea, and assumed that it will never be done. Why? Because it is impossible to represent in these days. Just think about it. If player attributes become hidden, it will be hard to research the players. How could you compare 2 players with third? Yeah we know that Rooney has good finishing, but how better/worst is he compared to Messi?! Who and how much better is ? Another thing. If the player attributes become hidden, that should be done with other statistics like player morale, ingame motivation, RATING, CONDITION!?!? What means 6.9 or 69% ?! Just think about it. You should play 90 mins for every game to get accurate information about every player. The real manager doesn't know how tired are his players, how motivated, he doesn't count their mistakes, their successful passes, headers and so on. He watches the game fully and judges it by himself. Have you got 90 mins per game? I don't have the time. So this statistics are helpful and important factor in fm. It will not be the same without them. But there is no logical reason to hide only the attributes.

[RBKalle]

Why getting rid of the attributes?

Attribute masking for unknown players works well enough, then you scout them and you get a better idea...

I can eventually agree the scouting system should be improved, and it should take more than one quick scouting session to get the report perfectly accurate.

Eventually let's have some sort of "margin of error", even after 10 scoutings... As in reality you can't really find out everything about a player before you work with him every day.

But saying "scouts and managers don't know a player's skill" is a big fat lie.

Clubs have huge networks of scouts who report about known and unknown players from everywhere. Then when someone gets their attention, they go for MORE SCOUTING, trying to find out more about the player.

So, no, I don't accept the explaination: "Mourinho has no idea about River's striker or about Trabzonspor's left-back".

Let's say "Mourinho may not know much about them, but if he wants to, he can get a good report about them in no time".

And that EXACTLY why FM has attribute masking for players outside your league or your "Scouting Knowledge"

I mean, come on, any devoted football fan can sketch a roughly accurate scout reports about most players in the main league he watches... and I suppose very few of us are insiders...

So if a fan can tell the strong points and the weaknesses of like 400-500 domestic-based players, how can I believe a Top Club have no clue about anyone past their league and world's top 10 sides?

[endtime]

It's not about having no clue, it's about not knowing every player's exact strengths and weaknesses after seeing him play in one match. As it is now, you know how good a player is at finishing and composure, even if you or your scouts have never seen him take a shot on goal. It doesn't matter how well a player performs or how many goals he's scored, because attribute points rule everything and you can immediately tell if player A is better than player B.

[edgar555]

It's not about having no clue, it's about not knowing every player's exact strengths and weaknesses after seeing him play in one match. As it is now, you know how good a player is at finishing and composure, even if you or your scouts have never seen him take a shot on goal. It doesn't matter how well a player performs or how many goals he's scored, because attribute points rule everything and you can immediately tell if player A is better than player B.

Not true. players can play above or below their visible attributes determined by their 'hidden' attributes. How else do you explain someone like Chin Obasi having 9 for finishing yet scoring 20+ goals a season. Or me having Ryan Mason in my 5th season Spurs CL, PL double winning midfield when he was only around 130CA? I could go on, but I won't. I think you all get the idea.

[Luckz]

Because Obasi's other attributes a great, and thus while his shooting accuracy might not be so great, he makes up for it with other things..

[RBKalle]

It's not about having no clue, it's about not knowing every player's exact strengths and weaknesses after seeing him play in one match. As it is now, you know how good a player is at finishing and composure, even if you or your scouts have never seen him take a shot on goal. It doesn't matter how well a player performs or how many goals he's scored, because attribute points rule everything and you can immediately tell if player A is better than player B.

To some extent I agree, and that's why we might use a bit of approximation in preliminary scout reports...

However keep in mind "you" (the in-game manager) get to know a player's attributes from the very beginning because the game assumes you've seen them already, and if you didn't then there's your network of scouts...

So the game kinda skips the whole "here are the reports for all the well-known players in the world" thing.

I can't see a good reason for not having such a feature...

After all you don't need to drive a Ferrari or to read its tech specs to know it'll reach 150mph etc...

[edgar555]

Because Obasi's other attributes a great, and thus while his shooting accuracy might not be so great, he makes up for it with other things..

Well done for the Obasi one. How do you explain Ryan Mason? Or one of the endless examples I could have used?

[Luckz]

I've never heard of that one

[endtime]

Not true. players can play above or below their visible attributes determined by their 'hidden' attributes. How else do you explain someone like Chin Obasi having 9 for finishing yet scoring 20+ goals a season.

I'd say that the match engine allows even a mediocre striker to score dozens of goals if you know how to set up your team.

Or me having Ryan Mason in my 5th season Spurs CL, PL double winning midfield when he was only around 130CA? I could go on, but I won't. I think you all get the idea.

Again, if you play the right way it's easy to overachieve with average players, and anyway I don't think that every player in Inter's first squad has 150+ CA. But that's really beside the point I was making.

After all you don't need to drive a Ferrari or to read its tech specs to know it'll reach 150mph etc...

Maybe not, but you probably do need to read its tech specs to know its maximum torque, horse power and lift/drag. Things like pace/acceleration or jumping are easily quantifiable, but how do you place concentration or flair or composure on a 20 point scale?

[R(0)bbye]

What I think should be changed is the transfers system. The fee's clubs are asking for their players are very high and that is something I don't really like 'cause it's not realistic. The transfer activity should, also, be increased because I've played 10 seasons already and there are lots of good players who still play at their starting clubs even if they are low reputation clubs.

[John_Utaka_17]

There are a lot of things that I agree with and a lot I don’t.

First of all I think it would be too much of a challenge if players had no visible stats at all, however I do agree with the fact that when you buy a player you shouldn't be able to instantly know whether they are going to be a 'wonder kid'. in some cases, maybe for more experienced players, you would they that they could perform at a certain level (for example; one premier league club buying a 28 year old midfielder that has played in that league for many years successfully) whereas a youngster might not be able to perform well in the prem instantly just because he has amazing stats.

another thing I might add is that maybe when you buy a player do you think the 'system' that your team play may affect how a new player perform when he comes into the squad? (for example; you buy a fairly young player who has been playing in a 5-4-1 formation for most of his career in a foreign country but then if he came to England and joined a team that played 4-3-3 or 4-2-2 he might struggle? there could be a rating on well he is adapting the system, the club and the country? I understand that there already is some kind of adaptation system already in place but maybe it could be improved?

The last point I will make is that when you do start a game where you’re in the BSN/S then obviously your staff are rubbish or in some cases you might not even be able to afford to have much staff and this could ruin the idea of having no stats showing. Whilst I am on this point I would say that when clubs are in debt especially smaller clubs, you should be able to say to the players and staff that they have to reduce their wage demands if they want to stay.

Anyone want to make any points on this?

Thanks

[Butcher9180]

I love the idea and for those who don't like it. Then why not make it an option alongside the attribute masking one? SO 3 options in all. 1. see all stats for everyone 2. see all well know players stats with the unknown players masked 3. Can't see any stats full stop

I'd love to try the game with this option. Having played FML i'd love to see how that would work for FML too?

would spice up the transfer market

[GIBURROWS]

I always change FM to the Bars system rather than the numbered stats and I like the game the way a player can look amazing and do nothing yet when I sell him he becomes a world beater! I just wish some of these amazing kids were actually amazing (walcott is awful in real life, same with vela most of arsenals kids are over rated and the brazillian kids as well, please sort out the German national team as well. Still trying to get chairman mode going as well!!!!

[heathxxx]

Having read through this thread and the concept the OP has, it's a strange one for me.

I don't think I would like Football Manager so much if it didn't display the "numbers". I guess I'm just so used to seeing player attributes the way they are and them instantly having some meaning to me.

The strange thing is, when Ultima Online made items in the game display numbered attributes, as opposed to written descriptions with the Age of Shadows expansion, I hated it instantly.

So work that one out!

The OP's idea in practice wouldn't work though, as all staff who are making the comments we as "managers" would base our decisions from, would all have to have the same, equal attributes. For example, if you had a poor scout or coach, how would you know if any of the information he provides, has any value whatsoever?

[pauly15]

That would be awesome, it would require a lot more time however from the player!

[x42bn6]

The main thing the OP fails to convince me is simple: Are you saying a manager has no way of judging a player besides scouting and coaching reports? What about his own players?

If anything, it's more of an argument to reveal pretty much all attributes (except perhaps PA) - a manager knows Joey Barton is controversial, that Ryan Giggs is as professional as they come and that Wayne Rooney is temperamental - in addition to whatever the game determines its personality to be.

Any sort of uncertainty is dealt with by attribute masking but in reality it's not quite that. We have some sort of prior knowledge that we can use. If we looked at a Premier League defender who is a first-teamer for a mid-table side, we could hazard a guess at his CA (120-130) and have a vague picture of what a defender with CA 120-130 looks like. Some of his more "extreme" attributes may be more well-known: For example, if the defender is a no-nonsense defender his aggression and bravery (amongst others) are likely to be rather high and therefore we could hazard a guess that they could be, say, 16-20. Conversely if he's an absolutely horrendous passer of the ball we could hazard a guess it's about 5 - the fact it's not 1-2 is dictated by the fact he's a Premier League defender and therefore has at least some semblance of passing ability. We may find out easily that he's the club captain, suggesting his influence is relatively high (12-16 perhaps), and that also posits some form of knowledge of his other attributes such as determination (likely to be above-average).

Scouting reports merely refine this. As you gain knowledge of a player's attributes they become more accurate. However, you do know a (very) rough picture of a player without having seen him. I am aware that a player in the Faroe Islands is highly unlikely to be ready for first-team football in the Premier League, and if I'm a manager managing a Faroese club I know Fernando Torres is a very good striker because of his reputation and scoring statistics - meaning I can guess his attributes roughly, even if my Faroese club has no chance of signing him.

This approach is called Bayesian inference and is related to the concept of likelihood.

An example from probability could be our defender above. Let's just focus on his influence - I could hazard a guess that his influence is around 12-16 based on statistics. As my scout begins to look at the player more and more, the window could narrow - say after one game it becomes 12-15, then after three games 13-15, then after ten games the scout concludes it is 13.

This of course posits the requirement that there are numbers. In reality, though, we implicitly convert things by assigning a "score" to things even if we don't know what that number is. For example, we may think Cristiano Ronaldo is twice times the player of Joe Rubbish the Championship winger, implicitly assigning some score to both in the knowledge that Ronaldo's score is around four times Rubbish's score. It just so happens of course that it is so much easier and sensible to quantify unknown measurements by some form of scale. Take temperature scales, like the Kelvin or Celsius scales. If we hadn't invented these scales, to measure the temperature of something we'd stick our hands on it and see how much it burns us. Creating a scale allows us to measure known quantities to compare unknown quantities.

That really is the whole point of the numbers scale - we know 1 is absolute toss and 20 the absolute best. We know, say, Cristiano Ronaldo's dribbling is likely to be around 18-20 and therefore from this we guess Joe Rubbish is likely to be around 9-10. This, to me, is the argument making numbers a reasonable way of representing ability. The alternative is, of course, the graphical way where we have bars, or the hexagonal ability graph.

We do not, however, judge the ability of a player by reports alone - you have an idea of how good a player is. However, since CA (and PA) are hidden, how do you judge a player? Well, you know his passing is pretty good, a bit better than another player's; you know he's the best free-kick taker in your club... This all sounds like the Cristiano Ronaldo vs. Joe Rubbish comparisons!

I'll answer the OP's last question:

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

David Moyes didn't look at his attributes. David Moyes had some idea of how good Rooney was. David Moyes reinforced his beliefs (Bayesian inference) through his coaches, watching him play and train, and possibly statistics. And made his decision.

You have to think of attributes not as attributes alone but as an overall picture of a player's "ability" - arguably his CA. The attributes make up a rough picture of a player's "ability", and it just so happens that the numbers assigned by SI into the game (1-20 or 1-100 behind the scenes) are a good way of scaling and representing player attributes. Removing numbers and relying on scout reports is not the way forward, in my opinion - removing them is arguably less realistic and is only a challenge.

----

The first part does suggest, to me, that the usual approach to masking attributes is wrong - we could, for example, have some form of "brightness" where being less sure about attributes makes the attribute darker, but brighter attributes mean it's much more accurate. But it means that no attribute should be masked - we know implicitly something about a player even before we look at them.

[Ison]

I can't reply to all the responses but having read the last post I still cannot see attributes as an overall picture of a player's ability. It's an attempt to describe them exactly. There's no give or take from what I can see. Say I'm a top team and I'm looking for a new wide player. I'll only settle for a winger with 16+ crossing, 16+ pace etc. etc. and i'll go about all this like a robot in a matter of minutes. There's no joy in it. Even if my suggestion isn't the way forward - SI need to look at how they can really make the player feel like they're managing a team in a wider real world context and not just maintaining a spreadsheet.

PS. This thread was the first thing that came up on google when 'football manager 2011' was searched for up to a few weeks ago. Crazy.

[x42bn6]

I can't reply to all the responses but having read the last post I still cannot see attributes as an overall picture of a player's ability. It's an attempt to describe them exactly. There's no give or take from what I can see. Say I'm a top team and I'm looking for a new wide player. I'll only settle for a winger with 16+ crossing, 16+ pace etc. etc. and i'll go about all this like a robot in a matter of minutes. There's no joy in it. Even if my suggestion isn't the way forward - SI need to look at how they can really make the player feel like they're managing a team in a wider real world context and not just maintaining a spreadsheet.

PS. This thread was the first thing that came up on google when 'football manager 2011' was searched for up to a few weeks ago. Crazy.

There is no joy because there is no need for joy - you need to figure out how good a player is. There is a latent ability to "know" how good a player is - I know Wayne Rooney is better than Dimitar Berbatov who is much better than David Nugent who is much better than Dong Fangzhuo. How do I know? We simply "know". This isn't good enough obviously for a computer - which is where the attributes come in. It seems fair to assume that a player's ability is determined by how good he is on the pitch. How do we determine how good a player is on the pitch? We determine it by looking at how he performs on the pitch, on and off the ball. Break that down further and further and we get some attributes out.

The point is that if a manager is forced to simply go by scout and coach reports, it implies the coaches can judge ability but you can't. Which is, of course, wrong.

Let's take your example. How would you want to choose a new right winger without attributes? Let's simplify it a bit and say that there's three choices A, B and C.

[HenryJudas]

I like the idea of attribute brightness, that's a good idea, however I still think there should be a certain degree of attribute masking until a player has been scouted.

In an ideal game, this is how I would like the scouting to work:

1. Unknown player, can't see any stats.

2. Scouted player your scout came across on an assignment, every stat pretty vague except for obvious stats the "performance on the day" does not effect a great deal (pace, height etc etc) everything else put in a very broad band e.g finishing 12-20 etc etc.

3. 5 match scouting assignment on that player will reveal a clearer picture on his more technical and mental stats - still not 100% clear but getting there.

4. 5 match specialization scouting by either sending a defensive coach to watch a defender or a scout who specializes in defensive players- these will give a rundown on the core stats of the player in that position, plus his potential ability in that role, plus all his strengths and weaknesses in that role.

5. 5 match scouting assignment to dig around and reveal more about his personality ( an in depth report, not just simply saying determined, but listing his other traits too like ambition, professionalism etc) all the while his stats are becoming clearer

6. Final 5 match scouting rundown to show all the other things he is good/bad at and finally reveal his true stats

That's 21 matches in all he has been scouted in, which is pretty comprehensive and realistic. Anybody should have a pretty good idea what a player is like over those games. Obviously as time goes on and you haven't done anything with a player you've scouted over a couple of seasons, you should have to send your scout out again to get an update. The scout should then come back after another 5 match assignment and tell you all the things that player has improved or become worse in.

The end result should always be pretty clear no matter how good the scout. The benefit of having a top class scout would be making the intial scouting judgements better, e.g a scout with jca 13- would give striker "a" a finishing attribute in the region of 10-18, where as a scout with the jca of 20 would give striker "a" a finishing attribute between 15-18. This of course would would scale across all attributes, but the end result should always be the same with both scouts. The benefit of having a good scout is to then judge wether that scout should pursue that player over a 21 match period or not, where as you might not be so sure with a lesser abled scout, so you might end up scouting a player for 21 matches just to find he's craop at he end of it!

Like I said, this is an ideal, how SI would be able to do this, plus balance it out so that the AI is balanced is anybodies guess.

I'd also like to see the implementation of scouting networks too. It bugs me that you send a scout to a country, and within 3 months he's lost all knowledge of it. You should be able to set up scouting networks within a country, where the contacts your scout has met with whilst scouting foreign shores report to him any promising youngsters appearing on the scene, your scout would then ask you if you want him to scout the youth etc etc . This should all come of course at a cost. 1. the initial outlay of setting a network up and 2. maintaining that network (kind of like a wage). The more money you pump into it the better the reports, but it should be quite costly. It should also take a long while for the scout to attain his contacts (say 6-12 months), but once done, the scout wouldn't have to keep scouting the same country over and over and over, and his knowledge of that country would become wider and wider. A scout should also be able to set up multiple networks but doing so will obviously give him less time to scout talent. He shouldn't be able to do any serious scouting whilst he's setting up networks.

This should free him up to watch players in the above suggestion, he should only be able to watch a limited ammount of players at a time, and they should all be based fairly locally to each other (no more getting a report for 5 players all from different continents by the same coach in the same day).

Just some crazy ideas I have, sorry about any spelling/grammar mistakes, i'm tired.

[x42bn6]

Won't quote you to save space but I agree, HenryJudas. However, I'd imagine the scouting will eventually get an overhaul anyway, separately from this method of scouting players.

This part might be controversial for some, so I'll expand upon it:

The end result should always be pretty clear no matter how good the scout.

It is overwhelmingly likely that even the worst scout will eventually judge a player accurately - even if it takes ages. A scout at Blue Square North level may need to analyse the player for years to get an accurate idea of the player but the point is that he will eventually learn. The main difference between top scouts and rubbish scouts is that top scouts will be able to "converge" to this accurate value quicker, and their initial "guess" is less likely to be miles off.

[dave byrd]

As for the full attribute masking option, get real. I'd say less than one precent of the total people that play the game use the current attribute masking system option.

[Robes2]

I tried to make a full attribute masking skin with a simplified polygon for the very purpose of making a more realistic simulator, someone linked to it previously: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/124024-Real-Skin?highlight=polygon.

Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to dedicate to learning how to skin and the whole thing was one big hack job! It worked though and I played through a game and really enjoyed the experience. One of the problems I found was that I couldn't work out how to edit scout reports etc. (is it even possible?), I had hoped to create a more accurate player report system but it just couldn't be done. I would love for SI to include an option for this kind of playing in the game but they really need to work on the player reports side of things because at the moment I don't find them very useful.

I think some people here are missing the point, no one is forcing you to play without attributes but it's an option that some of us would like to have, why post negatively in this thread when it's something that won't affect you?

[edgar555]

I tried to make a full attribute masking skin with a simplified polygon for the very purpose of making a more realistic simulator, someone linked to it previously: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/124024-Real-Skin?highlight=polygon.

Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to dedicate to learning how to skin and the whole thing was one big hack job! It worked though and I played through a game and really enjoyed the experience. One of the problems I found was that I couldn't work out how to edit scout reports etc. (is it even possible?), I had hoped to create a more accurate player report system but it just couldn't be done. I would love for SI to include an option for this kind of playing in the game but they really need to work on the player reports side of things because at the moment I don't find them very useful.

I think some people here are missing the point, no one is forcing you to play without attributes but it's an option that some of us would like to have, why post negatively in this thread when it's something that won't affect you?

Even optional items have to be programmed and tested and could trigger other bugs. Therefore they take crucial development time away from key areas of the game to satisfy a tiny percentage who want this. That right there is a good enough argument for me to say 'no thanks'.

[Robes2]

Even optional items have to be programmed and tested and could trigger other bugs. Therefore they take crucial development time away from key areas of the game to satisfy a tiny percentage who want this. That right there is a good enough argument for me to say 'no thanks'.

Really? An option that simply masks all attributes rather than just some attributes will take up loads of crucial programming time? I doubt it. If I can hack a skin in a few hours then I'm sure an experienced SI programmer can add an option for attribute masking in far less time.

[edgar555]

Really? An option that simply masks all attributes rather than just some attributes will take up loads of crucial programming time? I doubt it. If I can hack a skin in a few hours then I'm sure an experienced SI programmer can add an option for attribute masking in far less time.

Its still taking up some time though isn't it? It doesn't just magically happen. If everybody wanted this option then I'm all for it going in, as it stands with a small minority for it, whether it takes a few hours or a few days is really beside the point, it is a waste of time that could and should be used to the betterment of the game for all, not the minority.

[x42bn6]

Its still taking up some time though isn't it? It doesn't just magically happen. If everybody wanted this option then I'm all for it going in, as it stands with a small minority for it, whether it takes a few hours or a few days is really beside the point, it is a waste of time that could and should be used to the betterment of the game for all, not the minority.

Software development doesn't always work that way though... Software issues are not just dealt with by priority meaning the number of users who use the feature.

At some point new things will be introduced to keep the game fresh, lest we end up with Improvement Manager 2012.

[edgar555]

Software development doesn't always work that way though... Software issues are not just dealt with by priority meaning the number of users who use the feature.

At some point new things will be introduced to keep the game fresh, lest we end up with Improvement Manager 2012.

Surely they have to listen to the customer in terms of new features though, and if everyone wanted it this way, it would happen. Thats just business sense. You clearly know more about software than me but the business bit I do know.

[Robes2]

I really don't see what there is to be upset about, it's obviously a simple amendment or tweak as they already have attribute masking in the game, it really isn't a big deal.

[SSGTroyer]

Really? An option that simply masks all attributes rather than just some attributes will take up loads of crucial programming time? I doubt it. If I can hack a skin in a few hours then I'm sure an experienced SI programmer can add an option for attribute masking in far less time.

It's not just a skinning issue. The AI would have to be adjusted so it wouldn't see what it does now, as well. It would require a whole new off-the-pitch AI scheme, and that would take time.

Unless you want your opposing managers to see the attributes you don't...talk about a Difficulty Setting...

[Trikstaa]

FM is a game. FM is also a product. Its a great feature to include for those looking for in-depth analysis and that real manager feeling, but SI is going to want something to sell, a game that won't need to be considered "work" to the general public. As of right now, the attribute masking is a beautiful add to the game, so instead of completely blocking the idea of stats, why not make it harder to gather those attributes. Why not have to scout them much longer, in order to enable their finishing attribute. It would be a perfect idea. Instead of sending a scout for a "Report Card" and coming back with a bunch of IN GAME stats such as Finishing, Passing, etc, SI should instead turn their focus on these "3-day scouting experiences". So what I'm saying, is that:

Send:

Scout A: Report Card - A few non-important accurate stats. (When I say non-important, I mean in comparison to the players position, I.E (Scout Striker, Find out Defending Abilities), and keep the rest like personality, media, PA/CA the same. *Sometimes depending on the ability of the scout, he will be able to come back with important stats, but its more of a risk taker.

Scout B: 2 Games - Important stats, some should have exclamation marks meaning that a full 3 game scouting should be done. This provides the player with a quick option to buy the player if he/she is in a rush.

Scout C: 3 Games - All Important stats revealed relevant to the players position. 3 Games is almost three weeks during the transfer window, so I mean it would really make scouting more realistic, as managers do try and take their time while scouting.

I think this will make the game even more challenging, rather than deemed unplayable if your idea was implemented (Sorry!) Just considered what the general public would feel about this.

Marketing my friend!

[Robes2]

It's not just a skinning issue. The AI would have to be adjusted so it wouldn't see what it does now, as well. It would require a whole new off-the-pitch AI scheme, and that would take time.

Unless you want your opposing managers to see the attributes you don't...talk about a Difficulty Setting...

The AI wouldn't need changed, you think SI changed the way AI works when you play with the fog of war enabled? My concern isn't with how the computer plays, that is all under the bonnet, my concern is how the game is represented to me.

[Cause = Time]

<..>instead of completely blocking the idea of stats, why not make it harder to gather those attributes. Why not have to scout them much longer, in order to enable their finishing attribute. It would be a perfect idea. Instead of sending a scout for a "Report Card" and coming back with a bunch of IN GAME stats such as Finishing, Passing, etc, SI should instead turn their focus on these "3-day scouting experiences". So what I'm saying, is that:

Send:

Scout A: Report Card - A few non-important accurate stats. (When I say non-important, I mean in comparison to the players position, I.E (Scout Striker, Find out Defending Abilities), and keep the rest like personality, media, PA/CA the same. *Sometimes depending on the ability of the scout, he will be able to come back with important stats, but its more of a risk taker.

Scout B: 2 Games - Important stats, some should have exclamation marks meaning that a full 3 game scouting should be done. This provides the player with a quick option to buy the player if he/she is in a rush.

Scout C: 3 Games - All Important stats revealed relevant to the players position. 3 Games is almost three weeks during the transfer window, so I mean it would really make scouting more realistic, as managers do try and take their time while scouting.

That makes no sense. I agree that it'd make sense for scouting to be less immediate, but this seems backwards. Why would the attributes which don't matter be the first ones you see accurately? They're the ones which make the least difference to the player's performances, and the player will only show them rarely.

If you sent a scout to take a quick look at a striker (in real life), he wouldn't come back with a fantastically accurate report on his defensive abilities but be unable to tell you whether he was any good in front of goal. If anything, it should be harder to to discover a striker's marking, or a centre-back's dribbling, because they're not used very often.

[redmotion]

(FM-noob alert!) Something similar popped into my head recently, was going to post it but found this thread:-

IDEA: Ditch the stats and replace with visuals, FIFA09/10/11 style. That is the next jump for Football management gaming. And it also translates to consoles better. (It also might be better for a partnership to form between sega and EA than for one or the other to do everything themselves.)

REASON: I'm pretty sure that managers just look at their players on the field and use their performances in training to gauge whether they are match fit, at the top of their game or not, working well in a position, etc. They don't sit blindly in a small room with a computer and look at statistics. Maybe their assistants compile stats to get them to look at specific players more closely but I'm pretty sure its all about actually watching performances in the realworld. (And watching replays and telling the players what they did wrong in the game before).

THOUGHTS: Something I prefer in CM2010 (sorry), is the ability to visually watch the training (and just watch which player hits the target more often), do much more (at least they seem) complex strategies in the formation page (eg: ask a particular player to feed a ball specifically to someone else) and set up set pieces and watch how they play out. (Yes the CM2010 match engine does wierd stuff like defenders knocking a stationary ball out for a corner but at least its easier to tell why you're losing...).

I think just some sort of colour coding would help with the stats because reams of b&w stats in a spreadsheet view just isn't visually quick enough for me to be really enjoyable (you really have to slog through pages and pages of them to make informed decisions). I still think the pages are still badly organised (sorry). I'm still finding I have to flick back and forth for certain information, I can't increase or customise rows of info (or can I?). I think some sort of windows system where you can drag and drop stuff and compare different info more easily would improve things immensely. I don't like having to use "pulldown" menus and sliders to direct a fluid game like football. I want something like a chalk board to draw on to VISUALLY describe what I want the players to do. In soccermanager.com you can say what you want the team to do after a certain amount of time and a specific score, so they automatically change gear, drop back or push forward depending on the urgency to get another goal.

FM2010s match engine is much better than CM2010, bu while the players seem to be much more "sensible", the players always seem to start all bunched up in the middle of the pitch in a "square" formation together.

Lastly, I think the youth squad thing is wierd if all these players start out crap. Surely, really good players just "appear" or improve extremely quickly in the real world. I'm pretty sure it was apparent very early on that Messi was better than some pros when he was in the under21s.

[S-Inzaghi]

+1 for the OP's idea.

id like to see only PAST stats for the player. for example, over entire career, past season, or even past 5 games.

stats like 200 shots, 50 on target, 20 goals; 30 challenges for headers, 15 won, 10 found its target.

and id like to see more use of preferred moves as well. more variety would be good too.

[surf12]

I love the OP's idea.

Ditch the numbers and make the stats descriptive in the form of scout/coach/training reports. There'd have to be a quite an expansion on the current reports to allow us to get a good enough impression of a player just by looking at the report, i dont like the idea of having to watch hours of matches to see how players perform.

[ccfcpaul]

I see the idea behind what your saying and its not one to be thrown out. The main problem for me is that at the start of my game i normally completely revamp my team with new players (especially when in lower leagues). This would just be a nightmare as you can't rely on poor scouts from lower leagues. As I spend about an hour to start the game looking for new players, this will turn into 6 hours minimum.

When trying to find a quick emergency replacement buy or loan your'll be screwed, you cant wait for scouts so it would be total guesswork. If your a top team it might not be too bad as you can just go by reputation but if your a low team you havent a chance in hell.

Also the amount of depth that the coaches and scouts would have to go into would be ridiculous. You would basically be reading the stats instead of just seeing them.

Where this would be good is to get an insight into there normally hidden attributes that you never hear in the game i.e. consistancy.

One more thing could be a better run down of new positional training (where on the pitch the coach thinks his attributes could be useful). Also what extra things he could do (i.e. place shots into the corner of the net), this shouldn't just be in team meetings. there should be a run down in the players report. Someting like a percentage rating would be good for what the coach thinks would help the player.

Hope this made sense...happy managing!!

P.S. Nuneaton Town In the champions league final, thats my finest hour.

[Da_Funk]

The problem is not to see or not to see (shakespeare?) the attributes.

The problem is not to see or not to see (shakespeare?) the real attributes.

I can scout a player 27 times and if my scout is poor then he can tell he's a phenomenon even if he's not.

In this term FM already do this. How many times did you say "hey this player has all those good attributes, why does my scout give only 2 stars"?

A step forward can be that scout gives you wrong attributes. But it should have sense, if a look at Suazo, Martins or Owen (the "old" Owen) he would never report poor speed, but preferebly false technique/mental attribute.

I like numbers because are perfect for comparisons and for details. Text like "good/excellent" and similar in my idea is too "arcade".

And I can't understand why I can't know exactly the medical info/injury proneness of a player. A player does medical tests while signing to a new team.

[samba23]

It's something that I've thought of before. I like it.

One rule that I have is that I only sign players that I have seen play IRL. In effect I'm buying player's because of their real life ability rather than how good they are in the game.

[Guest aaron70]

If you do this to player attributes will it not then be done to staff attributes. So you have a scout with fuzzy stats giving you fuzzy states of a player. Could thi not mean we end up no clue at all because how can you trust your scout??

I played for a while with the attributes off. It was great until it was time to hire new staff....How could I when I couldn't see their stats? This implementation would mean a separation of player and staff.