Is 1-20 enough?

[Katarian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Kenco]

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]

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]

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]

40? Seems like an absurd number imo.

[shezza88]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

You are much mistaken 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

id like to see 1-25. that is all.

[The Sean]

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.

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]

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...

[shezza88]

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.

[SCIAG]

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]

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]

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]

It's enough for me:thup:

[Sheer Class]

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]

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 (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]

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 ½ 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]

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]

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]

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).