[Discussion] "No more attributes"

[Maaka]

This was mentioned in the old "wishlist thread", but now there's a sub forum just for feature requests, I'd like to pick up this suggestion again, and hope to have a healthy discussion around it.

As of now, the way we "measure" players in FM is by specific numeric values, i.e. "Pace - 17", "Strenght - 14", "Stamina - 12" and so on.
Instead of quantifying the attributes in such a way, I'd suggest (it's been mentioned before, so I'm not taking credit for the suggestion as is) that the attributes are replaced by text, a report from the scouts/coaches, with real-life numeric values where applicable. This would mean that for instance, the physical attributes would be "replaced" as follows: Instead of "Pace - 17", you would have the players result on a 100m running test (or 200m fwiw), for "stamina", a 5.000m run, for "acceleration", a 40m dash, for "strength", a couple of weight-lifting results (or other applicable measuring instruments). Same for "jumping reach", a high jump test.
The mental attributes would be "replaced" by a coach's (or scout's) report on the player, i.e. "tends to be very aggressive and brave, but shows great composure and concentration. His leadership skills are very poor, but he's got good vision and has a very high work rate, while being a team player."
Likewise, the technical attributes could be combined by a textual report and test results, "Penalties" can be tested in practice (i.e. "has scored 20/20 in practice shoot outs for the past five weeks" or something, and could also be combined with other relevant attributes.), "dribbling" means running a test course on the field, with the ball, and getting a time score. Same goes for "technique", while "marking" and "heading" needs text reports.

I don't have the exact solution for how to "replace" each and every one of the attributes, but I figure that once the discussion is on, suggestions are free to be made, and if - if - SI would someday find this interesting, I'm sure they could find even better ways to do it.

Please, do notice that I've repeatedly written "replace" just like that, because, of course, the real attributes shouldn't be replaced in the database. All players in the database should keep their attributes as they are, what I'm after is to replace the "visual representation" of said attributes in the player profile screens within the game.

I just feel that having Adebayo Akinfenwa's bench pressing results would seem more "real" than just listing his strength attribute (20, I'd presume, don't have his attributes available right here, right now), or Theo Walcott's 40m/100m sprint times instead of "acceleration 19" and "pace 17" (as of october 2020).

 

Feel free to pick my suggestion apart if it deserves it, but constructive feedback would be appreciated.

 

-M

[Cougar2010]

Yeah I'm all for FM heading somewhere in that direction I'm just not sure whats best.

I actually find I use the octagon much more than I used to since the player's profile page appeared.  I judge a player mostly from what I see in the octagon & the scout/coach reports.  I do look at attributes still from time to time but I could quite easily do without them if I had to.

It would be another big step for FM though and one that perhaps a large section of the community wouldn't like, especially given FM has come from a statistical background appealing to people who like numbers.

[Maaka]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

It would be another big step for FM though and one that perhaps a large section of the community wouldn't like, especially given FM has come from a statistical background appealing to people who like numbers.

Yeah, that would be a big "obstacle" to conquer. But I reckon, since the original attributes still would be there, in the DB, it could be possible to tick a box at the start of the game or something, where one could choose between the "old-fashioned way" (numeric attributes) or the "realistic view" (aforementioned). That would solve that particular issue, at least.

[jWaSiMhE]

What if we go even further and just have descriptions such "pacey striker" or "accomplished ball playing defender". But more focus on the ME output of the player, forcing YOU the manager to judge your players asa you see them. You watch them train week by week, match by match.

The Cricket Captain series doesnt display attributes you just have to go on averages. While I am not suggesting this method  what the OP describes is certainly a more close to RL approach.

[Guest]

I'm all for this idea & have been for a few years with by suggestion that it becomes the new attribute masking option, it would require some improvements to the report cards & training feedback but as that will also benefit those who would continue to play with visible attributes it's a win for everyone.

[Maaka]

6 minutes ago, daniellewis_789 said:

What if we go even further and just have descriptions such "pacey striker" or "accomplished ball playing defender". But more focus on the ME output of the player, forcing YOU the manager to judge your players asa you see them. You watch them train week by week, match by match.

Yes, exactly, but those "attributes" that can be quantified in a realistic way should be described as such, at least in my opinion. This mostly applies to the physical attributes. And how do we know that a certain player should have pace and acceleration 20 anyway? For the elite players, it's their sprint test scores that lays the foundation for the attributes, I just think it should be "the other way around" for how it's displayed in FM.

[jWaSiMhE]

8 minutes ago, Maaka said:

Yes, exactly, but those "attributes" that can be quantified in a realistic way should be described as such, at least in my opinion. This mostly applies to the physical attributes. And how do we know that a certain player should have pace and acceleration 20 anyway? For the elite players, it's their sprint test scores that lays the foundation for the attributes, I just think it should be "the other way around" for how it's displayed in FM.

Yes of course. Alot of attributes are subjective but any which can be fact based should be referred to as such. You don't even need to have the exact sprint scores just player A placed x in 1st team squad. Although maybe at an elite level it would be nice.

[jWaSiMhE]

23 minutes ago, Barside said:

I'm all for this idea & have been for a few years with by suggestion that it becomes the new attribute masking option, it would require some improvements to the report cards & training feedback but as that will also benefit those who would continue to play with visible attributes it's a win for everyone.

Completely agree with this whole sentence!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, daniellewis_789 said:

Yes of course. Alot of attributes are subjective but any which can be fact based should be referred to as such. You don't even need to have the exact sprint scores just player A placed x in 1st team squad. Although maybe at an elite level it would be nice.

It could be linked to facilities & coaching standards, a better setup will be able to provide more accurate physical metrics such a time spent running a vMax, recovery rates & such like while in the lower leagues you're more reliant on what you see with the naked eye to make a judgement.

[Maaka]

37 minutes ago, Barside said:

It could be linked to facilities & coaching standards, a better setup will be able to provide more accurate physical metrics such a time spent running a vMax, recovery rates & such like while in the lower leagues you're more reliant on what you see with the naked eye to make a judgement.

Makes perfect sense, yes.

[Weston]

This is an interesting idea but I can't imagine any way to implement it that wouldn't be obscenely complicated or at least inconsistent. When you're looking for a role for a player and it highlights the certain attributes you need to look at how would you quantify the varying measurements and units? How many people know what a good bench press number is for a pro athlete or how that translates to specific positions?

It is weird, however, when stats seem to fly in the face of a player's attribute numbers, i.e. a player with 15 goals in 20 games but only 13 finishing, or 2/5 PKs scored but a 19 penalty taking rating. That being said, it's probably better we have both to work off of as opposed to the stat replacing the attribute outright.

[Powermonger]

Interesting idea but I'd be worried it makes player attributes and assessing them too obtuse, every attribute would have a different assessment which would become confusing I feel.

For attribute masking, I would prefer if maybe each attribute for a player was assessed against a bell curve.

Example:

So instead of a number or range of numbers, the players ranking of a chosen attribute is positioned on a bell curve compared to their peers at their current ability level for the same position. Thus say a player was average for fitness at their current level, then the middle of the curve would be highlighted (blue section in the above graph), if exceptional then the upper end of the curve would be the one highlighted (the 0.1% at the far right side).

When assessing unknown players, as per attribute masking where you get a range, instead you would get a more flattened bell curve to get a rough idea of where they are likely to be rated for a particular attribute.

Alternatively, the bell curve could be skewed thus that the bulge moves closer to represent the position of the underlying attribute score so it is more graphically apparent on where it is situated.

Example:

If the underlying attribute is more on the low side, then like the blue curve above, it would shift more to the right to indicate a range of expectation of rating for that attribute.

When comparing players, instead of the bars we get now on the attribute view of the player comparision, we could get their bell curves for each attributes overlayed each other for more direction comparision.

Example:

In the graph above (bottom curves), the player on the left is green and the right player is red. For a chosen attribute (say passing as an example), the left-hand player's passing attribute is more on the average side compared to the right-hand player.

You could then use this comparison method as an alternative to the overview screen, thus you can compare the bell curves for each player for say their defending skills for a little more focused look.

At the end of the day, FM is about numbers and analysis, personally I'd be more comfortable with a graphical representation of attributes that is consistent across all then if they were individualised with different representative methods.

[Ross Ingersoll]

wouldnt be a big deal if both ways were implemented in game . if not you are just taking a rather large section of players and making a confusing game even more confusing. Not to mention people complain about the bells and whistles taking away from work being done to the ME, This would add to it.   I actually think its a pretty good idea but whats going to happen is you are going to have people having threads explaining what the attributes are for every bench press number, etc. so in the end you are just going to have people converting it back to the thing you wanted changed   Just my opinion

[theopert]

If it makes the game feel more human and not accountancy or lawyer work I'm in favour.

 

[Weston]

1 hour ago, Powermonger said:

Interesting idea but I'd be worried it makes player attributes and assessing them too obtuse, every attribute would have a different assessment which would become confusing I feel.

For attribute masking, I would prefer if maybe each attribute for a player was assessed against a bell curve.

Example:

 

Have to say that while I get your point and this seems interesting on paper, I'm not in favor of its implementation as it would, in turn, open up the whole other can of worms that is wondering just what relative scale would be used for the bell curve. Is that in the context of the league you're playing in, your own squad, or the world? And would it be based off of your scout's understanding of those values, or some exact determination set by the game itself? And how would you deal with that scale changing, therefore the bell curve changing, even when the player himself has not changed? We already can't seem to reach a comfortable consensus on this in terms of the the star rating system, as seen here and here.

I think ultimately this whole idea boils down to something that, while intriguing, just isn't feasible to the degree it would need to be to be comfortably executed, and there are far more pressing things to be sorted first, like those damn stars.

[doucong]

I understand the thinking behind this, but I feel this maybe not realistic in real world. For example I sent my scout to watch a few games of a player, how could he know what is his 100m or 40m result from just sitting on the stand? It may only possible for players in your team.

As I posted somewhere else, I feel the problem is the scout/coach report is always too accurate. I feel it would be more realistic if scout A think his shooting is 17 and scout B think 14. Physical stats might be more easier to judging accurately (though for first impression watch from stand, work rate/determination/fitness/etc will all have impact on athletic result), technical stats maybe accessible for scout a longer period, and mental stats maybe very hard to scout accurately and even for players already play a season for you, you may still not able to judge some of these. (i.e. how could you tell a player's big match performance if he never play any big match?)

[Powermonger]

2 hours ago, Weston said:

Have to say that while I get your point and this seems interesting on paper, I'm not in favor of its implementation as it would, in turn, open up the whole other can of worms that is wondering just what relative scale would be used for the bell curve. Is that in the context of the league you're playing in, your own squad, or the world? And would it be based off of your scout's understanding of those values, or some exact determination set by the game itself? And how would you deal with that scale changing, therefore the bell curve changing, even when the player himself has not changed? We already can't seem to reach a comfortable consensus on this in terms of the the star rating system, as seen here and here.

I think ultimately this whole idea boils down to something that, while intriguing, just isn't feasible to the degree it would need to be to be comfortably executed, and there are far more pressing things to be sorted first, like those damn stars.

For the bell curve the context would be kept to existing CA ratings and Age, the attribute curves could then be plotted with these criteria in mind. Thus a youngster with well above average value for a specific attribute for their age would stand out more.

Or if that seems too complicated then the curve is pure representational, so instead of the existing number range you get for non-scouted players, the curve just represents the most likely placement of the attribute value on a scale of 1 to 20.

Thus for a non-scouted player, the curves would be rather a low bulge and spread across the the graphs X axis, however when the player is scouted and depending on the ability of the person doing the scouting, the curve would become more steeper and staggered along the graph to place the peak of the curve over the likely attribute rating.

Example: if a player had a absolute value of 15 for an attribute, the curve would be steep and centred close to the 3/4 mark of the graph space if reading from left to right

i.e.

The green curve here is about the 3/4 mark if the x-axis (black line) had intervals set from 1 to 20. With some slight deviation included, there would still be a bit of mystery of what the absolute value truly is (unless you use an editor to inspect) however graphically you would have a pretty good idea. The curves could even be coloured differently depending on their placement (low values or high values) much like attribute values get highlighted now for great values.

Obviously the idea would need more massaging but I think having a more graphical approach to representing attributes would be a nice alternative.

[grade]

It depends on the system to replace it. To be fair the octagon or any replacement would be sufficient. A game like FIFA or PES depends on atributes, sure, it doesn't have the detail that FM has, but it is still important feature.

The atributes is the foundation this game as set itself. Its the way we judge a player, without the need to watch every training and match available. I for one don't have the time to do that.

[Weston]

8 hours ago, Powermonger said:

For the bell curve the context would be kept to existing CA ratings and Age, the attribute curves could then be plotted with these criteria in mind. Thus a youngster with well above average value for a specific attribute for their age would stand out more.

Again, I think it's an interesting idea, but not only does it seem a bit cumbersome to implement I also am uncomfortable with the existing CA rating system that it would be based on to begin with. As I explained (and as is discussed in the star rating forums here and here.) It's just too shifty to be consistently useful or even just not incredibly frustrating. Attributes are solid in that they never change - you know exactly what the number is regardless of the league you're in, a 15 shooting is a 15 shooting no matter where you play - and your ONLY way of piecing together the relation between your ambiguous CA/PA stars and consistent, across the board reality is paring together those hard number attributes with the CA/PA stars in your attempt to get a whole picture. We need that benchmark, or we need to rethink the entire relative CA/PA system. Or both.

 

[Cougar2010]

21 minutes ago, Weston said:

Again, I think it's an interesting idea, but not only does it seem a bit cumbersome to implement I also am uncomfortable with the existing CA rating system that it would be based on to begin with. As I explained (and as is discussed in the star rating forums here and here.) It's just too shifty to be consistently useful or even just not incredibly frustrating. Attributes are solid in that they never change - you know exactly what the number is regardless of the league you're in, a 15 shooting is a 15 shooting no matter where you play - and your ONLY way of piecing together the relation between your ambiguous CA/PA stars and consistent, across the board reality is paring together those hard number attributes with the CA/PA stars in your attempt to get a whole picture. We need that benchmark, or we need to rethink the entire relative CA/PA system. Or both.

 

 

Stars are really easy to understand except you seem to be going out of your way to make them excessively difficult.

They have not & have never been a black or white level of skill, they are a general indicator as to how good a player is for your team, nothing more, nothing less.

Would it surprise you to know that attributes change as well?  No-one knows exactly but hidden attributes such as consistency likely modify the attribute numbers used on a match by match basis which is why you see low consistency players underperform compared to their attributes on a regular basis.

The point is you want everything to be too black & white, FM is supposed to be ambiguous and is moving more that way.

[Weston]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

 

Stars are really easy to understand except you seem to be going out of your way to make them excessively difficult.

They have not & have never been a black or white level of skill, they are a general indicator as to how good a player is for your team, nothing more, nothing less.

Would it surprise you to know that attributes change as well?  No-one knows exactly but hidden attributes such as consistency likely modify the attribute numbers used on a match by match basis which is why you see low consistency players underperform compared to their attributes on a regular basis.

The point is you want everything to be too black & white, FM is supposed to be ambiguous and is moving more that way.

What you can't seem to understand about my point is that it's not the ambiguity of football that bothers me, but the ambiguity with which the current CA/PA system within FM depicts it. Obviously things aren't black in white and set in stone, it's just not always easy to get your bearings and understand the scale and context in which you are attempting to view said ambiguity. I really don't know how many different ways I can try to explain it to you...

[Guest]

If ambiguity had a defined scale would it cease to be ambiguous?

[Maaka]

Just have to repeat, the numeric attributes should of course still be there, no doubt, what I'd like is just for the graphical representation of said attributes. I just feel that this would be a bit more "real" than just listing a set of numbers.

[Weston]

2 hours ago, Barside said:

If ambiguity had a defined scale would it cease to be ambiguous?

As I've said before, I want the ambiguity to be "how accurate is this player value" not "on what scale is this star rating being presented to me AND how accurate are the values its based on AS WELL." In real life scouting teams always know what units and measurements they're using and what those are based on and how they connect to the relative value of their current squad regardless of how accurate their findings actually are.

[Guest]

That's the rub, you do know that scale but based on previous posts it appears that you're either choosing to ignore it or are unwilling to learn what is essentially a very simple concept that a number of people have explained.

Suggest we leave it there otherwise it risks derailing this suggest thread, you already have one about scouting so any new ideas on that area are best kept in there.

[Scotty Walds]

14 hours ago, Maaka said:

Just have to repeat, the numeric attributes should of course still be there, no doubt, what I'd like is just for the graphical representation of said attributes. I just feel that this would be a bit more "real" than just listing a set of numbers.

Essentially, all attributes become hidden attributes.

[Maaka]

1 hour ago, Scotty Walds said:

15 hours ago, Maaka said:

Just have to repeat, the numeric attributes should of course still be there, no doubt, what I'd like is just for the graphical representation of said attributes. I just feel that this would be a bit more "real" than just listing a set of numbers.

Essentially, all attributes become hidden attributes.

That's a better way to put it, yes, thanks. 

[SpecialOne Miko]

Maybe something as simple as that:

Lionel Messi, 28, AM/RC ST

Defending: Poor (not interested)

Mental: Wonderful (v. experimented, determined, hate defeat)

Aerial: Average (short, but good timing)

Technical: Godly (unpredictable, genious 1st touch)

Attacking: Godly (extremely mobile, space-finder, lethal finish)

Vision: Godly (sees everything before everyone, lethal passing)

Speed; Godly (explosive speed)

Physical: V. Good (v.high agility and balance)

 

PPMs; tries killer ball, places shot, bla bla bla

 

 

[Maaka]

[Powermonger]

Alright I just had another epiphany while looking at some share charts. 

Why not represent attributes as a series of candlesticks?

Instead of vertical candles they could be made to be horizontal.

The wicks would indicate the upper and lower bounds of the attribute, in FM case 1 to 20. The body of the candle would indicate the likely range where the underlying attributes true value is located.

When a player is scouted or is at your club, the candle bodies would shorten to give a closer idea where the players ability sits for the chosen attribute based on the scouting ability of your scout or your staff for your own players. 

When you then look at a players profile, you will quickly be able to asses their attributes and how they are distributed. When comparing two players, the candles can be placed on top of each other for a more visual experience. 

Example 

If this chart was rotated 90 deg so you are looking at it top to bottom you would get a kind of idea of how the comparison would look. 

Likewise, as a player develops and the attributes change, the colour of the candle changes to indicate an improvement or degradation. 

I think it could work. 

[jWaSiMhE]

1 hour ago, Powermonger said:

Alright I just had another epiphany while looking at some share charts. 

Why not represent attributes as a series of candlesticks?

Instead of vertical candles they could be made to be horizontal.

The wicks would indicate the upper and lower bounds of the attribute, in FM case 1 to 20. The body of the candle would indicate the likely range where the underlying attributes true value is located.

When a player is scouted or is at your club, the candle bodies would shorten to give a closer idea where the players ability sits for the chosen attribute based on the scouting ability of your scout or your staff for your own players. 

When you then look at a players profile, you will quickly be able to asses their attributes and how they are distributed. When comparing two players, the candles can be placed on top of each other for a more visual experience. 

Example 

If this chart was rotated 90 deg so you are looking at it top to bottom you would get a kind of idea of how the comparison would look. 

Likewise, as a player develops and the attributes change, the colour of the candle changes to indicate an improvement or degradation. 

I think it could work. 

While it is an interesting way of presenting this information, it is still referring to an arbitrary rating of 1-20. Which is whole point of making them all hidden, they are never actually referred to at all.

[jWaSiMhE]

3 hours ago, SpecialOne Miko said:

Maybe something as simple as that:

Lionel Messi, 28, AM/RC ST

Defending: Poor (not interested)

Mental: Wonderful (v. experimented, determined, hate defeat)

Aerial: Average (short, but good timing)

Technical: Godly (unpredictable, genious 1st touch)

Attacking: Godly (extremely mobile, space-finder, lethal finish)

Vision: Godly (sees everything before everyone, lethal passing)

Speed; Godly (explosive speed)

Physical: V. Good (v.high agility and balance)

 

PPMs; tries killer ball, places shot, bla bla bla

This is exactly the sort of thing I would like. It could be more detailed (which is the tricky bit in all of this) and maybe could be structured as a paragraphs with detail and examples (again also tricky). You could even have GIF style clips from previous matches/training which show these off. Kinda like a promo video a free agent would sent out to potential suitors. For example hovering over Messi's technical rating feedback statement could display this. 

With regards to mental attributes personal reference type statements could be used. So "Player A was an incredible leader during our campaign to stay up last year". Player B (ex teammate) or "I don't know him much, but he comes from a top family who always brought him up well". Youth coach, Club A Academy

[SpecialOne Miko]

I dont think we need more details tho. It 'd be better if remaining vague imo.

We could have, for 1-20 range:, if you keep all the attributes (for details sake):

1-4 : poor

5-8 : inadequate

9-12 : average

13-16 : good

17-20 : very good

 

Better that way, because how do you know player A  has 16 pace, and player B  only 14? Its impossible to see this little difference IRL.

With that system, players A & B are "good" in pace. Wich one is better, or are they equals? You dont know, they're  both "good".

 

[Maaka]

4 hours ago, SpecialOne Miko said:

I dont think we need more details tho. It 'd be better if remaining vague imo.

We could have, for 1-20 range:, if you keep all the attributes (for details sake):

1-4 : poor

5-8 : inadequate

9-12 : average

13-16 : good

17-20 : very good

 

Better that way, because how do you know player A  has 16 pace, and player B  only 14? Its impossible to see this little difference IRL.

With that system, players A & B are "good" in pace. Wich one is better, or are they equals? You dont know, they're  both "good".

 

That could also work, yes.

[Powermonger]

16 hours ago, SpecialOne Miko said:

I dont think we need more details tho. It 'd be better if remaining vague imo.

We could have, for 1-20 range:, if you keep all the attributes (for details sake):

1-4 : poor

5-8 : inadequate

9-12 : average

13-16 : good

17-20 : very good

 

Better that way, because how do you know player A  has 16 pace, and player B  only 14? Its impossible to see this little difference IRL.

With that system, players A & B are "good" in pace. Wich one is better, or are they equals? You dont know, they're  both "good".

 

While thinking of this more today, how would this go for squad views where attributes are listed as columns? I realised a descriptive or graphic approach will impact presentation of this information across various areas in the game. 

On the profile screens or reports it will work but anything outside this may make those other screens too bulky. 

[SpecialOne Miko]

2 hours ago, Powermonger said:

While thinking of this more today, how would this go for squad views where attributes are listed as columns? I realised a descriptive or graphic approach will impact presentation of this information across various areas in the game. 

On the profile screens or reports it will work but anything outside this may make those other screens too bulky. 

With just a colour dot (or square or rectangle):

poor = red

inadequate = orange

average = yellow

good = green

v good = bright green

[Powermonger]

How about circle ratings instead? I think they will be clearer to read and you won't need any wordy descriptions, just pure graphical rating throughout the screens.

 

 

[Weston]

The more this goes on the more I'm inclined to just want to stick with the way attributes are now...

[grade]

I also prefer to stay with attributes, in all honesty.

What has been suggested, is the same as attributes, but with a percentage graphic attributes, which is basically the same. Instead of being a scale to 1-20, it would be a scale of percentage of 0 - 100.

[jWaSiMhE]

17 hours ago, Weston said:

The more this goes on the more I'm inclined to just want to stick with the way attributes are now...

I would say that was your starting point anyway, if you can muddle through the very loosely linked ideas brought up in your posts! 

8 hours ago, grade said:

What has been suggested, is the same as attributes, but with a percentage graphic attributes, which is basically the same. Instead of being a scale to 1-20, it would be a scale of percentage of 0 - 100.

From the OP and how I understand how this idea should develop...

Quote

Instead of quantifying the attributes in such a way, I'd suggest (it's been mentioned before, so I'm not taking credit for the suggestion as is) that the attributes are replaced by text, a report from the scouts/coaches, with real-life numeric values where applicable.

The graphical suggestions in this thread are useful, but only as an alternative to how we currently have the visible attributes.

We need more ambiguity. Even the best scout in the world cannot say 100% that player A has 19/20 for finishing. They would only say that their finishing is world class, best they have seen, highlight some shot to goal % ratios etc.

[Weston]

8 hours ago, grade said:

What has been suggested, is the same as attributes, but with a percentage graphic attributes, which is basically the same. Instead of being a scale to 1-20, it would be a scale of percentage of 0 - 100.

If I understand correctly aren't they indeed on a scale of 1-100 behind the scenes, just scaled down and rounded off to reach the 1-20 we see presented to us? So, for example, a 50 = 10, etc. I could be wrong.

[Cougar2010]

21 minutes ago, Weston said:

If I understand correctly aren't they indeed on a scale of 1-100 behind the scenes, just scaled down and rounded off to reach the 1-20 we see presented to us? So, for example, a 50 = 10, etc. I could be wrong.

The scale is 1-200 represented as 0.1 to 20.0, users see the figure in front of the decimal point.

[Weston]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

The scale is 1-200 represented as 0.1 to 20.0, users see the figure in front of the decimal point.

That's right, thank you for clarifying

[Maaka]

My initial point was trying to replace the visual representation of the attributes with something a bit more "realistic". I agree that having lots of graphs which basically is just the attributes on a different scale is not exactly that.

To get back on track, what I thought was something  like a description of the offensive and defensive "attributes" of a player (but not in numerical detail like today), with the physical attributes represented by real-life equivalents that can be measured (sprints, long runs, weightlifting etc.)
So a great attacker would be described as a "world class finisher", with "very good positioning" and whose "dribbling and flair are top notch", while his "work rate and teamwork could improve a little". Attributes like tackling and marking wouldn't be mentioned, but should be available to discover "on demand" (you should be able to ask your coach/scout to "reveal" his defensive attributes should you be so inclined), so that a young player who initially is just a midfielder could be retrained into a central defender if you find that his "attributes" are right for the role/position.

My main point is to get the player attribute page more what you see by looking up a player on wikipedia (if you get what I mean).

[eriktous]

To really get some traction on an idea to change away from the current attribute system we should try to get info on how it works in real life. Get away from suggesting all kinds of options on how to do this, but instead try to find out how real clubs and managers rate their players and how real scouts rate the players they look at. Then try to translate that to a system that works in the game.

[Blarry]

On 24.8.2016 at 16:32, daniellewis_789 said:

This is exactly the sort of thing I would like. It could be more detailed (which is the tricky bit in all of this) and maybe could be structured as a paragraphs with detail and examples (again also tricky). You could even have GIF style clips from previous matches/training which show these off. Kinda like a promo video a free agent would sent out to potential suitors. For example hovering over Messi's technical rating feedback statement could display this. 

With regards to mental attributes personal reference type statements could be used. So "Player A was an incredible leader during our campaign to stay up last year". Player B (ex teammate) or "I don't know him much, but he comes from a top family who always brought him up well". Youth coach, Club A Academy

Except that any verbal representation of abilities is always going to be relative, and you don't know what it is being related to. Messi's defensive contribution may be enough for a Sunday League side to use him as a holding midfielder, but when the same team gets a player from youth intake with "godly" ball control skills, they won't be able to tell how good their player is relative to Championship or Premier League players.

 

[deserter]

I did some UI modding in FM2014 that I was pretty happy with:

- Replaced my numbers with coloured rectangles, essentially moving from 1-20 scale to 1-5 scale. That would basically give me a list of a players strengths or weaknesses.

- Changed the octagon to a nonagon (9 sides) with renamed 9 categoriea. (Goalkeepers had 7 I think.) Also I chose for myself what attributes were taken into account and at what weight for each of the categories.

- Turned the 1-10 scaled star ratings (half stars and full stars) to a 1-4 scale.

 

This was all to make the transfer market harder and more interesting and also to make opponent players harder to gauge. My own players I was pretty familiar with regardless, and I'm very performance based in my selections in any case.

 

Anyways, to get back to the OP... I think it would make sense to use a number of categories like in the octagon and use some scale (1-20, 1-8, 1-3, Rubbish - World-class; I don't care) to give an absolute value for each set of attributes. Then for each category, list the players relative weaknesses and strengths.

 

[tiago_wakabayashi]

i would this idea as option, kinda " attribute masking option "

[Pingdinho]

I would prefer to stick with attribute numbers. I get the idea of changing them, but it seems like so much hard work for the user.

You can very easily understand and compare numbers. And they are still an abstraction.

Like, Pace 15 doesn't really mean anything and you can't relate that to a real-world metric. However you know very quickly that it is faster than Pace 12 and slower than Pace 17.

Maybe that's just how I think; but it requires less mental gymnastics and is less confusing.

Take the example of how your club facilities are graded. Is 'top' better than 'superb'? Probably. Maybe. To be honest; I can't remember and I've looked it up several times. Its too fuzzy for me.

[Cougar2010]

5 minutes ago, Pingdinho said:

Like, Pace 15 doesn't really mean anything and you can't relate that to a real-world metric. However you know very quickly that it is faster than Pace 12 and slower than Pace 17.

This is part of the problem we are trying to overcome though.

You have users who bring up issues where they say my Pace 15 striker couldn't outrun a pace 12 defender and they are focussing purely on a single attribute with no thought for the wider picture such as did he have the ball in which case attributes like dribbling/technique would play a part, how tired was he, how determined was he to get there, was he complacent, what were his instructions.

FM isn't about just one attribute its about how everything fits together to give an overall outcome.