[Suggestion] Fewer 0 ´s in players attributes

[Toonrock]

As the title says; Simply determine the values of a players attributes much more frequently.

Never understood how one player can have 4 in injury pron. in one save game - And then all of the sudden 16 in another. It must be possible to determine a set value(!)

- The same goes for: pressure, determination, natural fitness, adaptability etc. etc.

It´s quite annoying that such vital attributes can change as the wind blows.

(Comments are welcome)

Toonrock

[Cougar2010]

Not a good idea IMO.

It gives more variation between saves which is always a good thing.  In fact I would always vote for more randomness/variation from save to save than less.

[santy001]

Well if a researcher feels he can assign a value to these attributes he will, but the 0 usually reflects a lack of certainty perhaps due to it being untested etc. 

I would suggest though, that for young players, players with low appearances, there should actually be more 0's in use for mental attributes and longer term career attributes that are largely unknown at this point. 

[Toonrock]

14 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Well if a researcher feels he can assign a value to these attributes he will, but the 0 usually reflects a lack of certainty perhaps due to it being untested etc. 

I would suggest though, that for young players, players with low appearances, there should actually be more 0's in use for mental attributes and longer term career attributes that are largely unknown at this point. 

More 0´s? - No... Really bad idea IMO... Then it´s totally random what a young player of good quality IRL can get.

And it´s not only young players/not established players who has relative lots of 0´s - To name a few; Sandro (Who Everton has just bought from Malaga), Thiago Maia (One of the obvious biggest mid.field player talents in Brazil), Marcus Rashford, Maurico Lemos (Las Palmas), Eric Bailly (One of the best DC´s in the PL, IMO) etc.

[Toonrock]

24 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Not a good idea IMO.

It gives more variation between saves which is always a good thing.  In fact I would always vote for more randomness/variation from save to save than less.

So a player you beforehand want to buy, you wouldn´t mind him having 2 in determination, rather than 18 (as his estimate potentially justifies(?)

To me, a player with 2 in determination is someone I skip past as fast as I can....

[Cougar2010]

Just now, Toonrock said:

So a player you´ve beforehand want to buy, you wouldn´t mind him having 2 in determination, rather than 18 (as his estimate potentially justifies(?)

To me, a player with 2 in determination is someone I skip past as fast as I can....

Absolutely not, I wouldn't mind in the slightest.

I maybe wouldn't sign him in the save where he had 2 determination but then I rarely sign the same player twice anyway, not just on one version of FM but any version of FM.

TBH the impression you are giving about the way you play FM is that you simply start a save and sign the same players all the time and you are frustrated by the fact that some of them aren't identical in every save.

 

[Toonrock]

35 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Absolutely not, I wouldn't mind in the slightest.

I maybe wouldn't sign him in the save where he had 2 determination but then I rarely sign the same player twice anyway, not just on one version of FM but any version of FM.

TBH the impression you are giving about the way you play FM is that you simply start a save and sign the same players all the time and you are frustrated by the fact that some of them aren't identical in every save.

 

Sorry, not the case Can´t afford a player like Marcus Rashford or Bailly anyway - So you say that a set value for fx Marcus Rashford of 2 in determination, 4 in natural fitness, and 3 in important matches is realistic......(????) ...Wouldn´t you agree that Rashford fx perhaps was a 15 in determination, 13 in natural fitness and 10 in important matches (...just a somewhat realistic estimate of course, don´t watch that many Man U-games - but a researcher who follows them frequently must have a (realistic) estimate)

[Cougar2010]

12 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

Sorry, not the case Can´t afford a player like Marcus Rashford or Bailly anyway - So you agree that a set value for fx Marcus Rashford of 2 in determination, 4 in natural fitness, and 3 in important matches is realistic......(????) ...Wouldn´t you agree that Rashford fx perhaps was a 15 in determination, 13 in natural fitness and 10 in important matches (...just a somewhat realistic estimate of course)

If he has 0's in those stats and in one save up popped those numbers then it wouldn't bother me.

As I said it adds randomness, variety & replayability to the game.

 

[Toonrock]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

If he has 0's in those stats and in one save up popped those numbers then it wouldn't bother me.

As I said it adds randomness, variety & replayability to the game.

 

But not realism, sorry (And could be acceptable for a complete unknown player, but not for the well-known names mentioned above)

[herne79]

We're straying into Researcher territory here.

Having zeros in game for some player attributes (even all player attributes in a lot of cases) is perfectly fine and as cougar says adds variety to different saves.  I'm all for it.

Where we get deeper into Researcher territory is when you bring up specific players as examples of where you believe the Researchers could (should?) be filling in the blanks.  There's a different forum for that if you believe Researchers have got it wrong, but if you go there please ensure you follow the guidelines laid out if suggesting changes.  Simply saying "Rashford should have 15 Determination" isn't sufficient to change Researcher data, even if that data just shows a zero.

[Toonrock]

12 minutes ago, herne79 said:

We're straying into Researcher territory here.

Having zeros in game for some player attributes (even all player attributes in a lot of cases) is perfectly fine and as cougar says adds variety to different saves.  I'm all for it.

Where we get deeper into Researcher territory is when you bring up specific players as examples of where you believe the Researchers could (should?) be filling in the blanks.  There's a different forum for that if you believe Researchers have got it wrong, but if you go there please ensure you follow the guidelines laid out if suggesting changes.  Simply saying "Rashford should have 15 Determination" isn't sufficient to change Researcher data, even if that data just shows a zero.

Young unknown players, it´s okay with 0´s (As I said, it´s "fewer 0´s" that I think is possible).

Sorry can´t go around all the league/team forums for Researchers and giving them suggestions, don´t have the time for that (too many players)  - And obviously expect that such well-known players as Rashford, Bailly etc. was some who they (what you naturally can expect from in-depth Researchers) was able to set determined attributes for.

[santy001]

There are a lot of attributes that are just completely untested, for example a player who is under 18, his professionalism is largely untested because he can't go out drinking, and he's not got a lot of money to see if that leads to him being very distracted by all things that come with money away from football etc. Injury proneness is untested for those who aren't playing regularly, stamina too. 

When these things are unknown, unproven or untested in senior level football, then its only right there is variance. Variance in these attributes is very different to variance in potential. Arguably, more variation among youngsters in the game would lessen the demands for variance in potential as well, because their development paths and careers would be less samey.

[Toonrock]

50 minutes ago, santy001 said:

There are a lot of attributes that are just completely untested, for example a player who is under 18, his professionalism is largely untested because he can't go out drinking, and he's not got a lot of money to see if that leads to him being very distracted by all things that come with money away from football etc. Injury proneness is untested for those who aren't playing regularly, stamina too. 

When these things are unknown, unproven or untested in senior level football, then its only right there is variance. Variance in these attributes is very different to variance in potential. Arguably, more variation among youngsters in the game would lessen the demands for variance in potential as well, because their development paths and careers would be less samey.

Still, how do you explain a player like fx Eric Bailly, 23 years old (52 games for Villarreal, 38 games for Man U and 25 internationals)... (?) Or Rashford although young at 19 years old (71 games for Man U, in total, and 9 internationals).

I do believe with that set of matches, it´s undeniably possible to have researched enough on the player, to be able to set his attributes accordingly.

[Cougar2010]

37 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

Still, how do you explain a player like fx Eric Bailly, 23 years old (52 games for Villarreal, 38 games for Man U and 25 internationals)... (?) Or Rashford although young at 19 years old (71 games for Man U, in total, and 9 internationals).

I do believe with that set of matches, it´s undeniably possible to have researched enough on the player, to be able to set his attributes accordingly.

You have to remember though that the databases you are looking have information which is several months old.  Even if using the mid season database you are talking about data from January 2017 six months ago.

You also seem to be lacking a bit of respect for the researchers who are all unpaid volunteers.  They give up a lot of their time to make the game better for the rest of us.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

Still, how do you explain a player like fx Eric Bailly, 23 years old (52 games for Villarreal, 38 games for Man U and 25 internationals)... (?) Or Rashford although young at 19 years old (71 games for Man U, in total, and 9 internationals).

I do believe with that set of matches, it´s undeniably possible to have researched enough on the player, to be able to set his attributes accordingly.

To be fair Santy is only responsible for Stoke, you'd have to take up any issue you have on Man Utd players with the Man Utd researcher in the data forum.

[Toonrock]

11 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

You also seem to be lacking a bit of respect for the researchers who are all unpaid volunteers.  They give up a lot of their time to make the game better for the rest of us.

Personally speculative comments not needed - Of course I appreciate their contribution, but it´s not disrespectful to be critical or suggest improved awareness in some areas.

(If any moderator(s) reads this, it would be nice if you would be so kind to close this thread for further comments - Would like to redraw my initial comment of ´Comments are welcome´, coz getting tired of answering the same over and over again - After all, this is just a suggestion for SI)

[Toonrock]

5 minutes ago, Barside said:

To be fair Santy is only responsible for Stoke, you'd have to take up any issue you have on Man Utd players with the Man Utd researcher in the data forum.

It´s not just Man U players....

[santy001]

Well that's just it, it's not my job to explain those players because there's an individual researcher who oversees them both now. In the case of Bailly he has been under 2 researchers, 

I don't know what attributes they have set to 0 firstly, so it would be wild speculation but I'll engage in a little bit of what I feel comfortable I can comment on.

For the last 2 seasons Man Utd have had, on the whole, fairly dead-rubberish type seasons. They've won cups, but they've not quite been at the cutting edge where its showing the measure of a player to perform week in, week out at those levels. 

A player like Rashford hasn't been in a situation yet where the chips are really down (as in Man Utd are floundering around 10th and he's expected to help pull them out of it) nor have they been in the driving seat yet so Rashford also hasn't had those pressures on him. This makes it harder (for me personally at least) to judge the hidden attributes like pressure, like consistency.

But as a suggestion this doesn't really go anywhere, because the current guidelines are to fill in as many attributes as we feel we can, that isn't really likely to change because the situation quickly goes into silly territory.

"Hey Michael, if you don't give me a rating for player X's determination, we're going to replace you"

Or

"Hey Michael, if you don't give me a rating for player X's determination, we're not releasing FM this year"

The research process, as others have mentioned, relies on a lot of unpaid volunteers, but it also relies on a lot of players offering up insight and contributions in the right way. There can be very positive changes, and of course, the onus isn't now on you to find every one of these and try to put them right but if it bothers you enough to make this post, then its worth pointing out the best chances for success are to raise the players that you find the most confusing and to ask researchers about. 

Although this comes with the little disclaimer, that asking a researcher why something is the way it is will probably lead to a much more fruitful discussion than "I think X should be Y, thanks for listening"

[herne79]

2 hours ago, Toonrock said:

Young unknown players, it´s okay with 0´s (As I said, it´s "fewer 0´s" that I think is possible).

Sorry can´t go around all the league/team forums for Researchers and giving them suggestions, don´t have the time for that (too many players)  - And obviously expect that such well-known players as Rashford, Bailly etc. was some who they (what you naturally can expect from in-depth Researchers) was able to set determined attributes for.

 

24 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

Personally speculative comments not needed - Of course I appreciate their contribution, but it´s not disrespectful to be critical or suggest improved awareness in some areas.

(If any moderator(s) reads this, it would be nice if you would be so kind to close this thread for further comments - Would like to redraw my initial comment of ´Comments are welcome´, coz getting tired of writting the same over and over again - Just a suggestion for SI)

I am a mod and have already replied.

I didn't ask you to go round all the leagues & teams.  You mentioned specific players as examples where you believe the Researchers have got it wrong.  I advised you to raise these issues in the appropriate forum - but you'll need to follow the guidelines of how to raise issues with Researchers if you do.

If you're not willing to do that then I'm afraid all we have is your opinion here vs Researcher's data.

[Toonrock]

31 minutes ago, santy001 said:

A player like Rashford hasn't been in a situation yet where the chips are really down (as in Man Utd are floundering around 10th and he's expected to help pull them out of it) nor have they been in the driving seat yet so Rashford also hasn't had those pressures on him. This makes it harder (for me personally at least) to judge the hidden attributes like pressure, like consistency.

But as a suggestion this doesn't really go anywhere, because the current guidelines are to fill in as many attributes as we feel we can, that isn't really likely to change because the situation quickly goes into silly territory.

"Hey Michael, if you don't give me a rating for player X's determination, we're going to replace you"

Or

"Hey Michael, if you don't give me a rating for player X's determination, we're not releasing FM this year"

The research process, as others have mentioned, relies on a lot of unpaid volunteers, but it also relies on a lot of players offering up insight and contributions in the right way. There can be very positive changes, and of course, the onus isn't now on you to find every one of these and try to put them right but if it bothers you enough to make this post, then its worth pointing out the best chances for success are to raise the players that you find the most confusing and to ask researchers about. 

Although this comes with the little disclaimer, that asking a researcher why something is the way it is will probably lead to a much more fruitful discussion than "I think X should be Y, thanks for listening"

So you say that fx a player like Paul Digby, 21 years old, from Ipswich Town, having played 25 games in his whole career in lower divisions (never ever heard of him), can have ALL his attributes set (as he has) - But not Rashford, or Sandro, Bailly etc., well-known players...

[santy001]

But we're straying into different territory here, because you're asking me to compare 2 different peoples opinions of 2 different players when I personally know neither, nor play a role in either. 

To steer it back somewhere more positive, as I said, the guidelines we're given is to fill in as many as possible. However, if we're unsure then the use of 0's is permitted. 

I don't know the exact reasons behind this, but in discussions with others along the way, it is felt it serves a purpose to represent uncertainty about how a player will turn out, when we are fairly sure they are talented players it definitely creates variance. I've utilised it heavily, and its lead to youngsters at Stoke who looked promising and could from time to time materialise into something good more often than not going largely unnoticed from FM to FM title, which is something I'm quite pleased with. 

[Toonrock]

4 minutes ago, santy001 said:

But we're straying into different territory here, because you're asking me to compare 2 different peoples opinions of 2 different players when I personally know neither, nor play a role in either. 

To steer it back somewhere more positive, as I said, the guidelines we're given is to fill in as many as possible. However, if we're unsure then the use of 0's is permitted. 

I don't know the exact reasons behind this, but in discussions with others along the way, it is felt it serves a purpose to represent uncertainty about how a player will turn out, when we are fairly sure they are talented players it definitely creates variance. I've utilised it heavily, and its lead to youngsters at Stoke who looked promising and could from time to time materialise into something good more often than not going largely unnoticed from FM to FM title, which is something I'm quite pleased with. 

It´s ok It was also just a suggestion to have more focus on making the well-known players with fewer 0´s (if possible)

Thanks for your reply

[enigmatic]

I think what's missing is for the ability to set ranges for players' attributes where there's not been enough evidence to nail down a particular value, but researchers feel reasonably confident that a player isn't notably aggressive, a set piece specialist, a dribbler, especially injury prone, disloyal etc.

Ideally this would be a "top end" and "bottom end" starting value for attributes, which would achieve both the goal of not having some moderately-known players randomly given standout values that are obviously wrong, and allowing a bit more randomness in the starting attributes because researchers can assign "12-17" to something a player seems to be good, possibly even very good at but hasn't been seen to do regularly yet, rather than feeling the need to hedge and go for "13" (or leave it blank with a high probability player is randomly assigned a rubbish value at it)

Sure, this is already aided to some extent by templates so a blank "marking" attribute for a CA120 defender probably ends up in the double digits and a blank "finishing" value in the single digits, but there are quite a few player attributes that aren't readily reducible to some common sense principles.

So Rashford is someone that the Man Utd researcher hadn't seen enough of to feel confident enough to be sure whether his Determination is 17 or 11, because the guy has played an important role in some adverse situations and put a lot of effort into chasing hopeless long balls played out of defence but also been substituted with the team chasing a goal, and with luck, tactics, fitness and raw ability also all playing important roles it's difficult to make a decision on less than a season (at the time) of senior football. (Especially if it contrasts a bit with how he's looked playing junior football)

On the other hand, leaving the attribute blank (which is probably correctly following guidelines) leaves open the possibility of Rashford having a Determination of 3, which is patently absurd for anyone who's watched his work ethic and body language in games where United have played badly. Not sure exactly how non-position specific attributes are randomly assigned but the probability of him getting an (absurdly low) 3 is probably about the same as him getting a (plausible but probably on the generous side) 17.

 

[westy8chimp]

On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 11:50, enigmatic said:

leaves open the possibility of Rashford having a Determination of 3, which is patently absurd for anyone who's watched his work ethic

Determination isn't just about on field though - hence why you sometimes get the message "due to an off field event player X has had his determination affected"

From what I've seen of Rashford IRL he showed potential to quickly become one of the best strikers in the country (Owen-esque) in his impact. Since then he has faded to a rotation winger under Mourinho and doesn't seem to mind at all.

It could be interpreted that his determination is low (or at least indeterminate)

[enigmatic]

Determination has other effects beyond the match engine, but none of them involve complaining about a change in position and only playing 53 games in a season at the age of 19.

[westy8chimp]

55 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Determination has other effects beyond the match engine, but none of them involve complaining about a change in position and only playing 53 games in a season at the age of 19.

Researchers have to decide his determination based on real life... up to the developers what they then do under the hood with that information.

Rashford has no determination to make the most of his potential and opportunity. 3/20  

 

[enigmatic]

If Rashford's determination to make the most of his potential and opportunity as demonstrated thus far deserves a 3 out of 20, I expect to see you in the Arsenal thread demanding the entire squad get their determination removed to 1 (with the possible exception of Sanchez if he succeeds in getting his move)

[westy8chimp]

I expect you to be in the Utd thread demanding that Rashford's natural position is Limited Defender in FM18?  

[Toonrock]

On ‎02‎-‎08‎-‎2017 at 13:15, westy8chimp said:

Determination isn't just about on field though - hence why you sometimes get the message "due to an off field event player X has had his determination affected"

From what I've seen of Rashford IRL he showed potential to quickly become one of the best strikers in the country (Owen-esque) in his impact. Since then he has faded to a rotation winger under Mourinho and doesn't seem to mind at all.

It could be interpreted that his determination is low (or at least indeterminate)

Sorry, can´t say I agree; If Rashford didn´t have at least some average good determination, he wouldn´t even have made it to top level-football at Man U - ....And yes, he´s much a rotation player, but with a manager playing so defensively, it´s really not a surprise to me; He should REALLY move on IMO

[talhak]

I support minimizing the 0's in the attributes as it means having more clear idea about the player which is nice imo. 

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.