I hate the new Condition/Sharpness Icons...

[paulskln]

Im colour blind Green Red and Brown are the colours i get mixed up with, so this new condition thing is not good for me.... There needs to be an option to turn it to percentages or the game is horrible to play for me.

[blejdek]

2 hours ago, paulskln said:

Im colour blind Green Red and Brown are the colours i get mixed up with, so this new condition thing is not good for me.... There needs to be an option to turn it to percentages or the game is horrible to play for me.

I was thinking about the same thing. Have few friends who dont see colours, almost same as you and they cant play the game properly. Really sad sigames didnt think about that and just offer the option to choose icons or percentages. 

[ralala]

Above posters has a very valid point on user accessibility that SI should take on board. 

Personally, I liked the percentages but after reading this thread see the point in obfuscating the numbers to engage immersion.

However, on a squad screen, the "heart" column is too wide in comparison with the icon itself, and that makes room for less columns in total ( I like a lot of info on my squad screen).

Edited December 29, 2020 by ralala

[kevhamster]

On 28/12/2020 at 10:03, paulskln said:

Im colour blind Green Red and Brown are the colours i get mixed up with, so this new condition thing is not good for me.... There needs to be an option to turn it to percentages or the game is horrible to play for me.

At the very least, there should be the option to change it to a black and white heart, with clear indication of how "full" it is.

This is definitely something which needs formal feedback to SI, as accessibility is a huge deal now and it is something which they need to get right.

For now, there is a chance there's a custom skin which may help with the issue, so I'd suggest taking a look in the skinning section of the forum to see if there's anything which can assist with this until it's put right.

@Neil Brock is the colourblindness issue something which can be raised?

Edited December 29, 2020 by kevhamster

[kevhamster]

1 hour ago, ralala said:

Above posters has a very valid point on user accessibility that SI should take on board. 

Personally, I liked the percentages but after reading this thread see the point in obfuscating the numbers to engage immersion.

However, on a squad screen, the "heart" column is too wide in comparison with the icon itself, and that makes room for less columns in total ( I like a lot of info on my squad screen).

You can adjust column width within the game.

[HCFC87]

On 29/12/2020 at 11:13, kevhamster said:

You can adjust column width within the game.

Column widths are broken and have been for years, I spent far too long trying to get the columns correct on the squad screen, only for the pre-match squad screen (which is slightly smaller) to **** them all up again and no matter what I tried I couldn't get them working. So the condition and heart columns are miles wide. Auto size columns breaks things even more.

 

 

On the topic itself, I'm a big fan of the change to match condition in particular. Simpler doesn't always mean better, but in this case I think it does. We don't need to know if a player is 91% vs 94% fit really, do we? This change makes the same information easier to see, and is also more realistic. 

[shwanko]

On 11/11/2020 at 20:58, SmurfDude said:

I like them a lot. So I guess all this thread really shows is we all have different tastes, and SI will never make everyone happy. Such is life 

that is why u give people options ! u just don't ignore other 50% of people just for sake u see is not same as FM20 we changed it !! this beyond joke

I can't even tell which one is good or very good or excellent or above average !

they don't even give a color shade shows what each difference range is 

 

On 29/12/2020 at 11:11, kevhamster said:

At the very least, there should be the option to change it to a black and white heart, with clear indication of how "full" it is.

This is definitely something which needs formal feedback to SI, as accessibility is a huge deal now and it is something which they need to get right.

For now, there is a chance there's a custom skin which may help with the issue, so I'd suggest taking a look in the skinning section of the forum to see if there's anything which can assist with this until it's put right.

@Neil Brock is the colourblindness issue something which can be raised?

they did same with attributes bcz they know some like to see numbers !

give the option or at least if I hoover my mouse on top of it .. it give me indication that this color is range from 100-90 .. or 60-70. I look to it now and have no clues what each color mean

what is next ? attribute  gonne be in colour too not number ? 

am really gutted and hate it !! 

 

On 28/12/2020 at 12:06, blejdek said:

I was thinking about the same thing. Have few friends who dont see colours, almost same as you and they cant play the game properly. Really sad sigames didnt think about that and just offer the option to choose icons or percentages. 

they do that with attributes and give you a choice

my worry they did it just to say "look we made some changes" 

this is sure not what fans asked for and is spoil all joy of the game and make me worry of what next gonna be replaced by colour instead of numbers

 

On 28/12/2020 at 10:03, paulskln said:

Im colour blind Green Red and Brown are the colours i get mixed up with, so this new condition thing is not good for me.... There needs to be an option to turn it to percentages or the game is horrible to play for me.

my friend too is colour blind .. so totally understand bro ..  didn't they had any brain storm to discuss it in depth ?

[JordanMilly]

Just FYI @shwanko, if you post on the forum, you invite other opinions. If you're just looking for an echochamber, and going to tell people "I don't care what your opinion is" (which you did in one hidden post), or that people were stupid for making a certain decision, you're probably better off not posting in a public forum.

Also, putting multiple exclamation marks behind every statement doesn't make your statements any more authoritative, it just makes it harder to read.

Cheers.

 

[Viking]

I hate the match screen emojis. I mean, really hate them. They make me feel like I play a kids game. I hope they will be optional in FM22, but I am a bit worried this is the route FM is taking. Please the emoji generation. Really makes me "".

[HCFC87]

14 hours ago, shwanko said:

what is next ? attribute  gonne be in colour too not number ? 

am really gutted and hate it !!

Honestly this is something I think might be a benefit to the game too (I'm not 100% on this though!)

Do we really need to know if a player is 17 or 18 or 19 in shooting? Would a move to a grading system, or hiding the attributes behind more general tiers like they've done with match fitness, be that detrimental?

Less information could (counterintuitively) change the way the game works, for the better. Removal of the star ranking system for players and hiding the exact attributes would mean players have to look more at how their team actually plays game to game to see who performs better, who looks to be improving etc etc. An overhaul of the match rating system too is something I'd love to see - ditching the decimal points and moving from a 1-10 scale instead of a 6.4-6.7 scale we currently have (seriously how often do players actually get below a 6.4, it's so rare yet that's half of the scale never used!

Just my thoughts on it.

[ScotchWhisky]

As a disclaimer, most of my knowledge about football comes from four prior iterations of this game, FIFA (prior to finding this game in '09), and the World Cup.  Anyways, many of you say this is more realistic because what head coach can really look at a player and say he's at 91% and not 85%?  Yet I prefer the argument of ok, but then what coach can look at a player and say his natural fitness is an 18 rather than a 17.  My belief is that contrary to popular opinion, percentages ARE more realistic than the five or six tier heart system we have now. 

Let's look at it this way.  A coach may not think in probability, but they know their players.  I'm going to make a hockey reference since I know more about that sport.  Coaches in hockey know the fitness of their players and have an estimate of how much TOI (Time On Ice) they can handle per game and per shift.  When a player has been on too long, they get pulled.  Or those with better stamina are planned to play for more minutes.  It should be, I'd think, the same for football.  A coach should know how much time each player can play in a match while also factoring in things such as minor injuries, days between matches, etc.  So while a head coach may not think in percentage and it may not be written on paper as such, they actually subconsciously do think in percentages.  And I feel that is what percentages represent far better than heart symbols.  We as humans tend to break things down into three tiers, five tiers, or seven tiers for ease, but our actually processing brain power thinks in far more than seven tiers.  That's probably why it's so easy to come off as irrational or hypocritical compared to prior decisions.  A slight 'nudger' can make all the difference.

As for the argument of what do the percentages really mean. That is something each of us learned over the years.  Those who know a lot about football know approximately how many minutes players can go for.  For a novice like me, I do comparisons.  "Ok, my most fit players end the game at around 70%... those are the ones in real life who are one of the 8 who will play a full match."  Thus I determined anything below 70% is reduced ability and the closer they get to 60% or even sub-60%, the more they *need* to be subbed if possible.  As for who to start...  You learn over time how long a 92% player can play for.  Some of them can do an entire match.  Others would drop down to that 60% range and needed to be pulled.  To me, this was a significant downgrade in the game.  In fact, I tended to notice that a 94% fitness in years past was far more than 6% difference from 100%.  In other words, it *seemed* fitness decreased quicker if starting at a lower level (could be confirmation bias though). 

So yes, please give me the percentages back because if this is the way of the future in regards to all stats, then the game will appease the most hardcore.  But I don't believe it will appease those who believe this is just a game.

[Tyburn]

Less is more imo ...

[ScotchWhisky]

3 minutes ago, Tyburn said:

Less is more imo ...

Ah, but if less is more, then just think how much more more would be. 

[ScotchWhisky]

On 02/01/2021 at 07:40, HCFC87 said:

Honestly this is something I think might be a benefit to the game too (I'm not 100% on this though!)

Do we really need to know if a player is 17 or 18 or 19 in shooting? Would a move to a grading system, or hiding the attributes behind more general tiers like they've done with match fitness, be that detrimental?

Less information could (counterintuitively) change the way the game works, for the better. Removal of the star ranking system for players and hiding the exact attributes would mean players have to look more at how their team actually plays game to game to see who performs better, who looks to be improving etc etc. An overhaul of the match rating system too is something I'd love to see - ditching the decimal points and moving from a 1-10 scale instead of a 6.4-6.7 scale we currently have (seriously how often do players actually get below a 6.4, it's so rare yet that's half of the scale never used!

Just my thoughts on it.

I personally like the detail stats provide.  I think there are two main ways people play this game.  Casual and hardcore.  Casuals like me don't spends hours on tactics or looking over every little detail.  We watch minimal highlights of the match because the result is less important than the future.  Plus it's random anyways.  Restore a save, select identical options, and the end result will always be different.  Then there are the hardcore who care far more about the nitty gritty and the realism of the experience.  These people probably watch large portions of the match and try to find where their players are right or wrong rather than guess at it or review match stats only.  The latter would probably enjoy more vagueness.  To me though, more vagueness takes it from being a fun simulation game to something I never want to touch again.

[Tyburn]

24 minutes ago, ScotchWhisky said:

I personally like the detail stats provide.  I think there are two main ways people play this game.  Casual and hardcore.  Casuals like me don't spends hours on tactics or looking over every little detail.  We watch minimal highlights of the match because the result is less important than the future.  Plus it's random anyways.  Restore a save, select identical options, and the end result will always be different.  Then there are the hardcore who care far more about the nitty gritty and the realism of the experience.  These people probably watch large portions of the match and try to find where their players are right or wrong rather than guess at it or review match stats only.  The latter would probably enjoy more vagueness.  To me though, more vagueness takes it from being a fun simulation game to something I never want to touch again.

Which is why there are attribute numbers and star ratings everywhere. Personally I fall into the other category, which is why I’ve completely removed every last trace of an attribute number and all references to CA/PA and Reputation stars.

If you’re after a more realistic, and importantly, challenging experience, I highly recommend it.

Having fitness as not a percentage anymore is just one less thing I had to change.

[ScotchWhisky]

7 minutes ago, Tyburn said:

Which is why there are attribute numbers and star ratings everywhere. Personally I fall into the other category, which is why I’ve completely removed every last trace of an attribute number and all references to CA/PA and Reputation stars.

If you’re after a more realistic, and importantly, challenging experience, I highly recommend it.

Having fitness as not a percentage anymore is just one less thing I had to change.

Which is fine, and I understand coming at it from that aspect.  I just don't have the time, the love for the game, nor the knowledge of the game to wish to take it to that degree.  I mean, if they dropped attributes entirely and went to a system of scouts saying "I've watched this guy for five games, he is great at headers, but poor at finishing overall", I'd see an argument for that.  But if it's going to be another grading system with fewer tiers (like A to F), then I am not in support of that.

[Tyburn]

6 minutes ago, ScotchWhisky said:

Which is fine, and I understand coming at it from that aspect.  I just don't have the time, the love for the game, nor the knowledge of the game to wish to take it to that degree.  I mean, if they dropped attributes entirely and went to a system of scouts saying "I've watched this guy for five games, he is great at headers, but poor at finishing overall", I'd see an argument for that.  But if it's going to be another grading system with fewer tiers (like A to F), then I am not in support of that.

That’s exactly what my skin does. Relies pretty much solely on scout and coach reports  Which in itself is a stab in the dark because coaches and scouts don’t have attribute numbers anymore either!

Edited February 8, 2021 by Tyburn

[Russell10]

I am not keen on it either tbh, totally understand why it has happened though.

 

I really miss the small pitch when you go to make a sub though and go into the tactics side of it during a game.

[Overmars]

I'm good with the percentages, even if the precision could be reduced for realism. In real life, I would want to see statistics such as:

1. Minutes played over the past x days
2. Minutes played over the past month
3. Training sessions over the past x days
4. Training sessions over the past month
5. Days lost to injury over the past month

Info like that in this game would be really helpful, but providing a heart icon or percentage saves us doing the algorithm to determine match readiness. I'm fine with that because ultimately there isn't a ton of fun in that sort of thing. The real fun of FM is in squad building, match performances, tactics, and imagination.

[SCCP1910]

On 08/02/2021 at 16:15, Tyburn said:

Which is why there are attribute numbers and star ratings everywhere. Personally I fall into the other category, which is why I’ve completely removed every last trace of an attribute number and all references to CA/PA and Reputation stars.

If you’re after a more realistic, and importantly, challenging experience, I highly recommend it.

Having fitness as not a percentage anymore is just one less thing I had to change.

From a realism standpoint, CA/PA star ratings are fine imo. It's just a way of the coaches and scouts saying "this guy is good/bad, and I reckon he can/can't improve", and it's not entirely accurate. What did you replace the stars and numbers with?

Edited February 10, 2021 by SCCP1910

[Tyburn]

35 minutes ago, SCCP1910 said:

From a realism standpoint, CA/PA star ratings are fine imo. It's just a way of the coaches and scouts saying "this guy is good/bad, and I reckon he can/can't improve", and it's not entirely accurate. What did you replace the stars and numbers with?

Stars are completely removed. In some instances I’ve replaced them with text. Like reputation stars, so for clubs, rather than stars, it’ll say, regional, national, continental etc.

Coach and scout reports give all the information I need, with the text descriptions of a player. But unlike stars, that I agree are also, or can be, vague, I find the descriptions to be vaguer still. Which is more realistic. For me.

I found myself making all and every decision based on stars. Only signing kids that had 4 stars with a blacked out 5th, redoing my tactic based purely on the star ratings of my players in any given position. It became all about the stars. Removing them has totally freed all of that up. 

The numbered attributes have just been changed into icons (I use squares but others use stars). I have tweaked the thresholds for colours to give a broader spectrum. So excellent stats are 15 and up. Good stats are 10-14 etc. Means I’m never quite sure of how good anybody is.

I have to watch them, look at other stats I wouldn’t normally look at, trust my coaches and scouts. It’s hugely immersive. For me.

And not truly knowing a players exact condition just adds to the overall feel I’m going for. Vagueness.

 

[shaunwwfc]

Personally I think it's fantastic 

Completely sympathise with anyone who is colour blind though of course

[Britrock]

I much prefer the new system. Percentages were silly and arbitrary to most players (some people have a 95% cutoff, others a 90%, others somewhere in between) so a quick description is much more useful. Especially after an injury, knowing if a player is ready to go or not is much simpler to work out now

[Brother Ben]

21 hours ago, Tyburn said:

 

I found myself making all and every decision based on stars. Only signing kids that had 4 stars with a blacked out 5th, redoing my tactic based purely on the star ratings of my players in any given position. It became all about the stars. Removing them has totally freed all of that up. 

 

I so agree with this.  The first skin I used without stars I felt completely lost, I didn't realise how much I'd used them, I'd gotten lazy.

I get why they are there though as they're handy for beginners.  Pick the guys with the most stars, chuck on a preset formation and off you go.  I'd LOVE to see the meltdown on here if they ever got rid of the stars, that would be a sight to behold  

Which skin do you use out of interest?

[Tyburn]

4 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

I so agree with this.  The first skin I used without stars I felt completely lost, I didn't realise how much I'd used them, I'd gotten lazy.

I get why they are there though as they're handy for beginners.  Pick the guys with the most stars, chuck on a preset formation and off you go.  I'd LOVE to see the meltdown on here if they ever got rid of the stars, that would be a sight to behold  

Which skin do you use out of interest?

I'm currently building a custom skin. It incorporates the excellent star attributes skin to remove the attribute numbers and I'm slowly working my way through removing all trace of current ability and potential ability. The realism skin is very good, it removes the stars, but I prefer the look of the base skin (I use lots of different modifications) and I wanted all the text removed that indicates CA/PA. The work I'm personally doing can probably be a stand alone mod at some point, although it needs to incorporate the removal of the attribute numbers to be fully appreciated.

Will definately be looking to release something at some point.

[Brother Ben]

1 hour ago, Tyburn said:

I'm currently building a custom skin. It incorporates the excellent star attributes skin to remove the attribute numbers and I'm slowly working my way through removing all trace of current ability and potential ability. The realism skin is very good, it removes the stars, but I prefer the look of the base skin (I use lots of different modifications) and I wanted all the text removed that indicates CA/PA. The work I'm personally doing can probably be a stand alone mod at some point, although it needs to incorporate the removal of the attribute numbers to be fully appreciated.

Will definately be looking to release something at some point.

Sounds fantastic. 

I know its a massive ask but for the sake of LLM would you be able to remove the player search button? Or at least a version that does?

On the LLM forum we've been talking about having a skin that incorporates all of the LLM guidelines for years but sadly none of us have the required skills

Edited February 11, 2021 by Brother Ben

[Tyburn]

16 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

Sounds fantastic. 

I know its a massive ask but for the sake of LLM would you be able to remove the player search button? Or at least a version that does?

On the LLM forum we've been talking about having a skin that incorporates all of the LLM guidelines for years but sadly none of us have the required skills

I can certainly have a look into it

[Brother Ben]

1 hour ago, Tyburn said:

I can certainly have a look into it

I really appreciate that, thanks 

[HCFC87]

On 10/02/2021 at 14:10, Tyburn said:

Stars are completely removed. In some instances I’ve replaced them with text. Like reputation stars, so for clubs, rather than stars, it’ll say, regional, national, continental etc.

Coach and scout reports give all the information I need, with the text descriptions of a player. But unlike stars, that I agree are also, or can be, vague, I find the descriptions to be vaguer still. Which is more realistic. For me.

I found myself making all and every decision based on stars. Only signing kids that had 4 stars with a blacked out 5th, redoing my tactic based purely on the star ratings of my players in any given position. It became all about the stars. Removing them has totally freed all of that up. 

The numbered attributes have just been changed into icons (I use squares but others use stars). I have tweaked the thresholds for colours to give a broader spectrum. So excellent stats are 15 and up. Good stats are 10-14 etc. Means I’m never quite sure of how good anybody is.

I have to watch them, look at other stats I wouldn’t normally look at, trust my coaches and scouts. It’s hugely immersive. For me.

And not truly knowing a players exact condition just adds to the overall feel I’m going for. Vagueness.

 

This is a fantastic idea - it's probably more extreme than I'd like, but it's definitely going in what (for me) is the better way for the game to go.

 

The CA/PA star ratings make a complete mockery of the rest of the game in my opinion. Why bother reading the scout reports, or looking at individual attributes to any degree. Especially for younger players - look at the PA and make a decision based on those stars alone!

In older games I'd have persisted with average players because they played well, but now your mind is made up the second you see the potential of a player. People will claim it's not accurate, but it's close enough. And it leads to lazy playing - ignore anyone with low PAs, sign all the best wonderkids (who will be overwhelmingly likely to reach their potential), and dominate long term. And even if you have a youngster who puts in good performances for the youth teams, if they have a low PA you'll sell them 99.99% of the time regardless.

 

In my ideal version of the game the complexity would still be there, just hidden a bit more from the player. And things like the fitness icons are a good step towards that I think.

 

 

[Mike 101128]

I tried playing FM2021 Touch for the first time today. The new icons for fitness etc are quite simply nothing short of dreadful and I have given up playing.

The Touch game which is supposed to be the simpler version is now more complex than the old complicated version.

I will be returning back to 2014/15 when the game was a pleasure to play.

Mike

 

[moonprince]

On 02/01/2021 at 16:40, HCFC87 said:

Honestly this is something I think might be a benefit to the game too (I'm not 100% on this though!)

Do we really need to know if a player is 17 or 18 or 19 in shooting? Would a move to a grading system, or hiding the attributes behind more general tiers like they've done with match fitness, be that detrimental?

Less information could (counterintuitively) change the way the game works, for the better. Removal of the star ranking system for players and hiding the exact attributes would mean players have to look more at how their team actually plays game to game to see who performs better, who looks to be improving etc etc. An overhaul of the match rating system too is something I'd love to see - ditching the decimal points and moving from a 1-10 scale instead of a 6.4-6.7 scale we currently have (seriously how often do players actually get below a 6.4, it's so rare yet that's half of the scale never used!

Just my thoughts on it.

Change in this section would be much more realistic than icons for condition/sharpness. I found it really unnecessary to bring those icons. Today's technology and techniques in sports medicine allow coaches to see almost the exact level of each player's fatigue, tiredness and readiness. I mean come on, those GPS tracker vests we know in sports are common in most football teams for 5-6 years and if I'm not mistaken they alone tell most of the things that sports science department needs, let alone daily blood tests or such. If we are talking about more realism in the game, such grading system for attributes would make much more sense than condition/sharpness icons.

[Aalbergsjo]

I agree, i really do not like these new icons. As there are clearly different opinions about this and as some say, if they are colour blind it makes it difficult for them. It should be made optional to have icons or percentage in future fm games, so that people can choose themself what they prefer. Should not be very hard to do.

[State Machine]

Forgetting about the numbers that underlie things, and the graphical approach used to express it...

I would like to see the fitness/health bit to show:
- a player is in superb health and should go 90 minutes or more
- a player is in great shape and should do 90 minutes with little problem
- a player is fatigued or recovering from injury but should be good for 75+ or so minutes
- a player is fatigued or recovering from injury but should be good for 60'ish minutes
- a player is fatigued or recovering from injury and should be limited to 45 minutes
- a player is not suited to play due to injury or, perhaps, extreme fatigue

In regards to match preparedness, and such, I don't have any suggestions, other than a similar scheme...

The evaluation of a squad member can be subjectively set by your coaching and medical staff based on their qualities and squad member attributes like stamina and natural fitness and injury risk, and regarding play time over a recent period.

This kind of schema allows the player to, at a glance, evaluate their squad - and, in particular, to understand where squad members are in regards to recovering from injury, and from recent playing time.

[Brother Ben]

On 21/05/2021 at 23:59, moonprince said:

Change in this section would be much more realistic than icons for condition/sharpness. I found it really unnecessary to bring those icons. Today's technology and techniques in sports medicine allow coaches to see almost the exact level of each player's fatigue, tiredness and readiness. I mean come on, those GPS tracker vests we know in sports are common in most football teams for 5-6 years and if I'm not mistaken they alone tell most of the things that sports science department needs, let alone daily blood tests or such. If we are talking about more realism in the game, such grading system for attributes would make much more sense than condition/sharpness icons.

I can't see my fat lower league keeper fitting into a GPS tracker vest to be honest.  In terms of blood tests I'm guessing the results would come back as 95% kebabs and beer.

I still call him "the cat" though, cos he's lazy, not cos he's agile.

Jokes aside I'd love to see things like this be different depending on the level of football you are at.  Fitness could be super vague at a lower level but far more accurate at top tier levels for the reasons you outlined.

[ivaan222]

There is an easy way to get some numbers back (not exactly percentages) without a new skin and I'm happy with it.

Start your old FM20, create a view that includes condition (and match sharpness) percentage and save it. 
Then just load it in new FM21 and you should see numbers between 0-10000 instead of % for condition. 

I added new icons between 'percentages' and it looks like this:

 

 

Edited October 7, 2021 by ivaan222

[Piperita]

@LucasThere are some accessibility issues raised in this thread (link to post here). Can you have a look?

[Grifty]

On 07/09/2021 at 10:48, Brother Ben said:

I can't see my fat lower league keeper fitting into a GPS tracker vest to be honest.  In terms of blood tests I'm guessing the results would come back as 95% kebabs and beer.

I still call him "the cat" though, cos he's lazy, not cos he's agile.

Jokes aside I'd love to see things like this be different depending on the level of football you are at.  Fitness could be super vague at a lower level but far more accurate at top tier levels for the reasons you outlined.

I really like that idea.

[Brother Ben]

9 minutes ago, Grifty said:

I really like that idea.

I think a lot of aspects should feel a lot different depending on what level your club is at.

At the moment there isn't that much of a desernable difference between the low end and the top level.  Even on the pitch the quality of players for me seems too high.  I want to see journeyman Johnny shank it into the stands

[Chas (Psyatika)]

On 28/12/2020 at 05:03, paulskln said:

Im colour blind Green Red and Brown are the colours i get mixed up with, so this new condition thing is not good for me.... There needs to be an option to turn it to percentages or the game is horrible to play for me.

This has been ignored, and it shouldn't be.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Chas (Psyatika)

[fc.cadoni]

The best solution is to take off completely that information (numbers, symbols) and rely on your medical center to check if that player is fitness ready to play the game. 

[dunk105]

I like the new system but one thing that gets me is completely bright green on a players fitness but marked as a high injury risk as they played 3 games in 14 days, which is just 1 game every 7 days over that 14 day period (Day 1, Day 7. Day 14). It also seems a bit harsh that the game deems a game per week too much for premiership players who in reality have a heavier game load.

[KingCanary]

On 08/10/2021 at 13:52, Grifty said:

I really like that idea.

Me too.

I don't believe teams in the top tier don't have anything more detailed than 4 or 5 levels of fitness even in match. Same for sharpness- full sharpness, upwards, downwards, not sharp might be realistic at lower levels but with all the data and sophisticated medical science at clubs fingertips it doesn't feel right for higher levels.

Maybe linking this to the quality of medical staff could actually incentivise people to hire better sports scientists/analysists etc etc. 

[Brother Ben]

3 hours ago, KingCanary said:

 

Maybe linking this to the quality of medical staff could actually incentivise people to hire better sports scientists/analysists etc etc. 

Great idea

[JAwtunes]

On 28/11/2021 at 11:28, Chas (Psyatika) said:

This has been ignored, and it shouldn't be.

 

[Spurs08]

On 28/11/2021 at 11:28, Chas (Psyatika) said:

This has been ignored, and it shouldn't be.

Years after its introduction, and STILL not fixed. Sorry, but it really is an absolute disgrace. The development time needed to even at the least add it to the colours which are already customisable for attributes etc is absolutely tiny, but they just don't care. I'll be fuming if it's somehow still broken in FM23.

[jiminyx]

On 28/11/2021 at 12:28, Chas (Psyatika) said:

This has been ignored, and it shouldn't be.

Sorry to bump this old thread. But has this been adressed in FM24?

I'm also color blind, and can't enjoy the game with colored fitness. I have been playing fm20 since it's the last iteration with percentages, but was wondering if we can at least change the colours by now? 

Kind regards.

[XaW]

2 hours ago, jiminyx said:

Sorry to bump this old thread. But has this been adressed in FM24?

I'm also color blind, and can't enjoy the game with colored fitness. I have been playing fm20 since it's the last iteration with percentages, but was wondering if we can at least change the colours by now? 

Kind regards.

The hearts are still there, but the game has 3 accessibility options for colour blindness. Presumably these should help with the colours:

I'm not colour blind myself, so I don't know, but perhaps this will help?

[starbugg]

There are also a number of skins that bring back percentages, I use Flut, you just have to play around with the columns.