Visual Player Attributes - Do We Still Need Them?

[x42bn6]

At its basic level it just means you don't know if player A has 3 points more than Player B in attribute C. You will never know that playing this way. You will however know if Player A plays better than Player B and is consistant with it, because you'll see it with your own eyes and won't be relying on some arbitary match rating or a quantity of attributes someone has in this or that category telling you you should be seeing otherwise.

Do people only use their own eyes to judge players, though? A manager gains information about a player via:

- Their own eyes

- Word of mouth

- Scout reports

- Agent talk

- Coaching reports

- Coaching advice

- Personal contacts

- Personal experiences (not just with the player - perhaps against a player)

- Player statistics

- Records of the player

- YouTube

- etc.

Indeed, even looking at a player on the pitch isn't necessarily the full story - the player could have serious issues in his personal life, regularly getting into trouble - a manager doesn't have to see that with his own eyes. Likewise a coach might be able to tell a manager his personal experiences with training that player when he was younger, and that he is a troublemaker or his position is totally wrong.

The attribute represents the sum of all knowledge that you have available to judge that player. To me, hiding attributes only makes sense if managers have no knowledge about that player at all, which is false - over time, a manager will know.

There is an argument for having some degree of "fog of war" for some attributes, even for your own players (i.e. an attribute might show up as 16 but it could be 14-18 because you are not familiar with Armenian football but have moved to Armenia, but only if your coaches are rubbish), but certainly not removing them all. No attributes implies no knowledge of a player - ever.

If you want to avoid being swayed by transfer fees, then you can do that with attributes, too - just look at the attributes, or what appears to be the attributes thanks to fog-of-war. Ignore the transfer fees.

However, I would never think that we only use our own eyes and watching matches to gain information about a player. Without having seen, say, Marcelo, you might still be able to deduce he's a good left-back as he's first-choice for one of the best teams in the world. He's Brazilian and hence is likely to enjoy attacking. His statistics suggest he's slightly hot-headed when it comes to fouls but is a very productive left-back. News reports constantly fawn over Marcelo and his attacking prowess. From this alone, you can deduce what Marcelo's attributes might be like. You might not get it exactly right, but then again, you might not get it exactly right if you watched him, too!

Therefore, no attributes is arguably less realistic than attributes.

[atcdelay]

The driving force behind this thread is that FM is too easy. SI must either increase the intelligence and agility of the AI manager or start taking away (optionally) tools of the human user in order to have a level playing field. The latter would be easier to implement from a programming point of view but must be done in a way to keep enjoyment levels high. We do not have FML anymore but I do not recall much clamor when it was around to hide atttributes. The competition was difficult enough and the user needed as much info as possible to stay ahead!

[Erimus1876]

Do people only use their own eyes to judge players, though? A manager gains information about a player via:

- Their own eyes

- Word of mouth

- Scout reports

- Agent talk

- Coaching reports

- Coaching advice

- Personal contacts

- Personal experiences (not just with the player - perhaps against a player)

- Player statistics

- Records of the player

- YouTube

- etc.

Indeed, even looking at a player on the pitch isn't necessarily the full story - the player could have serious issues in his personal life, regularly getting into trouble - a manager doesn't have to see that with his own eyes. Likewise a coach might be able to tell a manager his personal experiences with training that player when he was younger, and that he is a troublemaker or his position is totally wrong.

The attribute represents the sum of all knowledge that you have available to judge that player. To me, hiding attributes only makes sense if managers have no knowledge about that player at all, which is false - over time, a manager will know.

There is an argument for having some degree of "fog of war" for some attributes, even for your own players (i.e. an attribute might show up as 16 but it could be 14-18 because you are not familiar with Armenian football but have moved to Armenia, but only if your coaches are rubbish), but certainly not removing them all. No attributes implies no knowledge of a player - ever.

If you want to avoid being swayed by transfer fees, then you can do that with attributes, too - just look at the attributes, or what appears to be the attributes thanks to fog-of-war. Ignore the transfer fees.

However, I would never think that we only use our own eyes and watching matches to gain information about a player. Without having seen, say, Marcelo, you might still be able to deduce he's a good left-back as he's first-choice for one of the best teams in the world. He's Brazilian and hence is likely to enjoy attacking. His statistics suggest he's slightly hot-headed when it comes to fouls but is a very productive left-back. News reports constantly fawn over Marcelo and his attacking prowess. From this alone, you can deduce what Marcelo's attributes might be like. You might not get it exactly right, but then again, you might not get it exactly right if you watched him, too!

Therefore, no attributes is arguably less realistic than attributes.

Not sure why you quoted me or highlighted that and associated it with realism?

In fact, what has realism got to do with it at all? I don't think I've mentioned the word realism at all in this thread (apart from now), I may have mentioned real life managers often assess players themselves, but thats about it. I play without attributes because it offers me a much better challenge than it does with them visible... especially since the AI team building is so poor. It adds longevity to the game.

To quote myself...

I started at the bottom with Harrogate Town in the BSN. Normally with visable attributes on I'm on my way up the leagues within a season or two, but playing blind saw my stuck in the BSN for 5 seasons before a slow gradual improvement began.

Its just as unrealistc to play with absolute values visible showing you how good a player can cross a ball etc, as it is playing with no values showing at all. Both are as unrealistc as each other.

If you want realistic, then 'fog of war' mentioned in post #43 is probably a good way to go. Unfortunatley thats not an option. You only have one extreme or the other. Visible stats or not. I choose the latter because it makes the game more challenging for me. Simulation mode vs arcade mode if you want to label it, but certainly not realism mode.

[Erimus1876]

The driving force behind this thread is that FM is too easy. SI must either increase the intelligence and agility of the AI manager or start taking away (optionally) tools of the human user in order to have a level playing field. The latter would be easier to implement from a programming point of view but must be done in a way to keep enjoyment levels high. We do not have FML anymore but I do not recall much clamor when it was around to hide atttributes. The competition was difficult enough and the user needed as much info as possible to stay ahead!

Exactly this

Its about options. Wether you use the tools you're given, or not. Unfortunaltely there isn't a way to level the playing field since there are no effective fog or war options. So its a case of ripping some tools out altogether (via a modded skin), or play against a flawed AI with them there intact.

[x42bn6]

Not sure why you quoted me or highlighted that and associated it with realism?

Realism is a tiny part of it. You can replace it with "correct".

I bolded the bit where it said that you won't need to rely on "arbitrary statistics" to judge a player; however, the fact is that we do.

Its just as unrealistc to play with absolute values visible showing you how good a player can cross a ball etc, as it is playing with no values showing at all. Both are as unrealistc as each other.

I don't think so. No attributes shown cannot be correct since we will know something about the player, even if it is heresay or even how tall they are. However, all attributes shown can be correct (if you know the player inside-out).

[Erimus1876]

Realism is a tiny part of it. You can replace it with "correct".

I bolded the bit where it said that you won't need to rely on "arbitrary statistics" to judge a player; however, the fact is that we do.

I don't think so. No attributes shown cannot be correct since we will know something about the player, even if it is heresay or even how tall they are. However, all attributes shown can be correct (if you know the player inside-out).

Attributes visible or not we do know something about our players. We have the coach report to look at. He'll give us an idea of our players strengths and weaknesses, personality, recommendations etc.

If you want to bring realism into it then the coach report is probably the more "realistic" way of getting to know our players when we join a new club....

for example....

Your coach wouldn't sit there and go through each player with you saying.. "Welcome to our club Boss, right lets get started.... Billy Jones is our best left back, he's got 15 in tackling, 9 in heading, and 4 in passing"

It'd be more akin to this in reality.... "Billy Jones is our left back, he's an excellent tackler, times them well, pretty decent in the air, but needs to work on his passing".

I'd love something like that as an option instead absolute numbers.

[x42bn6]

Attributes visible or not we do know something about our players. We have the coach report to look at. He'll give us an idea of our players strengths and weaknesses, personality, recommendations etc.

If you want to bring realism into it then the coach report is probably the more "realistic" way of getting to know our players when we join a new club....

for example....

Your coach wouldn't sit there and go through each player with you saying.. "Welcome to our club Boss, right lets get started.... Billy Jones is our best left back, he's got 15 in tackling, 9 in heading, and 4 in passing"

It'd be more akin to this in reality.... "Billy Jones is our left back, he's an excellent tackler, times them well, pretty decent in the air, but needs to work on his passing".

But an excellent tackler in what context? Relative to the Premier League? Relative to our squad?

The coach would also be putting it into context (i.e. he is an excellent tackler relative to the Championship, horrendous passing and wouldn't be a playmaker in the Blue Square North, etc.). This is where the numbers come in. Numerically, we give them rankings of sorts in our head.

Combined with multiple coaches, scouts and agent opinions, as well as knowledge gained over time in the past, you can get an accurate picture of a player.

By saying he is an "excellent tackler relative to the Premier League", it implies something like "Tackling 13-16". It represents what you know (not necessarily through your own eyes).

The coach's report is not the only method of knowing a player.

Think about it - we know Rooney is a good striker, a little hot-headed, and we can put his attributes on a scale between 1-20. we, as fans, without a coach report, can do that. This tells us that a manager should be able to know something about a player even without having seen him, and we can put them on a 1-20 scale over time.

[Erimus1876]

Yeah I know what you're saying and I sort of agree I just don't see a reason why a 'fog of war' option can't be part of future FM's. The more options people have to tailor their game to suit their style of play the better imho. As for coach reports, the context would obviously relate to whatever division the team is in, so if he says so and so is an excellent tackler then he'd mean it in regards to that particular division. Obviously it'd need a lot of fleshing out and be a bit more descriptive than the ones I wrote above.

But an option where you can have absolute numbers 1 - 20 visible (like now), and a fog of war style descriptive text relating to number ranges (i.e. "Boss, he's excellent at this and that" [16-20 range] or "Boss he's poor at so and so" [1-5 range] etc would be a good addition too. If someone doesn't like that option, simply click the preferences box and turn it off. At the moment, anyone who wants to play without absolute numbers representing player ability has no choice other than to play totally blind to them and assess his players himself (or totally rely on scouts & coaching).

[BiggusD]

I'd like more detailed coach reports on the player's abilities. Decent, Good and Leading in this and that league isn't really good enough. An excellent coach/scout should be able to differ between good/leading as well as tell me how good the leading player is on a continental/world scale when he is "too good for the league". After a while, when you get world class players to clubs outside the Premier League (the highest-ranked league), "Leading star for most BBVA clubs" isn't all that meaningful.

Decent BBVA, Good BBVA, Leading star for most BBVA clubs

One of the best players in BBVA

One of the best players in Europe

One of the best players in the world

Would be a backup player for most top-half clubs in BBVA

a first team regular for most bottom-half clubs in BBVA

A first team regular for most of the top clubs in BBVA

A leading star for most of the top clubs in BBVA

Is not good enough for BBVA

Is unlikely to become a professional football player in the future

Is too good to play in the Norwegian Premier League

Has the potential to be a good player for most leagues in Europe (when playing in a smaller league, like in Norway)

[BiggusD]

But more related to the topic: I think we need player attributes. The way the game is set up now, looking at attributes is helpful but there are hidden mechanics that makes them only one of many pieces of information that will tell us how good the player is. If the attributes were to be replaced with detailed coach reports only, those hidden mechanics would have to go because otherwise we would have no points of reference. The attributes would have to be absolutes, not general guides like they are now.

For instance, coaches don't say that a central defender with 11 in jumping has a "weakness in the air". But it certainly is - to the highest degree at the top level. They also pick only one weakness to mention, ignoring others. The same goes for what they consider to be a strength: most of them aren't really strengths.

Also, remember that assessing players is one of the central skillsets for an FM player. It often requires thousands of hours and many seasons over years to learn how to correctly assess the quality of a player only glancing at his attributes. Another thing to keep in mind is that improving the coach reports to make them usable instead of attributes in a fog-of-war game would make the coach reports more detailed also without the fog. This could lead to information overload for new players and veterans alike.

I think it is much better to give veterans a challenge by improving the AI so that we don't have to impose silly restrictions on ourselves to keep our interest beyond the first 4-5 seasons.

[x42bn6]

FWIW - I mentioned that something like this would be good in another thread (couldn't remember what I said so it was a little difficult to find):

Except that an ambitious, determined, temperamental, unsporting, disloyal, ultra-professional will probably get his personality condensed into one single word (professional), with maybe an adjective - in other words, 6-7 invisible attributes plus a couple of others that are visible (i.e. influence, determination, bravery, etc.) get crammed into a couple of words as a personality and media-handling style - this is inaccurate. A manager who has been at the club for years should know their players' personalities relatively inside-out.

There is an argument for a new manager to not know it (i.e. a bit like attribute masking on your own players) but I would argue that no attribute should be hidden, because a long-term manager will know his squad really well.

Extreme attributes all the more - attributes that are extremely low or extremely high should be easily seen, whilst those in the middle are harder to distinguish. Mr. Average could simply be average or the little nuances about his personality (i.e. 8 or 12) are harder to gauge and hence take longer to judge. But then again, the difference between 8 and 12 is very different between 1 and 20 - it is understandable why it will take longer to gauge.

I would argue that pretty much all of them should be visible as a result - including inconsistency, adaptability and big games, although there may be certain caveats on how quickly they are revealed (i.e. adaptability should only be revealed quickly for nomadic players, and big game mentalities are only visible after, well, you play big games).

If anything, it suggests that we should have some form of being able to see a number that is uncertain - a blur number perhaps, where a sharp, crisp number represents near-perfect knowledge? In addition, this could apply to scouting, where instead of no attributes, you see lots of blurs, some sharper than others (i.e. attributes that are extremely high or extremely low - representing that perhaps this youngster is a showoff and hence has dribbling 20, flair 20 - this is easy to know) - so you can "sharpen" up the numbers to be more sure, or take a gamble when they are blur.

Whilst it was for a different purpose, the "blur" idea sort of matches this idea.

It's not a compromise because I simply believe that attributes should never be hidden, but a blur combines uncertainty and certainty.

[atcdelay]

I think it is much better to give veterans a challenge by improving the AI so that we don't have to impose silly restrictions on ourselves to keep our interest beyond the first 4-5 seasons.

SI has known about the AI weakness for years but has chosen to instead to add new features. They have admitted that AI improvement to where the most experienced users are challenged is difficult. It would be easier for them to thicken 'the fog of war.'

[Romanista.]

This really sounds like really interesting way of playing. i always found exact numbers too accurate, but playing "blind" would be too much for me. I guess i would end up watching all games, making notes on every players mistakes and good things he did, then sorting out notes... it would be like real life and too much time consuming even for me.

but i guess my proposal would be to put summarise the numbers and translate them to descriptions. 1-5 crap, 6-10 low,11-15 acceptable, 16-20 excellent.

this would force you to play the player who deserve to play instead of filling your best 11 everyday.

also, it would do a lot of difference to scouting i imagine.

is it not possible to do this with some editing for FM11? like for the attribute numbers from 1 to 5 to just show "very poor" or "1-5"

[Brian Shanahan]

Your coach wouldn't sit there and go through each player with you saying.. "Welcome to our club Boss, right lets get started.... Billy Jones is our best left back, he's got 15 in tackling, 9 in heading, and 4 in passing"

It'd be more akin to this in reality.... "Billy Jones is our left back, he's an excellent tackler, times them well, pretty decent in the air, but needs to work on his passing".

Actually I reckon that some sort of numerical system is going to be used to describe physical and technical attributes of players, not so much mental. It is going to be couched more like "Billy Jones is our best tackler, on average he makes 75% of tackles attempted and only gives away fouls on 4%. In addition he is competitive in the air winning 42% of headers and disrupting the attacker a further 13% of the time. However his passing leads a lot to be desired with only a 23% completion rate reducing to 12% if the pass is longer than 10 metres." Further details would be given for further relevant stats. All the numbers are doing in the game is simplifying those probabilities down into a 1-20 system, and giving the same system to a more intangible set of attributes (the mental ones, which in real life are both hard to judge and variable).

As regards real life examples, Baseball being one of the most analysed sports in reality often uses the 20/80 system to give players' statistics a context to go from and necessary simplification, for example rating batting strength from 2 to 8 based on the velocity of the ball when struck by the player and so on for the different skills. They wouldn't use that system if it didn't work. Also there is the much publicised example of Everton buying the database for FM2009 in order to get a look at the scout reports given by researchers and use it as a part of the scouting tool. I'm sure that there are a lot more clubs and managers than Everton that buy the game on release day just to mine the hundreds of thousands of data points contained within the game and use them accordingly.

But the most simple reason why a numerical system is used is because it works. Look at ratings for films, they're given in stars or out of ten markings. If you get a questionnaire which asks you to make a value judgement it is invariably given on a scale where neutral is in the middle and there are equal numbers of responses on either side of the neutral one (sometimes the neutral is left out because human bias will have it over-represented). Humanity has evolved it's collective mental capabilities to be able to absorb numbers and numerical data more easily and completely than other kinds of data which say the same thing. That is why in so many walks of life numbers are used.

And finally I do agree with x42bn6 and RBKalle that the problem is that it is too easy see the actual numbers of players outside the club. Inside the club you should see all non-hidden data from day one, as in real life a manager would be able to access the equivalent of this data from day one (except at the smallest clubs). But outside the club there should be a lot more uncertainty, maybe with top players excepted (we all know how good Messi is, but then again Rooney is massively overrated), after a few scout reports you could have a range wider in some areas (e.g 13-18 for pace) and narrower in others (e.g. 14-16 for heading). Some attributes will be easy to narrow down, e.g if a player consistently completes 75% of passes over 4 games then his passing is 16 (20 is not passes always go to their man). Others take longer to quantify, for example pace and acceleration are easy to get close to figures of but need some specialised equipment to get exactly and are more variable due to conditions. After say 2 months of constant looking then you could get a 90% accurate picture of a player (7 league games, 1 cup, 2 European, 1 international). But this picture will degrade over time as the player improves/worsens, changes his playing style, his mental attitude to the game and maybe even his position, so what you could have is after 6 months a historical attribute screen pops up with the exact figures already given, and a current one where the figures get more fuzzy and return to a range figure rather than an exact one. It would preserve attributes, give scouting more significance and allow for a lot more uncertainty about how the players are developing and changing away from your direct sight.

[hater]

Anyway to hide the attributes you need...

http://www.mediafire.com/?gjxflaxk44mrpkr

If you want it even tougher this second file hides the CA & PA recommendations on all scout reports...

http://www.mediafire.com/?c41sbs67w4nwuuy

The file(s) go here...

C:\Users\YOURNAME\Documents\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2011\skins\YOURSKIN\panels

I don't know if it works with all skins but it works with the Flex 11 skin (the one I'm using).

Always best to backup any existing files before over-writing them!

Remember to 'Use Skin Cache' ticked.

You can still see attributes if you use the ingame searches as these files only hide them on the player panels. But its pointless having the files if you're going to take a sneaky look at those attributes, so a bit of self discipline is needed not to look

Care to help a man out, iv downloaded file, put it

C:\Users\YOURNAME\Documents\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2011\skins\flex11\panels

is this correct, because im still able to see attributes on player page?

[gregt or smokey]

Have you guys used the fake players option? Or have you resisted buying all the hundreds of players who you know are good already?

[Brian Shanahan]

Care to help a man out, iv downloaded file, put it

C:\Users\YOURNAME\Documents\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2011\skins\flex11\panels

is this correct, because im still able to see attributes on player page?

Have you reloaded the skin in the game (via the preferences)? If not then that's probably your problem.

[hater]

Have you reloaded the skin in the game (via the preferences)? If not then that's probably your problem.

Yeah i have

[Brian Shanahan]

Yeah i have

I'm all out of ideas, and I'm not about to boot up the game this late to fiddle around. Sorry.

[Stephanie McMahon's Secret Lover]

Some find the game too easy and some find the too hard. The solution is options to make the game easier or harder. I'm a little fed up with "be a big club" if you want the game to be easier or "be a small club" if you want the game to be harder.

I see no problem with players being given the "option" to turn attributes off. By the same token I see no reason not to implement things to make the game easier.

Make the game fun for EVERYONE SI and give them OPTIONS.

[BiggusD]

I edited dozens of prominent managers in an attempt to improve the transfer policy of the big clubs (which would benefit smaller clubs - "grease the economy"), started a new game, holidayed for four seasons and didn't really see much of a difference. Then I gave most big clubs in Europe Sugar Daddy - Foreground using FMRTE and holidayed a while longer. I paused the game the 31st of January 2015 to take a look and now the transfer market seems a lot more realistic. Southampton had been promoted to PL but was struggling at the very bottom of the table with 5/5/15 or something, and to my surprise had 10-12 millions waiting to be used when I took control of.

I think this is going to be a challenge! The morale is very low, there is limited time, the tactic I need to use is new to them, I am new to them. I may actually relegate for the first time!

Southampton was one of the clubs I didn't edit, btw. I did edit Leeds, Charlton and some other clubs in the lower leagues and most of the current PL clubs. This way, I don't need to impose limitations on myself in order to enjoy a save. I have hopes that I need to perform to my very best to make Southampton the #1 club in the world in this save.

[afced7]

I actually don't think the AI is as bad as some people are making out. I'm in 2024 playing as Man Utd, and the team I have is SO good that the AI has no chance. If I still had the old Man Utd team (disregarding age) I'd be struggling a bit. For example in my first season I won the league with 87 points. In the current season Arsenal are second after 32 games with 82 points. While the AI hasn't kept up with me, its certainly done a good job of maintaining a good level, at least in some cases, the less said about Man City the better...

[DeadPanda]

Bringing this post back up, in case anyone cared, but I've made a thread that allows for very basic visual attributes. http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/273662-REL-Visual-Attributes

[Suarez...]

Its not a skin, its a file you put into your existing skin. I've been playing 'blind' for months now and would never go back to visual attributes. The game is completely different and once you turn to the dark side there's no going back The reason - any success you have now is down to your own judgement and assessment of players - but you will need to watch your games and also other players you're interested in signing... bringing them in on trials etc, watching reserve games and u18's, and generally going to other clubs' matches and scouting targets yourself is what you have to do. If you stick with it you'll feel so much more satsfied building a successful team knowing its based totally on your own judgement and not just numbers on a screen.

Anyway to hide the attributes you need...

http://www.mediafire.com/?gjxflaxk44mrpkr

If you want it even tougher this second file hides the CA & PA recommendations on all scout reports...

http://www.mediafire.com/?c41sbs67w4nwuuy

The file(s) go here...

C:\Users\YOURNAME\Documents\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2011\skins\YOURSKIN\panels

I don't know if it works with all skins but it works with the Flex 11 skin (the one I'm using).

Always best to backup any existing files before over-writing them!

Remember to 'Use Skin Cache' ticked.

You can still see attributes if you use the ingame searches as these files only hide them on the player panels. But its pointless having the files if you're going to take a sneaky look at those attributes, so a bit of self discipline is needed not to look

So if say you're scouting a payer from Tottenham, after they have played a game you go into watch a playback of their match? You can't do this for every match in the game because it doesn't allow you?

[Guest aaron70]

Yeh but if I take over as a manager in that league, I expect the scouts there already to have a good knowledge of the league and the players, alongside any Scout that I hire that has knowledge of that league and is recruiting players at that level.

I shouldn't walk into a Conference league and then have to send the scouts out for 2 weeks to tell me what players good in that league, meanwhile all the other teams in the leauge have been wheeling and dealing since day 1.

You understand we are talking about attributes. You can still view their match ratings and statistics. Think you are missing the point a little. You can work out who is better than who using performance which is what managers do. They don't say well Drogba is a 16 and Anleka is a 17.

[Guest aaron70]

By the way...how would I get rid of the AssMans stars for players as well?

[qazwsx]

One way to make it more challenging (and maybe a bit more realistic) is how I do it. All you need is Excel and a little knowledge how to use it. Then, after hiding the attributes, I created some custom views on the Squad screen. I selected the attributes I wanted to get a report and once a month I print them to a file (Ctrl+P). In excel I then have a macro thats imports the file and change the values a bit with Excels random function. I then present the numbers, not in the 1-20 scale, but 1-3. That is a bit extreme maybe but the points is... 1) You choose which attributes you want to have a look at. 2) You don't get the exact numbers. 3) You use the scale you think is best for you (1-5, 1-7 or whatever).

The truth is that I have taken this a bit further by basing the attribute randomness on the actual scouts attributes. But that is maybe too hardcore for most people.

Just to give you an idea what could be done.

[Erimus1876]

Care to help a man out, iv downloaded file, put it

C:\Users\YOURNAME\Documents\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2011\skins\flex11\panels

is this correct, because im still able to see attributes on player page?

I only use the Flex11 skin so I don't know what other skins it works with. If you're using Flex11 try use Skin 'Cache' ticked, and then try unticked in Preferences - Display & Sound. Other than that, I can't help.

[Erimus1876]

So if say you're scouting a payer from Tottenham, after they have played a game you go into watch a playback of their match? You can't do this for every match in the game because it doesn't allow you?

No, I watch the game 'live' with the aid of an unemployed 2nd manager (usually named after my chief scout for a bit of continuity). Just set him to "Attend" the fixture you want and it'll play after your own match. Its the only way to watch other players if their match kicks off the same time as your fixture.

[Erimus1876]

One way to make it more challenging (and maybe a bit more realistic) is how I do it. All you need is Excel and a little knowledge how to use it. Then, after hiding the attributes, I created some custom views on the Squad screen. I selected the attributes I wanted to get a report and once a month I print them to a file (Ctrl+P). In excel I then have a macro thats imports the file and change the values a bit with Excels random function. I then present the numbers, not in the 1-20 scale, but 1-3. That is a bit extreme maybe but the points is... 1) You choose which attributes you want to have a look at. 2) You don't get the exact numbers. 3) You use the scale you think is best for you (1-5, 1-7 or whatever).

The truth is that I have taken this a bit further by basing the attribute randomness on the actual scouts attributes. But that is maybe too hardcore for most people.

Just to give you an idea what could be done.

Thats dedication! I hope SI will eventually give us some fog of war preferences so you don't have to go to such extremes

[qazwsx]

Thats dedication! I hope SI will eventually give us some fog of war preferences so you don't have to go to such extremes

Well, actually it is not very time consuming, I believe your approach is more demanding. In my variation you still get som input from the scouts. You will get a hint that Player A is strong in an area (rating=3), Player B is medium (2) and Player C is weak (1). This gives you an overall picture of the player without telling you too much. Then watching them play give of course more clues. You start thinking of players like you do in real life, not as a set of numbers.

Anyway it is nice to be able to enjoy the game in different ways and no way is of course wrong.

[Guest aaron70]

Currently I started a new save in the Polish First Division.

I have all attributes hidden. My polygon is on the front page. Do you still use the polygon Erimus? I feel comfortable with it.

The Assman reports still show on the screen if you select to view them. I guess the way around that is too simply not use that feature. I think the team report option is fine though. You are happy to use the recommendation on the Coach Report screen as well I assume.

Tactically, I agree with you about match exploits. I thought I had developed a nice little tactic only to find out that the ME just wasn't designed to deal with it. So, I have selected 3 formations; 4-4-2, 4-5-1, and 5-3-2. The only changes I can make to it are the player roles and the playing style.

Thanks for your ideas and I hope I get more enjoyment from my game.

[Erimus1876]

Currently I started a new save in the Polish First Division.

I have all attributes hidden. My polygon is on the front page. Do you still use the polygon Erimus? I feel comfortable with it.

The Assman reports still show on the screen if you select to view them. I guess the way around that is too simply not use that feature. I think the team report option is fine though. You are happy to use the recommendation on the Coach Report screen as well I assume.

Tactically, I agree with you about match exploits. I thought I had developed a nice little tactic only to find out that the ME just wasn't designed to deal with it. So, I have selected 3 formations; 4-4-2, 4-5-1, and 5-3-2. The only changes I can make to it are the player roles and the playing style.

Thanks for your ideas and I hope I get more enjoyment from my game.

The polygon is still visible on my player panel but I've never really took much notice of it. But I do use all the other information available to me, scout reports, report cards, assistant manager feedback, backroom advice etc. Its only visible attributes that are gone (and scout PA & CA recommendations).

[Erimus1876]

Well, actually it is not very time consuming, I believe your approach is more demanding. In my variation you still get som input from the scouts. You will get a hint that Player A is strong in an area (rating=3), Player B is medium (2) and Player C is weak (1). This gives you an overall picture of the player without telling you too much. Then watching them play give of course more clues. You start thinking of players like you do in real life, not as a set of numbers.

Anyway it is nice to be able to enjoy the game in different ways and no way is of course wrong.

Have you checked out deadpanda's modified attribute panel he linked earlier? >>>

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/273662-REL-Visual-Attributes

It may be simialr to what you do but could save you messing on with excel? Its an excellent middle-ground between playing normally with full attributes on, and playing totally blind to them.

[Guest aaron70]

Erimus,

I just sent my scouts of to look at a player I am considering loaning. The news report has the CA/PA right there on the news screen. The "Scout compiles report on player" message. What can I do about that?

[Erimus1876]

Erimus,

I just sent my scouts of to look at a player I am considering loaning. The news report has the CA/PA right there on the news screen. The "Scout compiles report on player" message. What can I do about that?

What skin are you using?

Flex 11 has a nifty little gadget that allows you to hide the side panel with CA & PA stars on, like this...

Clicking the icon (top right), does this...

[Guest aaron70]

Cheers, I am using BBC and it has the same thing. I must have been blind to never notice that before.

Still wonder if it is possible to make the CA/PA stars there and on the Ass Man report transparent.

[OUFC]

Any ideas whether something like this will be made for FM14? Alternatively would the old files still work?

Think I'm gonna play the game with reduced information on attributes available, though I'd also like to find a way to hide all info from scout reports that relates to potential ability (including stars and descriptions such as "Could be a top Premier League Player")

[kontermann]

This would be great if this comes out for FM14!

[El Presidente]

Would be great if SI got rid of threads that are two years old so they don't get bumped up.

[Neil Brock]

Don't see a problem with this if someone wants to make a skin with this in, why not bump this thread?

[thejay]

Remove attributes?

Scouting reports I have seen from clubs in real life use attribute number systems comparable to what fm is doing.

Scouting is becoming more and more scientific and advanced irl, why do you want to move fm to the simulated dark ages?

[nickdundee]

Remove attributes?

Scouting reports I have seen from clubs in real life use attribute number systems comparable to what fm is doing.

Scouting is becoming more and more scientific and advanced irl, why do you want to move fm to the simulated dark ages?

The two aren't remotely comparable. IRL an attribute for dribbling, or heading or any other one for that matter is an estimate by the person who made it. Different people will have different opinions. In FM though nobody can have a different opinion, as the attributes are facts, so there's little point trying to figure out with your own eyes, or from their stats how good a player is at a certain attribute as the game tells you. That's why many want the option to play with no visible attributes for extra realism. Instead of picking your team based on how good YOU KNOW the players are, you would be picking it based on how good you THINK they are. Instead of buying a player based on how good YOU KNOW he is, you would be buying a player based on good think YOU THINK he is, which would be based on his stats and watching him, not a factual number.

[Govnar1]

Remove attributes?

Scouting reports I have seen from clubs in real life use attribute number systems comparable to what fm is doing.

Scouting is becoming more and more scientific and advanced irl, why do you want to move fm to the simulated dark ages?

Are this reports 100% accurate every time after just one day of scouting regardless of players stature, obscures of league he plays in or scouts ability?

[Auqakuh]

The two aren't remotely comparable. IRL an attribute for dribbling, or heading or any other one for that matter is an estimate by the person who made it. Different people will have different opinions. In FM though nobody can have a different opinion, as the attributes are facts, so there's little point trying to figure out with your own eyes, or from their stats how good a player is at a certain attribute as the game tells you. That's why many want the option to play with no visible attributes for extra realism. Instead of picking your team based on how good YOU KNOW the players are, you would be picking it based on how good you THINK they are. Instead of buying a player based on how good YOU KNOW he is, you would be buying a player based on good think YOU THINK he is, which would be based on his stats and watching him, not a factual number.

Incorrect. The attributes in FM are estimates, essentially, because each one unit represents ten possible actual figures (since the attributes are actually 1-200, not 1-20). So one player with 15 in passing is not necessarily possessing of the same passing ability as another with 15 in passing (one may be quite close to 14 in truth, and the other quite close to 16, which is actually quite a big range).

That means that technically, they're estimates, and not 100% accurate, and thus pretty much like real life in that sense.

Of course, once you get them training, you can actually see precisely where they are on that scale in the graphs for training, which I don't like.

Furthermore this notion of personally scouting players is absurd. Not all of us want to spend our entire waking life playing FM just to be barely competent. It's already one hell of a time sink just to get tactics tweaked to work the way you want them, with analysis of stats and watching matches closely etc. Sod needing to watch 20-25 potential transfer targets as well.

To be more helpful, I think the real issue, personally, lies with the absurdly accurate potential ratings. There needs to be a random element. I want to see players I release becoming superb elsewhere, and players I keep because they look like they'll be brilliant turning out to be poor. This would be realistic, and introduce extra challenge without increasing playing time ridiculously.

[nickdundee]

Incorrect. The attributes in FM are estimates, essentially, because each one unit represents ten possible actual figures (since the attributes are actually 1-200, not 1-20). So one player with 15 in passing is not necessarily possessing of the same passing ability as another with 15 in passing (one may be quite close to 14 in truth, and the other quite close to 16, which is actually quite a big range).

That means that technically, they're estimates, and not 100% accurate, and thus pretty much like real life in that sense.

Of course, once you get them training, you can actually see precisely where they are on that scale in the graphs for training, which I don't like.

Furthermore this notion of personally scouting players is absurd. Not all of us want to spend our entire waking life playing FM just to be barely competent. It's already one hell of a time sink just to get tactics tweaked to work the way you want them, with analysis of stats and watching matches closely etc. Sod needing to watch 20-25 potential transfer targets as well.

To be more helpful, I think the real issue, personally, lies with the absurdly accurate potential ratings. There needs to be a random element. I want to see players I release becoming superb elsewhere, and players I keep because they look like they'll be brilliant turning out to be poor. This would be realistic, and introduce extra challenge without increasing playing time ridiculously.

I fairness saying one 'may be' quite close to 14 and the other 'may be' quite close to 16, to claim the attributes aren't facts is stretching it. For a start if a player is rated 156 in an attribute I'd be pretty sure they rate him 16 not 15, and you don't really think the difference between 15.6 and 16/20 is noticeable do you? Its a tiny percentage.

As for not all of us want to spend there waking life playing Fm, well nobody is asking you too, nobody I've read that looks for more attribute masking wants it to be the only option, just an extra option so you can use it if you want.

I haven't played enough to know about how accurate the potential ratings are but i'd agree with you that them being very accurate would be a problem, as that is far from realistic and would take a lot of fun out of the game. I did notice almost all my coaches give each player either the same potential rating, or at least their all within 1/2 star. This isn't realistic either. People's opinions on real life players would differ much more than that.

[thejay]

The two aren't remotely comparable. IRL an attribute for dribbling, or heading or any other one for that matter is an estimate by the person who made it. Different people will have different opinions. In FM though nobody can have a different opinion, as the attributes are facts, so there's little point trying to figure out with your own eyes, or from their stats how good a player is at a certain attribute as the game tells you. That's why many want the option to play with no visible attributes for extra realism. Instead of picking your team based on how good YOU KNOW the players are, you would be picking it based on how good you THINK they are. Instead of buying a player based on how good YOU KNOW he is, you would be buying a player based on good think YOU THINK he is, which would be based on his stats and watching him, not a factual number.

The attributes in fm are estimates themselves, done by researchers. What if a big club in real life has a scout database were every player has certain attributes which make their abilities comparable, so even though the estimate might not have been accurate, it's still a consistent system that creates comparability. I'm certain big clubs use databases which look a lot like how it is represented in fm

but even if that is not quite realistic, it's still a hell of a lot better representation of reality than to rely on vague written reports.

[Fond Foat]

Sorry if this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but you can make attributes disapear easily in FM14.

Change the panel from attributes to match form on the player screen, and then go into the preferences and make the attribute colours the same as your skin background colour. You will not see them anymore anywhere in the game.

[cabos]

Hiding the mental attribute can help a lot!

[Erimus1876]

I remember playing a management game years ago that had it right in regards to balancing difficulty against 'realism'. The game was called The Double (on the Commodore 64). You were given no numerical attribute values and instead had to gauge how good or bad a player was by sending scouts to watch them and reading their reports, or by actually going to matches and watching the player perform yourself (like some managers still do in real life).

These are examples of typical scout reports from that game.

Yes, that's not much to go on but it at least gave you an insight into what you where buying (in the players case), or up against (in the team assessment case). What happened in later football games is developers started making it easier for the user and basically handed them masses of info on a silver plate to make it easier and quicker for players to build successful teams and 'win the game'.

Its a shame developers didn't build on what those early football games gave us, which was the necessity of the user to think outside the box and use his own judgment and astuteness in assessing players and teams. These days we've become so reliant on instant stats that there would be uproar if SI removed them and went back to pure textual representations instead of numerical ones. So I'd love future FM's to include the option via preferences to replace all numerical attribute values with something along the lines in those screen shots, but obviously not as basic as that since FM has a wealth of in-depth info on each player compared to that old game.

Its not so much about realism, because as some people have pointed out a lot of real scouting these days probably does use some form of numerical values to rate players, plus we have the opta index if we really want in-depth info on a player. Its more about giving the player an option to play his game in a more challenging manner while keeping it interesting, a return to old school management and player judgments, something more interesting than pouring over endless numbers on an attribute panel. Give some meaning to those of us who have the time and patience to go watch AI v AI games where a player we're interested in signing is playing - at the moment there is no need to do that other than purely 'role-play' reasons because of the wealth of info we're handed with a simple mouse click. Those who don't like it needn't ever tick that option in preferences - everyone's happy.

At the moment we have two extremes, either play with full attributes on view for all to see, or use a mod that hides them and presents you with a blank panel. Something in the middle would be ideal, be it in textual format like in the screen shots, or some other method of introducing a 'fog of war' that the player finds challenging and interesting.

Bring back the coloured attribute bars at the very least, SI.