Scouting is too accurate, no matter quality of scout

[kingking]

I have notice Scouting is too good in the game, despite the quality of the scout, they always manage to find players you need, and accurately determine their ability and potential, with detailed reports about their strengths and weaknesses etc. At the end of the day, you just have to find players with "scouting ability" of 3 stars or more, and you will do well in the league.

I am at the lowest league in England, and I brought 3 weak scouts, and I still managed to find good players (3 stars +) using them (I have hidden attribute masking enabled).

Scouting system is too good, the user can easily turn a terrible team, into a great one. However the A.I does not try and take advantage of there scouts to improve their own team, in order to compete with the USER.

[An Olive Branch]

I actually agree. I don't think I've had one player yet that my scouts have said will be great and then is like 2.5 star on arrival. That is what FM is all about really.

[aditya]

I always thought scouting was the part that lets the game down, because to me, one of the highlights in the FM franchise is the transfer window and discovering new players.

Scout report should alligned to our teams philosophy or tactic. for example if I was playing a tactic with right wingers, but the player is clearly a Inside Foward (Robben), the scout should say, a quality player, however it will not suit your tactical play/style. THerefore player rating is 85/100, but suitability for your team is 50/100. they should also number ratings for non-attributes qualities.

[johnhughthom]

That would make scouting even stronger.

With enough scouting, you are told the players attributes, PPMs and best roles, you should be able to figure out for yourself if he fits with your style.

[aditya]

when you are paying 80-150k for good quality scouts i expect their reports to be intensive and precise. That is the whole point of scouting isnt it. I mean, I am getting the same kind of reports from a scout im paying 5k than 100-200k, they should be doing the work for me not im doing their work.

Report matches should be more pricise with stats (then again, taking into account scouts ability). I shoudl expect reports of: total 5/10 shots on target,, dribbles, number of tackles, confidence in the report instead of going inside the match and find it out myself. The game needs to improve in that aspect

[HUNT3R]

I have notice Scouting is too good in the game, despite the quality of the scout, they always manage to find players you need, and accurately determine their ability and potential, with detailed reports about their strengths and weaknesses etc. At the end of the day, you just have to find players with "scouting ability" of 3 stars or more, and you will do well in the league.

I am at the lowest league in England, and I brought 3 weak scouts, and I still managed to find good players (3 stars +) using them (I have hidden attribute masking enabled).

Scouting system is too good, the user can easily turn a terrible team, into a great one. However the A.I does not try and take advantage of there scouts to improve their own team, in order to compete with the USER.

Don't forget that they are 3+ star players - according to your scouts. The scouts could be wrong.

[Some Guy!]

Don't forget that they are 3+ star players - according to your scouts. The scouts could be wrong.

To add to this, your coaches may well agree with the scouts, and ultimately be wrong themselves.

The stars are only what your scouts and coaches think of them, not their actual ability. You may well end up signing some right plonkers who were top rated by scouts and coaches.

[johnhughthom]

when you are paying 80-150k for good quality scouts i expect their reports to be intensive and precise. That is the whole point of scouting isnt it. I mean, I am getting the same kind of reports from a scout im paying 5k than 100-200k, they should be doing the work for me not im doing their work.

Report matches should be more pricise with stats (then again, taking into account scouts ability). I shoudl expect reports of: total 5/10 shots on target,, dribbles, number of tackles, confidence in the report instead of going inside the match and find it out myself. The game needs to improve in that aspect

Okay then. You get your scouts to tell you whether a player fits in your style of play in order to get value for money.

I guess then your assistant manager should tell you what that style should be to get value from money from him, and to get value from money from the coaches they should be telling you how to train the player.

That DOF is on a fair chunk, he needs to do contract negotiations, decide who to buy and get a good price for players the assistant manager decides aren't good enough on order to justify his wage.

Why exactly are the club paying you if you need someone to tell you how to do your job?

[Toothless Gibbon]

As scouts in real life start to use the FM databse, perhaps the in-game scouts use an in-game in-game version of the in FM database.

Scoutception.

[hluraven]

Scouting is far too accurate, even when there is a range shown, the range always includes the accurate figure. This shouldn't be possible, there is dispute/doubt over players even when they have been at a club for 10 years, let alone someone a scout has prepared a report on without ever having seen.

Scouting is far too quick, you can with a few report cards reveal all attributes to 100%, or at worst, a few with a range. This is even the case when a player is unemployed, injured, or in a squad but not playing. What exactly is the scout basing the ratings on, let alone getting them 100% accurate in 100% of cases.

Scouting reports are too numerous, given the accuracy of reports, scouts can give dozens (hundreds over a month or so) of detailed reports. Again, this is impossible in real life as there aren't enough games!

Scouts shouldn't be able to report much on players without actually watching them play, maybe only remove the uncertainty by a percentage point or two, not go from 0-80% in a week when the player is on holiday! In an ideal world, how the player looks from the scout should be based on how well they played in the game the scout watched, but that is a long way off. But for now, the ability of scouts to reveal attributes based on nothing, and far too quickly, should be nerfed if there is to be any balance in FM between human and AI managers.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Okay then. You get your scouts to tell you whether a player fits in your style of play in order to get value for money.

I guess then your assistant manager should tell you what that style should be to get value from money from him, and to get value from money from the coaches they should be telling you how to train the player.

That DOF is on a fair chunk, he needs to do contract negotiations, decide who to buy and get a good price for players the assistant manager decides aren't good enough on order to justify his wage.

Why exactly are the club paying you if you need someone to tell you how to do your job?

Why are real clubs paying their managers? Or are you trying to say real life staff don't do any of those things you mentioned?

Managers get paid because they're the people held responsible. If all they ever did was hire competent staff to make all the right decisions then they'd be worth ever penny.

[johnhughthom]

Why are real clubs paying their managers? Or are you trying to say real life staff don't do any of those things you mentioned?

Managers get paid because they're the people held responsible. If all they ever did was hire competent staff to make all the right decisions then they'd be worth ever penny.

Of course, I took it to extremes, but there has to be a point at which the game says "enough, we have given you the information, the rest is up to you". In my opinion, scouts giving you a rating of how a player fits into your system is past that point.

Also, could you have a chat with Jose Mourinho...

[Äktsjon Männ]

Of course, I took it to extremes, but there has to be a point at which the game says "enough, we have given you the information, the rest is up to you". In my opinion, scouts giving you a rating of how a player fits into your system is past that point.

I don't think it is. I just think they should be wrong far more often than they are. Staff should be able to provide a clearly elaborated opinion, that's their purpose. A scout should not be able to give you accurate, detailed information about players ability, personality and tendencies as a matter of fact but they should be able to present their opinion in a detailed manner in the form of a report.

[johnhughthom]

I don't think it is. I just think they should be wrong far more often than they are. Staff should be able to provide a clearly elaborated opinion, that's their purpose. A scout should not be able to give you accurate, detailed information about players ability, personality and tendencies as a matter of fact but they should be able to present their opinion in a detailed manner in the form of a report.

You are correct, it is probably the unrealistic accuracy of scouts in their current form that would make me totally oppposed to having them do more.

I've always believed scouts (and staff for that matter) should not know a player's PA. If you have two players with completely identical attributes, but one has much higher PA, how could a scout know that? They should just look at a player's CA, professionalism etc and base their opinion on his potential development on that.

[Matshit]

I do think the scouting needs a bit of a revamp at some point. For a starter, they should not have any idea of a players PA. Two identical players with different PA should get the same recommendation from the scout. Plus, the scouts nowadays are used just as much to find out what players are available.

One think I would like to see is “filter unrealistic targets” being much more based on where you have sent scouts. Perhaps Uniteds scout in Spain get news that Sergio Ramos is unhappy and want to leave, and he show up as realistic target for United (and your scout might even give you a hint). At the same time Chelsea lack a scout with a good network in Spain, so they doesn’t get the same message. For smaller clubs you might want to send a scout to an African country to look for players willing to sign. It doesn’t make much sense to have no knowledge of the player in a country, but know he want to sign for your club.

At the moment I basically only use my scout to get reports to find out if the cost is worth it, and to plough up every 16 year old 3,5+ star talent I can find.

Having a big, great scouting network should be a bigger benefit.

[..Valhalla..]

As scouts in real life start to use the FM databse, perhaps the in-game scouts use an in-game in-game version of the in FM database.

Scoutception.

Well this made me laugh

[DJ Sir Matthew]

Scouting is far too accurate, even when there is a range shown, the range always includes the accurate figure. This shouldn't be possible, there is dispute/doubt over players even when they have been at a club for 10 years, let alone someone a scout has prepared a report on without ever having seen.

Scouting is far too quick, you can with a few report cards reveal all attributes to 100%, or at worst, a few with a range. This is even the case when a player is unemployed, injured, or in a squad but not playing. What exactly is the scout basing the ratings on, let alone getting them 100% accurate in 100% of cases.

Scouting reports are too numerous, given the accuracy of reports, scouts can give dozens (hundreds over a month or so) of detailed reports. Again, this is impossible in real life as there aren't enough games!

Scouts shouldn't be able to report much on players without actually watching them play, maybe only remove the uncertainty by a percentage point or two, not go from 0-80% in a week when the player is on holiday! In an ideal world, how the player looks from the scout should be based on how well they played in the game the scout watched, but that is a long way off. But for now, the ability of scouts to reveal attributes based on nothing, and far too quickly, should be nerfed if there is to be any balance in FM between human and AI managers.

Agreed to all your points.

[An Olive Branch]

Scouting is far too accurate, even when there is a range shown, the range always includes the accurate figure. This shouldn't be possible, there is dispute/doubt over players even when they have been at a club for 10 years, let alone someone a scout has prepared a report on without ever having seen.

Scouting is far too quick, you can with a few report cards reveal all attributes to 100%, or at worst, a few with a range. This is even the case when a player is unemployed, injured, or in a squad but not playing. What exactly is the scout basing the ratings on, let alone getting them 100% accurate in 100% of cases.

Scouting reports are too numerous, given the accuracy of reports, scouts can give dozens (hundreds over a month or so) of detailed reports. Again, this is impossible in real life as there aren't enough games!

Scouts shouldn't be able to report much on players without actually watching them play, maybe only remove the uncertainty by a percentage point or two, not go from 0-80% in a week when the player is on holiday! In an ideal world, how the player looks from the scout should be based on how well they played in the game the scout watched, but that is a long way off. But for now, the ability of scouts to reveal attributes based on nothing, and far too quickly, should be nerfed if there is to be any balance in FM between human and AI managers.

Also fully agree in terms of what I'd like to see.

Sadly it would anger the millions of 'casual' users to which FM is understandably mostly marketed. I'm not using casual as a derogatory term - lots of people have other commitments in life and other things they want out of their FM experience.

FMC was a start but in time there might have to be a bigger split, or more branches within the split, to keep everyone happy.

Click to win FM on one hand and pain and suffering getting sacked from tier 8 and unable to feed your family on the other

[El Presidente]

The more it's a case of needing a maths degree to be successful, the less customers you'll get.

Learn from FML. People will not pay money to be beaten regularly.

[gunner86]

For a starter, they should not have any idea of a players PA.

They don't though, that's the point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the system is perfect, but scouts don't know a players PA.

[RocheBag]

I don't even think it's a problem with scouting, I think the entire PA system is messed up. Every sports game has some sort of "Potential" attribute, and to me it makes no sense at all.

If I have two unknown 18 year old players, with identical skills, how on earth does one of them have more potential than the other? In real life, teams base "potential" off of how good they are now compared to other players at their age. There's no such thing as the 6th best player on a team full of 18 year olds somehow being the best prospect. That's not how it works.

[An Olive Branch]

Search for some writing about PPA - it sin't as simple as Matsit thought earlier

I still think it needs refined further, with more errors made by scouts being made being one option

[Daffius]

I don't think it is. I just think they should be wrong far more often than they are. Staff should be able to provide a clearly elaborated opinion, that's their purpose. A scout should not be able to give you accurate, detailed information about players ability, personality and tendencies as a matter of fact but they should be able to present their opinion in a detailed manner in the form of a report.

I'm not sure I'd like that. Having my scouts telling me someone is a bomb and then me blowing my whole transfer budget to find out he is a mediocre nobody and is injury prone on top of it, sounds like a waste of money. Perhaps with a 10% error rate or something, anything above that would render scout reports useless as you wouldn't take the risk, especially with a small club.

Of course you can check out each player yourself, just to make sure. But. That would mean you'd need to watch many games for a single player. Thinking of the number of players I scout, that would just be tedious and unfun.

So, I agree with masking attributes even more and creating less detailed reports, but disagree on providing 'wrong' reports. One enhances difficulty while the other introduces a lottery factor with no added benefit.

[Matshit]

Search for some writing about PPA - it sin't as simple as Matsit thought earlier

There are more things in it. I agree. I did however run some tests on an earlier version using the editor to create players.

The PA played a big role in the scouts perception of a player, although there were other things in affect as well. The only way we judge potential in players in real life, is looking at how good they are, how young they are, how dedicated they are and if they show progress. Not the actual theoretical PA score.

[gunner86]

There are more things in it. I agree. I did however run some tests on an earlier version using the editor to create players.

The PA played a big role in the scouts perception of a player, although there were other things in affect as well. The only way we judge potential in players in real life, is looking at how good they are, how young they are, how dedicated they are and if they show progress. Not the actual theoretical PA score.

I vaguely recall seeing something like that actually (it was probably yours )

Would be interesting to see if the same thing happens on this years release once the editor is launched - and maybe try it with a few scouts of various JPP levels to see what difference this makes.

The other this to remember with scout reports, is that players aren't compared against other players that have been scouted, they are compared against your squad.