Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Maaka

[Discussion] "No more attributes"

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Pingdinho said:

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

I'd say you can easily compare it to a real-world metric. If a player runs a 100 m dash in 9.5 secs, he'd have pace 20, run it in 10.9, pace 17, run 12.6, pace 14, and so on (not really correct numbers and times, but you get the picture). Combined with a 40 m sprint for acceleration, you get how fast he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for finding a better way of visualising it, but my issue with the solution with the suggestion in the OP, is that you are literally just going to end up with a system that is fundamentally the same issues:

A player who runs 100m in 9.9 secs is faster than, i.e. has higher pace than, someone that runs it in 11.2

Some of the ideas about visualising it differently by using a phrase to cover an attribute I quite like.

I like the idea that you could have 4 players, 2 could be labelled as good for pace and 2 as very good. Then out of those, 1 could be a 20 and one could be a 17, one could be a 16 one could be a 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

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

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

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

I totally agree that you cannot focus on a single attribute. All I really meant was that coming up with, say, solely having a system of textual descriptions that describe combinations of attributes for me would be more confusing than seeing the numbers. With numbers then picture of the player is clearer and more comparable to another player.

I'm not against a good system that describes a player as a kind of textual summary. In fact; I'd love that. But not instead of the attributes. Having both would in fact make both ways easier to understand. 

 

@Maaka - I wasn't too clear. I meant the game doesn't relate the attributes to real world metrics. Obviously, as you say, that would be possible to do.

Edited by Pingdinho
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

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

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

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

So the the problem then is people who don't understand the attributes, not the attributes themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gunner86 said:

I'm all for finding a better way of visualising it, but my issue with the solution with the suggestion in the OP, is that you are literally just going to end up with a system that is fundamentally the same issues:

A player who runs 100m in 9.9 secs is faster than, i.e. has higher pace than, someone that runs it in 11.2

Some of the ideas about visualising it differently by using a phrase to cover an attribute I quite like.

I like the idea that you could have 4 players, 2 could be labelled as good for pace and 2 as very good. Then out of those, 1 could be a 20 and one could be a 17, one could be a 16 one could be a 14.

That would be for those "attributes" than can be measured IRL. Pace, acceleration, strenght, stamina (to a certain degree) can be quantified by specific physical tests. Dribbling, teamwork, work rate etc. cannot be measured as such, those would have to be "text based" if attributes were "removed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Weston said:

So the the problem then is people who don't understand the attributes, not the attributes themselves

In some cases, probably, but as far as this discussion goes, it's not about understanding the attributes or not, it's about how those attributes are presented to the user. Tbh, I find the list of attributes a bit unrealistic, that's why I started this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Maaka said:

In some cases, probably, but as far as this discussion goes, it's not about understanding the attributes or not, it's about how those attributes are presented to the user. Tbh, I find the list of attributes a bit unrealistic, that's why I started this thread.

 

There is already a thread to explain this. Like how finishing, technique, composure, decision and other attribute effect shooting abilities. a 20 stat finishing striker doesnt gurantee good fnishing ability during a match, if his other menta, skill, physical attribute are not up to par. 

If a player has high pace, but poor dribbling, concentration and technique, touch, he will fail against a player with lower pace for such reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Maaka said:

That would be for those "attributes" than can be measured IRL. Pace, acceleration, strenght, stamina (to a certain degree) can be quantified by specific physical tests. Dribbling, teamwork, work rate etc. cannot be measured as such, those would have to be "text based" if attributes were "removed".

Ok, yeah, I get it

Actually in some aspects, it could king of blur the lines of the attributes a little more. Pace for example again, just because it's easiest.

Pace:20 + Acceleration:20 = 100m time: 9.9 secs

Pace:20 + Acceleration:17 = 100m time 10.2 secs

Pace:17 + Acceleration 20 = 100m time 10.2 secs

Pace:17 + Acceleration 17 = 100m time 11 secs

Or something like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, aditya said:

There is already a thread to explain this. Like how finishing, technique, composure, decision and other attribute effect shooting abilities. a 20 stat finishing striker doesnt gurantee good fnishing ability during a match, if his other menta, skill, physical attribute are not up to par. 

If a player has high pace, but poor dribbling, concentration and technique, touch, he will fail against a player with lower pace for such reasons. 

Yes, but my point is that today, we see the player with a set of numbers, and we can all (or most of us) read those numbers and see how good/bad he is. My point is to "replace" those numbers with a text-based presentation to the user.
In your mentioned case, the "report" would say just that, he's fast, but due to lack of technical skills, he cannot properly make good use of his pace (just put forward in much better words than I just did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Maaka said:

That would be for those "attributes" than can be measured IRL. Pace, acceleration, strenght, stamina (to a certain degree) can be quantified by specific physical tests. Dribbling, teamwork, work rate etc. cannot be measured as such, those would have to be "text based" if attributes were "removed".

The main problem I have with this is for scouting. How would your scout possibly know how fast a player runs 100 m in, or how much they can bench press?

When a scout says 'they have 17 passing' all they mean is that 'their passing is very good in comparison to other players, but isn't quite perfect'. The numbers are shorthand and allows the user fill in the spaces in do the comparisons however suits them best.

 

3 hours ago, gunner86 said:

Ok, yeah, I get it

Actually in some aspects, it could king of blur the lines of the attributes a little more. Pace for example again, just because it's easiest.

Pace:20 + Acceleration:20 = 100m time: 9.9 secs

Pace:20 + Acceleration:17 = 100m time 10.2 secs

Pace:17 + Acceleration 20 = 100m time 10.2 secs

Pace:17 + Acceleration 17 = 100m time 11 secs

Or something like that

This is a good point. To follow on from the example, personally I prefer a player with high acceleration to a player with high pace. A 100 m time would be completely useless to me.

 

47 minutes ago, Danziel said:

Makes sense what you guys say. I though about it like this:

Screen Shot 2016-09-09 at 13.59.53.png

I like the visualization, but that is just a different way of displaying an attribute number. Also you would need dynamic categories that reflect the relative ability of a player compared to their peers.

Edited by Pingdinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pingdinho said:

The main problem I have with this is for scouting. How would your scout possibly know how fast a player runs 100 m in, or how much they can bench press?

I reckon a lot of this (at least for the higher leagues) is more or less public information, or accessible for those who "need" it.

 

2 minutes ago, Pingdinho said:

This is a good point. To follow on from the example, personally I prefer a player with high acceleration to a player with high pace. A 100 m time would be completely useless to me.

Then his 40 m time would be more useful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maaka said:

Then his 40 m time would be more useful...

Unless he has good acceleration but poor reactions. Do we have a reactions test as well?

I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but I just don't see the point of hiding this stuff in a system that makes life harder. The game is hard enough already! :)

Edited by Pingdinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, thousands of players don't have an "official" timed run, or weight lifting score, but my initial point was to place today's attributes "under the hood", so to speak, and present those attributes by the aforementioned metric data (in addition to text-based information), so that would mean that a player who has 20 acceleration and 17 pace in the DB, would be presented with (an example) a 40 m time of 4,1 secs, and 100 m of 11 secs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pingdinho said:

Unless he has good acceleration but poor reactions. Do we have a reactions test as well?

I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but I just don't see the point of hiding this stuff in a system that makes life harder. The game is hard enough already! :)

Nonetheless, "reaction" isn't an attribute as of today, anyway.. :)

I just find the list of attributes a bit "fake" (or how to put it), and that it would be more real-like to present them in another way. Of course, hopefully, if it one day comes to this, it would be an option (like attribute masking today), so those who prefer attributes could still have those..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maaka said:

Nonetheless, "reaction" isn't an attribute as of today, anyway.. :)

I just find the list of attributes a bit "fake" (or how to put it), and that it would be more real-like to present them in another way. Of course, hopefully, if it one day comes to this, it would be an option (like attribute masking today), so those who prefer attributes could still have those..

I guess I always assumed that came under anticipation or concentration or some combination of those. You may be right ...

I agree it is fake; but to me, that is the point. The attributes are an abstraction that paint a pattern that you can then do what you like with.

I would have absolutely no objection to the system you propose being an option. I just find the numbers quick and easy to work with and they make more sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pingdinho said:

I guess I always assumed that came under anticipation or concentration or some combination of those. You may be right ...

I agree it is fake; but to me, that is the point. The attributes are an abstraction that paint a pattern that you can then do what you like with.

I would have absolutely no objection to the system you propose being an option. I just find the numbers quick and easy to work with and they make more sense to me.

Fair 'nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a copy and paste of an old post I made on this topic. I definitely think something like the OP is suggesting would be a great move forward.

 

One thing that bothers me is that comparing two players is a little too definitive for my liking. That is to say it is too easy to KNOW that player X is faster than player Y, and so on. Follow up questions to this could be: who is faster with the ball or without? In a straight line or not? In this regard I think the mechanics work well, because the attributes combine with each other to give these questions an answer - for example by considering a players Pace and Acceleration in combination with his Dribbling, Agility and Stamina.

The problem for me is that when you start to look at the attributes like this, it becomes too easy to understand the type of player you are dealing with. For instance, high tackling means very little in combination with low teamwork or bravery. I think comparing players is far too clear in this respect.

An extreme change that I would like is for the game to remove attributes altogether. No idea how this could be achieved, especially without revolutionary graphics, but maybe some decent ideas could come up by considering this extreme situation, even if it is unlikely.

For example, consider how people generally talk about football. If we were to agree that player were a good passer, then imo we are incorporating attributes such as composure, decisions and vision into this. Without any one of those attributes we may not describe the player as being a good passer. In Fm, this player could actually have 20 Passing.

So my idea would be to somehow replace the attributes with some kind of collection of match-relevant skill sets.

I'm imagining you click on a player, and instead of the attributes there are 2 or 3 panes showing a variety of things. Perhaps you could choose from multiple panes to allow you judge players in your own way. The information in the panes would be generated from the players attributes, etc, which would be hidden.

The first pane may appear like a heatmap and show the players preferred position. For instance if you had two AML's, one a natural wideman, and the other an inside forward type, then the wideman's heatmap would be much more dense into the corner flag area, with the inside forward type showing more preference to (widish) central areas. These differences could be amplified by the presence of PPMs such as "hugs line" or "Cuts inside."

A second pane may be "specialties." This could be something like "Excellent at picking out players from wide positions." Now this could be due to high crossing, however the player may actually have exceptional teamwork, decisions, and anticipation, and actually have quite bad crossing. I wouldn't know for sure. Other things could be "Very quick while running with the ball (Pace, Acceleration, Agility, Dribbling etc)," or "Excellent at making penetrative runs at speed (Speed, Off the Ball, Anticipation,) or "Very good at holding off players to retain the ball (Strength, Balance, First touch). And other obvious ones like "dominant in the air" (Jumping, Aggression, Bravery, Teamwork,) or "never stops running" (Stamina, Determination, Work Rate) etc. Perhaps these descriptions could come in gold, silver or bronze to indicate a rough level in terms of world football, rather than your current level.

A third pane would be weaknesses, working in the same way as above. For instance "Very unreliable set-piece taker (could be free kicks 20 but composure 1,) or "Has problems hitting the target on a regular basis (could be weak finishing, or good finishing in the context of poor composure, balance, decisions or consistency.)

A fourth pane could be something like "medical and training statistics" which could all be generated based off a players attributes and personality, and perhaps morale also. For example, for my own team I would have stats that my various coaching and medical teams would be gathering for me. A simple one would be sprint times for various distances, which obviously would imply the relative attributes for Pace, Acceleration and Stamina for example, perhaps shrouded slightly by some personality and morale effects. You could click sort the lists so that it was easy to see who was the best and worst. Additionally you would have some stat on endurance and recovery - implying things like Stamina and Natural fitness. Penalty conversion rate could also be a thing - it could imply penalty taking attributes, but also composure and pressure, if the player usually misses in a match but is great in the training stats.

Before you confirm a transfer, the medical happens, and the players results appear in the list for you to quickly compare. This would be the first opportunity to be told the player was injury prone.

I think having panes 1, 2 and 3 available for all players, essentially as a heavily expanded scout report, and then making pane 4 only available for your own players would be an interesting balance between more and less information. It should be relatively easy to do as it is just a series of calculations made from the players attributes and personality.

Overall I think the database is brilliant, and the attributes are the right ones, especially in terms of running the ME. But I do think that obscuring the attributes and replacing them with a skill set derived from these attributes could be a good way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that's the original post I remember reading, which first gave me this idea, but I couldn't remember who/when when I wrote the OP. Thanks.

And that post sums it up pretty perfectly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...