Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Alfie103

Attribute Range Guide

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

Apologies for creating a new thread but I couldn't find any answer or guides for my question on here or elsewhere on the internet.

I was wondering if there was a guide or any advice/hints on what attribute level (e.g. 7/20 or 13/20) would correspondence with a scale of Very Poor - World Class?

e.g. 1-3 - Very Poor

       3-8 - Poor

       8-11 - Adequate

       11-13 - Decent

       13-15 - Good

       15-17 - Excellent

       17-19 - Exceptional

       20 - World Class

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Alfie

Edited by Alfie103

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't go into that much detail, but in the Preferences>Interface>Screen Flow I think the colour-coding thresholds are there. Set to three levels.

I think 'World Class would be about 18 and above. But the actual definitions in the game, 'Elite Striker' 'World Class' 'Wonderkid' etc are a result of a combination of attributes.

Rather than have a hard-set of thresholds, I do look at the Team Comparison and look at relative standards for the level I am playing in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Snorks that the important thing is how it is relative.

I agree though that world class is probably 18 and above. I just use the default highlighting so typically get excited when I see green :)

My experience this season in German Third Division is that key attributes from about 10-13 have been pretty good players. The better players start having a handful of players with 1 or 2 attributes about 1 or 2 points higher than that. The ones that have more get bought pretty quickly ;)

Your basic scale seems reasonable enough.

One trick I did on previous versions (as I was still terrible at assessing players) was to make an idea on how good I felt the player was, and then peek in the IGE to see how my assessment was. If it was off, I'd reflect on what I was assessing to throw things off (obviously this is all league relative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually alter the default highlighting according to the league I am in. (and yes, I do this check every season, sometimes twice!)

After looking at Team Comparison and being a nerd with Excel where I can generate an average of the highest and an average of the lowest numbers - I set the default highlights accordingly.

That way, looking at a players profile I can immediately see how he would fit at my level. Lot of bright yellow and I snap him up, broad spread of green a decent utility player, all blue he is only average, plenty of red and I avoid him.

The IGE does a good job as well though :herman: hehehe

Edited by Snorks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Snorks said:

I actually alter the default highlighting according to the league I am in. (and yes, I do this check every season, sometimes twice!)

After looking at Team Comparison and being a nerd with Excel where I can generate an average of the highest and an average of the lowest numbers - I set the default highlights accordingly.

That way, looking at a players profile I can immediately see how he would fit at my level. Lot of bright yellow and I snap him up, broad spread of green a decent utility player, all blue he is only average, plenty of red and I avoid him.

 

This a tremendous idea, so simple he so effective, definitely jumping on that train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is relative to the league. If you're playing in the conference that striker with 8 finishing is actually pretty great, in the Premier League that'd be considered utter garbage.

Trying to look at it objectively is therefore not very helpful but if we were to do that I'd probably drop your definition of world class down to 18. There are very, very few 20s anywhere in the game. 

Generally if I'm playing with a top team I'm looking for >14 in the key attributes (not necessarily the ones highlighted by the game for the role), but it all depends on what you want the player to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's relative, a 15 is better than a 14, but there's no fixed measurement.

I'd also say philosophically from how attributes are thought about its within the scope of professional football. So a 1 is still far better than the average person on the street. This does mean that on paper, had Usain Bolt actually become a professional footballer there might have been a debate about re-assessing pace/acceleration across the whole of the database. The same would be true if someone like Eddie Hall, or the actor who plays the mountain were to rock up in professional football, they'd potentially warrant a change of approach across the board to the strength attribute.

We've not to my knowledge, had a world champion of some physical nature actually come into football. So that's just a hypothetical musing.

- - -

Taking any attribute in isolation is very difficult, because a player might only have 5 finishing as a forward. But if he's 6'5 got strength, pace, acceleration, work rate, dribbling and technique you can possibly see him battering through defences. Meanwhile if he's got absurdly high acceleration, anticipation, off the ball and low teamwork you could have someone on your hands who has the great ability of just being there like a bolt of lightning. 

Meanwhile a 20 finishing, 20 composure, 20 technique player could look horrendous if you're playing a system that favours a bursting run in the final third but his legs are gone and has very low pace, acceleration and stamina. 

The reality is that as with most things in FM it comes down to an "it depends" approach, and there's no scale or such provided for attributes. So in some games whereas +1 strength may be +5% physical damage, there's no football equivalent in FM. Therefore +1 finishing doesn't mean +5% more likely to hit the target from 10 yards out etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, santy001 said:

It's relative, a 15 is better than a 14, but there's no fixed measurement.

I'd also say philosophically from how attributes are thought about its within the scope of professional football. So a 1 is still far better than the average person on the street. This does mean that on paper, had Usain Bolt actually become a professional footballer there might have been a debate about re-assessing pace/acceleration across the whole of the database. The same would be true if someone like Eddie Hall, or the actor who plays the mountain were to rock up in professional football, they'd potentially warrant a change of approach across the board to the strength attribute.

We've not to my knowledge, had a world champion of some physical nature actually come into football. So that's just a hypothetical musing.

As you say yourself though, this all in a football context. Usain Bolt is exceptionally fast over 100m in an athletics context, but when he played football recently he didn't actually look "that quick". Usable pace on a football pitch can be very different to actual raw speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Snorks said:

I actually alter the default highlighting according to the league I am in. (and yes, I do this check every season, sometimes twice!)

After looking at Team Comparison and being a nerd with Excel where I can generate an average of the highest and an average of the lowest numbers - I set the default highlights accordingly.

That way, looking at a players profile I can immediately see how he would fit at my level. Lot of bright yellow and I snap him up, broad spread of green a decent utility player, all blue he is only average, plenty of red and I avoid him.

The IGE does a good job as well though :herman: hehehe

When you are extracting the figures from the Team Comparison sheet do you just copy down the high and low figures for each attribute? or is there a way of exporting the figures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, santy001 said:

Taking any attribute in isolation is very difficult, because a player might only have 5 finishing as a forward. But if he's 6'5 got strength, pace, acceleration, work rate, dribbling and technique you can possibly see him battering through defences. Meanwhile if he's got absurdly high acceleration, anticipation, off the ball and low teamwork you could have someone on your hands who has the great ability of just being there like a bolt of lightning. 

Meanwhile a 20 finishing, 20 composure, 20 technique player could look horrendous if you're playing a system that favours a bursting run in the final third but his legs are gone and has very low pace, acceleration and stamina. 

The reality is that as with most things in FM it comes down to an "it depends" approach, and there's no scale or such provided for attributes. So in some games whereas +1 strength may be +5% physical damage, there's no football equivalent in FM. Therefore +1 finishing doesn't mean +5% more likely to hit the target from 10 yards out etc. 

Even more specifically than that, the game probably doesn't use the "finishing" attribute much if at all to judge whether a player can slot a cross into a wide open goal at the back post. Any footballer can do this if they don't lose their balance or composure or concentration and have enough technique to reliably volley the ball properly.

And a striker who's "world class" at converting difficult chances because his shooting generally has the power and accuracy to beat a keeper in a very narrow gap just inside his post might actually have worse balance or composure than, say, a playmaker with a very tame shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Seb Wassell didn't see too much of him myself so just thinking of it in broad terms it would have been an interesting discussion. Arguably his speed would be tempered by his (based on reports) lack of anticipation, lack of technique, dribbling, positional awareness and lack of discipline to concentrate on the footballing matter at hand. 

While licensing probably nixes the possibility (and whether there's the collective interest at SI or not) the same kind of thinking extends to something akin to a legends/or focusing on a decade database. Personally I've always been of the opinion footballers of yesteryear would have to be rated for how they were back then being dropped into the game of today. That would in all likelihood put the majority of them very low on stamina, very low on professionalism in many cases and most defenders would be awful in terms of positional awareness. I've seen quite a few scoring George Best very high on natural fitness, despite the fact he didn't really play fully at the top level again past the age of 25/26 and had stopped top level football altogether after 27 I think it was. 

That's a different matter entirely though! Attributes will always be relative though, in a world perhaps where there are many regens with 20 finishing, then comparatively in that time 18 finishing is less of an indicator of world class ability. Anecdotally, my game on FM18 reached a point where 16+ pace/acceleration had become very vogue in the premier league. It meant players who I was happy with at the start of the game in terms of speed and movement, were horribly out of place in that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Alfie103 said:

Hello everyone,

Apologies for creating a new thread but I couldn't find any answer or guides for my question on here or elsewhere on the internet.

I was wondering if there was a guide or any advice/hints on what attribute level (e.g. 7/20 or 13/20) would correspondence with a scale of Very Poor - World Class?

e.g. 1-3 - Very Poor

       3-8 - Poor

       8-11 - Adequate

       11-13 - Decent

       13-15 - Good

       15-17 - Excellent

       17-19 - Exceptional

       20 - World Class

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Alfie

Last season i wrote a guide on attributes and how different attributes can take precedence over others. It's somewhere in the forum or part of the stickies, or on my site. 

Attributes are contextual and relative. We can't think of them in absolute terms. A 14 can be better than a 13, that's relative to its own value. I had someone ask me what the most important attribute for a playmaker was, and whether off the ball was it. My reply - it's all contextual and relative. Off the ball is an important attribute that affects how well that player moves in space and finds space, but other attributes will be important too, and it will depend entirely on the context.

Is the playmaker playing on support or attack duty? Do you want him to drop back and help defend or do you want him to focus entirely on attack? Here we are talking about him doing two different kinds of jobs, so the attributes that become important shift. Were you playing a system that is sitting deep or are you playing one that is camping in the opponents half? do you need him to get up quickly or does it not matter? Again, here different attributes take precedence. 

So the really important factor we need to address first is:

A. What kind of a system do you want to play? 

Here if you opted to play a system that sat deep and narrow then your defend duties at the back may value jumping reach and positioning above all other attributes. If you are playing high and wide then you would be looking at more mental and physical attributes. Different attributes become more valuable in different kinds of context.


B. What do you want different players in the team to do? Do you want them to attack, defend or do both?

Now this for me personally is the biggest question. If a player is expected to dual hat, then he needs a lot of work rate, stamina and natural fitness. 
 

The crunch is comparing one attribute to another. Is a 14 more important than a 13? Whats more important is how the sum of your roles and duties perform as a unit. If you expect to defend narrow, then your fullbacks positioning may not be important. So here is positioning of 12 for a fullback a good attribute? It may not even be important, because what you are doing is defending narrow and expecting crosses. Here perhaps acceleration and crossing are more valuable as you may want them to get up quickly when the chance comes. In another kind of system where you want to defend wide, then positioning may be more valuable.

Looking at attributes in isolation and assigning a value isn't important, understanding how the attributes work as a whole within your system is. And to know that you first want to be sure of how you want to play. When you start playing at the lower leagues you start looking at attributes really carefully, because you are simply looking at those attributes that matter.

With my style of play i can accept 8 as a good attribute for acceleration with my lower league side when it comes to speed for my defenders, but other managers may find that unacceptable because they are playing their sides differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2018 at 02:50, Hovis Dexter said:

When you are extracting the figures from the Team Comparison sheet do you just copy down the high and low figures for each attribute? or is there a way of exporting the figures?

damn, I never thought of trying to export them! There may be a way of doing it through the print screen option.

primarily I started doing it to see how my squad measured up against the league, so, three columns - League highest, League Lowest & me. 

For each section, I the average each column, so the Attack attributes, the high average, low average, my average. So I know which area to focus on in training, which area that needs strengthening though transfers etc

Then. from the high averages, I can work out what the top level attributes in that league are, what the lower attribute level is from the low averages - set the colour scheme accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... but how do you calculate the weightings? Rashidi’s comments above sounded sensible to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most interesting parts of the game for me this, the fact so many people are successful yet have such varying approaches is really interesting, even more so when I see people backhandedly telling others "you're doing it wrong" - unless they're playing a GK in attack is there really such a thing in football, or is it more a case of sub-optimal? :) 

Personally, I expect a base level of mental stats, teamwork and all my players must be adaptable to fit within all roles of both a defensive and offensive framework as I change between the two as part of my game management, but I know others who will buy players purely for a specific role/duty who baulk at some of the stats I insist on (composure being a good example).

Understanding the relationship between attributes is something I know a lot of players - particularly newer players - struggle with, and I doubt any of the seasoned pro's have a complete handle on it & sure we all have things still to learn, but one of my my go-to examples when I'm helping people is;

 

"There's a DC with 18 for tackling, heading, positioning, teamwork, pace, acceleration, strength, jumping, passing and marking... Sounds great right? Would you still buy him though knowing he had a concentration stat of 3?"

 

Obviously aware that it's a loaded question, most people reply "no" but will often then admit to being a little unsure exactly why? Flipping it around I may then ask "what value they'd want for concentration in order for it to tip the scales back the other way?" and again it's a difficult question for people to answer (and i suspect many of us would disagree too!).

Situational importance & how much effect something like concentration has is a difficult thing to explain convey - but I'm also quick to point out that attributes looked at like that is only one way, there's lots of other examples too, such as the relationship between passing, vision, composure, & decisions? Even with a guy who's a master at all of those though, we need to think about how his attributes translate to the team as a whole; who is he going to pass to if the rest of your guys have a work rate/off the ball of 1 and are all stood around marked, waiting for something to happen? (I remember a 'heated discussion' with a friend when watching the England team a few years ago, he was adamant that Carrick - who was giving the ball away a lot that night - was a terrible player and shouldn't be in the team. England had long since been awful at keeping the ball and I posed the question that is it the passers fault when he has no-one to pass to?).

 

Also for consideration is the 'amazing square peg'; we've all been there, buying a player whose attributes are incredible, but peel back the layers and whilst the guy is absolutely a great player, he doesn't fit the way we've got our team set up (think Berbatov/Veron at United)? I was helping out in a chat last week & asked that if they were buying an AML for their side, if money were no object and age/potential were the same, would they take Anthony Martial or Christian Eriksen (ignoring the fact the Eriksen is a natural AMC, he still plays well at AML)? I wasn't really interested in who they picked, more the reasons for doing so, and in all cases Martial was the choice, main reasons given being his finishing and pace. Solid choice perhaps, but I countered by asking how their team was setup? What roles/passing instructions do they use and what sort of systems do they regularly come up against? Pressed for why that was important and "shouldn't top level players be able to fit into any system?", I pointed out the skew in attributes - if i was playing a fast counter-attacking style of football I'd take Martial in a heartbeat, all of his stats make him a direct threat to goal in the final third however if I was playing a patient, probing passing game, regularly coming up against stacked defenses, then maybe Martials 13-10-11 spread for passing-vision-decisions may be better swapped for Eriksens 17-16-17?

Admittedly that's a very specific example and you could turn it on it's head and suggest that Eriksen needs someone like Martial making the runs (and wouldn't it be nice to have them both!) but that's the beauty of football, there's always a counter opinion; I wouldn't ordinarily take it to that level of granularity, but I was trying to highlight that even between great players who play in the same position, the right and wrong answer may not be found with the players, more with how you intend to use them. If we needed proof, it can be found not far away in the tactic download section; you'll regularly see people download tactics that have proven and awesome results in testing yet the user can't get them to work in their own save? Did the tactic corrupt during download, or perhaps is the user playing people not suited for the underlying approach/roles, buying more on reputation, CA & general scout reports?

 

To tie all this off (because it's turning into a novel), I'm doing an academy challenge right now which is pushing me well out of my comfort zone with regard to players - I'm heavily mental stats/personality based when it comes to recruiting & my best player last year had (and still has) a Determination of 1 (yes 1) which is a nonsense in my heavily biased brain; under my own normal rules I wouldn't have even spoken to this guy, let alone entertained playing him, yet play him I did and he responded with 20 goals from midfield!

I was lamenting how so many of the players in the squad were 'not my sort of players' and it was proposed that they're not all that bad, especially for the level I'm at. When put under my usual microscope (see below) I'd be inclined to disagree, but being unable to buy players/replace them and actually use them I have to agree as we got promoted and are fighting it out in the top positions now in the league above - if they were truly terrible would that be the case? These are largely the attribute spreads I look for - with adjustment table - which not many of my current guys would fit the criteria of;

image.thumb.png.972c5031bfe575e254f3afc9cf955a1f.pngimage.thumb.png.440cc253cfe581357418da1451143ec7.png

But as I also quickly added "Technical stats at this level I largely don't care about anyway - I mean what is really the difference between a 3 and a 6 in passing!? - but as I learnt many many years back, rubbish players can still run and think, so I expect good physical and mentals from my players at least!"

Full post/context is here if you want to read more, I'll leave it at that though for now just super interested - having proved through my current lot that there's always another way - in how others go about things! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2018 at 20:19, Alfie103 said:

Hello everyone,

Apologies for creating a new thread but I couldn't find any answer or guides for my question on here or elsewhere on the internet.

I was wondering if there was a guide or any advice/hints on what attribute level (e.g. 7/20 or 13/20) would correspondence with a scale of Very Poor - World Class?

e.g. 1-3 - Very Poor

       3-8 - Poor

       8-11 - Adequate

       11-13 - Decent

       13-15 - Good

       15-17 - Excellent

       17-19 - Exceptional

       20 - World Class

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Alfie

Its relative .. but how a player performs is based on more than just the visible info

Using an England centric point of view you can add the following information to your list (for a quick general, "im looking for a decent xyz type player") ..

i'll point out this is just for reference and not an absolute "this is what players at X level have for stats"

 

8-11 : Conference

11-13 : L2

13-15 : L1

15-17 : CL

17-19 : PL

 

As with all things random (especially football related) there's a lot variability

A defender needs more than just Marking & Tackling to perform well, but the above info can give you a place to start in setting search filters for players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/11/2018 at 14:16, Seb Wassell said:

As you say yourself though, this all in a football context. Usain Bolt is exceptionally fast over 100m in an athletics context, but when he played football recently he didn't actually look "that quick". Usable pace on a football pitch can be very different to actual raw speed.

But maybe instead of one attribute we need two then. Pace with the ball and pace without the ball? Because if someone who was close to his own goal needed to provide support in the counter attack quickly, no one in the world could do that better than Bolt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...