Research/Player attributes

[lomekian]

There used to be a specific part fo the forum for this, but I can't find it now.

Despite knowing that this current season won't be taken into account, I am really disappointed with some of the player research.

Obviosuly I am more focused on the teams I follow/play with, but there seems to be a LOT of copy/paste in the player data, which has been an ongoing issue for 2-3 years. Mutiple players whose attributes are either identical or very similar to 2 or 3 years ago, despite said players going from fringe options in mediocre teams to every day starters in vastly improved sides. Or players now playing massively different roles not remotely reflected in their attributes. Or so lack of obvious traits. And of course the youth player attributes, for all but a few top prospects, seem almost randomly generated - which for a big follower of age groups is frustrating.

Its not so much a question of CA/PA levels (dont know what those are for the beta anyway), but for so many players I might as well still be playing FM20. Really disappointing. I didn't by FM22 (the first I'd missed since the old Domark days with fake players) for this reason, and unless there are big changes afoot, I can't see myself buying FM24. Given that 75% of the reason to buy every year is for updated data (the new features annually are nice touches that do add, but hardly revolutionary), when the amount of work on this front is so uneven in levels of detail or effort put in, this seriously needs revolutionising.

 

[Johnny Ace]

https://community.sigames.com/bugtracker/football-manager-2023-early-access-beta-bugs-tracker/database-and-research/

That's the section if you have any specific issues with data 

[MrPompey]

1 hour ago, lomekian said:

There used to be a specific part fo the forum for this, but I can't find it now.

Despite knowing that this current season won't be taken into account, I am really disappointed with some of the player research.

Obviosuly I am more focused on the teams I follow/play with, but there seems to be a LOT of copy/paste in the player data, which has been an ongoing issue for 2-3 years. Mutiple players whose attributes are either identical or very similar to 2 or 3 years ago, despite said players going from fringe options in mediocre teams to every day starters in vastly improved sides. Or players now playing massively different roles not remotely reflected in their attributes. Or so lack of obvious traits. And of course the youth player attributes, for all but a few top prospects, seem almost randomly generated - which for a big follower of age groups is frustrating.

Its not so much a question of CA/PA levels (dont know what those are for the beta anyway), but for so many players I might as well still be playing FM20. Really disappointing. I didn't by FM22 (the first I'd missed since the old Domark days with fake players) for this reason, and unless there are big changes afoot, I can't see myself buying FM24. Given that 75% of the reason to buy every year is for updated data (the new features annually are nice touches that do add, but hardly revolutionary), when the amount of work on this front is so uneven in levels of detail or effort put in, this seriously needs revolutionising.

 

The start of the current season IS taken into account and included where updates get made right up until the DB deadlines as you'd expect,

There is a lot of work required as an Assistant Researcher and please remember people perform these roles for free for the benefit of all FM gamers. If you have specific details or views then do post in the relevant data section as mentioned in the above post. They will very, very likely now miss Nov 8th but they can be made for inclusion in the Winter Update which is normally available early to mid March following year

Players attributes can always be contentious as they are based on individual views. However do feel free to offer fact based opinion in the relevant data forum e.g player x is faster than player y as demonstrated in training  matches so that either player x receives and attribute change upwards or player y receives a player attribute change downwards. Younger players can progress their attributes just as older players attributes can decline and subject to age / role / position often have a natural peak. As an AR myself different opinion can always help balance views

I also started with Domark on the Amiga and have bought every release since. Fantastic progression of the game from those days!

[lomekian]

Thank you.

I guess I'm just trying to make the point more generally though, bugs only really tend to cover clear data errors (ie factual absolutes) - the attribute ratings etc are of course subjective. I'm not really bothered about any one specific attribute or invidual player record. Its the cut and paste approach and the lack of knowledge re youth prospects that frustrates.

Its been the same for a few years. I've raised the broader issue more than once in the past, previously giving specific examples, but have basically been told to do one.

The question is, what can be done about opening the game and seeing 2/3 of a squad having almost identical attributes 3 or 4 years in a row, despite significant real life changes.
 

To use an obvious example, why has Emile Smith Rowe, after  a largely breakout season, England caps, 10 EPL goals in half a season and one of the best shot conversion rates in the country for those with any notable shot numbers, got very similar attributes to FM20 when he had barely played a first team game, and almost identical attributes to FM21 when he played twice in the top flight with very little impact.The Attribute distribution suggests a tiny CA increase from very inexperienced u21 player to England international.

The u18 ratings are an absolute joke, with players known for their speed off the mark with accelleration and pace of 8 or 9, players heights and weights inaccurate - random stats at 1 or 2 which bear no relation to the players in question. Its like they are purely based on vague archetypes and then totally randomised. u21 players tend to be more fleshed out, but again there are multiple examples of players whose attributes are almost entirely unchanged in 2-3 years.

Of course its far better than 10-15 years ago when every half decent youth prosepct had a chance of being a top international player, but given how much of the DB is pre-established and just needs updating year on year, its a LONG way short of acceptability when data update is such a huge part of what we pay for, and to my view is actully getting worse year on year.

It also calls into question, as does the training elements, and the changing trends in football, whether the current CA/PA and attributes model is suitable for purpose any more. Although I appreciate moving away from that would be a HUGE undertaking and would probably take years of work to achieve.

 

[lomekian]

29 minutes ago, MrPompey said:

The start of the current season IS taken into account and included where updates get made right up until the DB deadlines as you'd expect,

There is a lot of work required as an Assistant Researcher and please remember people perform these roles for free for the benefit of all FM gamers. If you have specific details or views then do post in the relevant data section as mentioned in the above post. They will very, very likely now miss Nov 8th but they can be made for inclusion in the Winter Update which is normally available early to mid March following year

Players attributes can always be contentious as they are based on individual views. However do feel free to offer fact based opinion in the relevant data forum e.g player x is faster than player y as demonstrated in training  matches so that either player x receives and attribute change upwards or player y receives a player attribute change downwards. Younger players can progress their attributes just as older players attributes can decline and subject to age / role / position often have a natural peak. As an AR myself different opinion can always help balance views

I also started with Domark on the Amiga and have bought every release since. Fantastic progression of the game from those days!

Trust me, having been a part of this community since it began I do appreciate the roles of Assistant Researchers, but 1) ultimately those people performing the roles for free is more of a question for SI (ultimately FM's viability relies on its database) & 2) My previous attempts to input some years back were treated in a manner this discouraged further input.

Given that you have been kind enough to engage in this conversation, what do you make of the points I have raised in the post directly above this one? I suppose the ESR one is just about detailed enough that you may be able to suggest how one might approach the point I'm making. I'd also like to have someone (anyone who knows!) respond to the issue around u18 ratings being so obviously incomplete, which given just how much data and footage is avaialable out there now, particularly for high profile clubs,  really shouldn't be acceptable for something so database driven.

I'm more than happy to contribute in a positive manner to addressing this, but would want some sort of knowledge about how this would work before spamming the data bugs forum.

[HUNT3R]

I'm not a researcher and @MrPompey's reply to you would carry a lot more weight as he is a researcher, but have a look at this post:

Whether this post is accurate or not doesn't matter. There's nothing even really wrong with the post. BUT, what's posted here is very subjective. It can provide food for thought. This is definitely not me having a go at the poster, but I think Dan sums it up quite well:

Quote

Quite a few marginal, subjective suggestions here, which is fine considering this is a discussion thread and I will always read and consider stuff like this.  Nothing you have suggested is wrong necessarily, but then neither is anything I have set, and I have set what I have set for a reason.  Just wanting to check you have seen both of Partey's recent goals from outside the box, though?    

Now, have a look at this:

Whether I agree or not with the data presented, isn't the point, but it is presented well. It obviously takes a little effort to dig up the data, but that provides something a lot more factual to back up an opinion.

[MrPompey]

1 hour ago, lomekian said:

Trust me, having been a part of this community since it began I do appreciate the roles of Assistant Researchers, but 1) ultimately those people performing the roles for free is more of a question for SI (ultimately FM's viability relies on its database) & 2) My previous attempts to input some years back were treated in a manner this discouraged further input.

Given that you have been kind enough to engage in this conversation, what do you make of the points I have raised in the post directly above this one? I suppose the ESR one is just about detailed enough that you may be able to suggest how one might approach the point I'm making. I'd also like to have someone (anyone who knows!) respond to the issue around u18 ratings being so obviously incomplete, which given just how much data and footage is avaialable out there now, particularly for high profile clubs,  really shouldn't be acceptable for something so database driven.

I'm more than happy to contribute in a positive manner to addressing this, but would want some sort of knowledge about how this would work before spamming the data bugs forum.

You might find for a variety of reasons the quality of attribute data vary per club. In some cases you may only have a few researches covering a league or nation. Some clubs may have an u21 side and an u18 side. Thats a lot of matches to watch, youth players will also progress, or not much more quickly. Higher profile clubs may as you'd expect get greater overview and contribution, players will be higher profile. Perceived future ability may also not be realised, players at different clubs may improve / decline also for a number of reasons. There is a lot of work to keep up. The FM database is the best among all its competitors, many real life managers / scouting staff will use it to help them find players to watch. As you know SI are reliant on its gamer/player database for support in bug finding and database research and they key theme is that we all want to make it better for all of us. This truly makes FM a game of, by and for the people

This is a personal view and not one from SI but its clear that to have professional scouting being used to improve FM player knowledge / attribute determination at all levels would be so excessive that the FM Product would likely become unaffordable to the gamers if that approach was taken, it would never happen. hence the current method is a good balance. I would also add that some contributors do have very specific inside knowledge.

Im not sure what clubs / nations you see data having specific improvement potential but if you can contribute in some way contact the relevant Head Researcher and ask how you could make a contribution and in what format.

Alternatively many contributions to the relevant data forums remembering use of comparison etc as I suggested will help give support and value to the change request as will fully understanding what each attribute actually refers to. Hunt3r above suggested a read of a post suggesting use of templates to contribute potential data amendments which is a great idea.

Im not sure how many the total player and non-player FM database amounts to but very quickly you can see thats a lot of people to manage data and data changes for. There will be no easy answer but perhaps start with your favourite club / clubs and make a contribution, thats the best way to make the game and its data better.

[lomekian]

Thank you both for the patience and graciousness of your responses @MrPompey &  @HUNT3R - I will have a proper look when I get a chance and stick my oar in in a constructive manner. I very pleasant contrast to when I questioned this in the past.

I guess I'd probably start with the youth teams (particularly Arsenal as I write about them and work with some youth specialists on occasion), because they are so poorly researched that it should be a low bar in terms of offering something useful!

[MrPompey]

Absolutely no problem, Im glad if my response has helped. That will be great if you have details to add / help. In many cases it is normally the youth players that are hard to get the details for and sometimes it takes multiple seasons.

Do note that if a CA and PA figures has been input for a youth player, and providing the player type (e.g. deep lying playmaker, target Striker etc) is also entered then the game will generate any missing attributes and will progress this in line with player type in conjunction with his PA, training facilities, coaches, 1st team football etc