Star rating system is ridiculous

Ok the match engine is amazing, and the whole appearance so far is awesome. But what really dissapointed me is yet again the star system for the players ability.

First of all I looked at chelsea. Cech who is among the top 5 GKs in the world only had 3 stars. Then what do you have to do to get a 5 star in Goallie. I know some will say it is depended on the quality of the players of the rest of the team...but come on cech is vital for chelsea.

Then for curiosity I looked at barca star rating system. First of all I was ****ed that marquez and pique got more that puyol. And then zlatan xavi and iniesta more than messi.

I mean if messi only gets 4 stars then who the h*** should get 5???

Ok the match engine is amazing, and the whole appearance so far is awesome. But what really dissapointed me is yet again the star system for the players ability.

First of all I looked at chelsea. Cech who is among the top 5 GKs in the world only had 3 stars. Then what do you have to do to get a 5 star in Goallie. I know some will say it is depended on the quality of the players of the rest of the team...but come on cech is vital for chelsea.

Then for curiosity I looked at barca star rating system. First of all I was ****ed that marquez and pique got more that puyol. And then zlatan xavi and iniesta more than messi.

I mean if messi only gets 4 stars then who the h*** should get 5???

Messi had two stars in my team report but his individual report had four stars!!! Best ive seen so far is four and a half stars. Has anybody seen five stars???

Haven't checked cech's ratings closely but I thought they were below par but I could be wrong!

it depends what position they're in...

I just ignore the stars myself and decide whos better than who myself, not my assistant.. i'm the boss around here

Modric 4.5 on myne Lawl

Ok the match engine is amazing, and the whole appearance so far is awesome. But what really dissapointed me is yet again the star system for the players ability.

First of all I looked at chelsea. Cech who is among the top 5 GKs in the world only had 3 stars. Then what do you have to do to get a 5 star in Goallie. I know some will say it is depended on the quality of the players of the rest of the team...but come on cech is vital for chelsea.

Then for curiosity I looked at barca star rating system. First of all I was ****ed that marquez and pique got more that puyol. And then zlatan xavi and iniesta more than messi.

I mean if messi only gets 4 stars then who the h*** should get 5???

Despite your frustration, please cut out the swearing

Don't quote me on this, but I have a very faint memory that someone said that team reports are based on current form? Sure the same occured for FM09, it is useful for seeing who your current best XI is, based on performance reasons.

Like I said though, that could easily be very wrong.

I have to partly agree with you, the logic of the star-system is a bit hard to understand and at times it seems to be flawed. But we should keep in mind that our Ass Mans are not omnipotent Gods and make a lot of mistakes, too.

It depends on the position they are playing and your club. Your coaches might also be crap at JCA and JPA.

At Chelsea or Barcelona it will be almost impossible to find a 5 star player as there are very few, if any, players that far exceed the clubs expectations of a player. Put Cech into say the Wigan or Newcastle squads and he would get 5 stars as those clubs have lower expectations of their players. Mouse over the star ratings and you'll see 3 stars is Good, 4 Superb and 5 Excellent.

Yeap I understand...but my ambition had always been to have a team with all 5 star players

Yeah the star rating is relative to the other players at your club, or the standard at which your club is recoginzied as. Use a random player Nani for example, he is probably nothing more than a 2 or 3 star player at United, but if he were at Hull he would be a 5 star player for them because he would be a lot better than the others at his position.

The star system goes from 1 - 7 stars and is relative to your clubs stature & other players. So if for example Lionel Messi is at Barcelona he will be on 3/4 stars which is good for the team. Put him at Stoke/Hull/Burnley and he should by 5/6 stars. Put him at Notts County/Darlington and he should be 7 stars. It is also relative somewhat to the position putting them in, if your assistant report puts them out of position it rates them for their suitability to there.

Ryan Shawcross is rated as 3.5 stars in my Stoke side, as is Ronaldo (brazilian), I'd suggest scouting those 2 and see if they come back as the same for your side.

First of all, Cech is by no means top 5 goalkeepers in the world. Maybe 4 years ago but not now.

Secondly, of course the system is flawed - it's your assistant manager giving the reports so unless he has 20 in judging ability and potential there will be some inconsistencies

Right, here's what my game says about the stars when hovering over them:

1/2 Star = Below average rationg for senior team

1 Star = Average rating for senior team

1.5 Stars = Decent rating for senior team

2 Stars = Useful rating for senior team

2.5 Stars = Fairly good rating for senior team

3 Stars = Good rating for senior team

3.5 Stars = Very good rating for senior team

From the looks of it, and how it used to be, the star system must be limited to 5 now so really, 1.5 stars - 3 stars is decent for your team. 3.5 stars to 5 stars obviously means very good for your side. When you get to the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal, Barca etc going to really struggle to get 5 star players all bar a CA/PA of 200.

Right, here's what my game says about the stars when hovering over them:

1/2 Star = Below average rationg for senior team

1 Star = Average rating for senior team

1.5 Stars = Decent rating for senior team

2 Stars = Useful rating for senior team

2.5 Stars = Fairly good rating for senior team

3 Stars = Good rating for senior team

3.5 Stars = Very good rating for senior team

From the looks of it, and how it used to be, the star system must be limited to 5 now so really, 1.5 stars - 3 stars is decent for your team. 3.5 stars to 5 stars obviously means very good for your side. When you get to the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal, Barca etc going to really struggle to get 5 star players all bar a CA/PA of 200.

Is the rating based on team or individual players? For example, if a particular top team has a bad GK, would stars be higher for GK scout reports?

I couldn't say for definite regarding that, I suspect/hope a tester will be along soon to give a definitive answer. I was always under the impression it was some sort of hybridisation between what you currently have and the stature of your club. The ideal way to test it would be to terminate the contracts of all the keepers at a big team and then do a bit of scouting of poor keepers to see what is brought about.

First of all, Cech is by no means top 5 goalkeepers in the world. Maybe 4 years ago but not now.

Secondly, of course the system is flawed - it's your assistant manager giving the reports so unless he has 20 in judging ability and potential there will be some inconsistencies

Oh come on...seriously cech not top 5??? I know its a matter of opinion but if you take a hard look at goalkeepers out then cech is certainly among top five with castillas buffon julio cesar van der sar

Who else would you say is better than cech??

I think the basic undertone is - the better the stars the better the player, and the bigger gap between your current players and the potential signing etc the more likely you are to have a better player.

And as for Cech, he's long since lost it - he doesn't have the confidence to come for balls anymore, he doesn't really command his area and if it wasn't for the 4 infront of him, he'd look a lot worse. I wouldn't put him in the premierships top 5, let alone the world top 5.

Oh come on...seriously cech not top 5??? I know its a matter of opinion but if you take a hard look at goalkeepers out then cech is certainly among top five with castillas buffon julio cesar van der sar

Who else would you say is better than cech??

I don't think he is to be fair

To get a 5 star rating in a top European team you'd probably need to have Pele himself get reincarnated and playing at his peak. In a team like Man united for example a 2 star rating actually isn't terrible, the player will probably be very decent, but not better than half of the first team squad/league. Put that same player in the Newcastle or West brom team and he would probably get 4 stars because he'd be better than most in the team/league

Has anybody seen five stars???

QUOTE]

If you start as Tottenham, then Modric is 5 stars compared to the other players.

I see it as

3/3.5* squad player

4* first teamer

5* indispensible

6/7* Havent seen but I would have thought you would have trouble hanging on to them i.e. a team star like Aguero

Thats how I think of it to help myself. Might help others too Although if your a top team finding 5* players would b like a zidan, maradona, pele so very very rare I guess

The star system works in a way that your players are compared to the leagues standard as as well as your own team. Messi could be say 3 or 4 stars, simply because yes he's better than pretty much all the players around him, but he's not exceedingly better.

This is why say you're a smallish team it's much easier to find higher star players than you've got, because simply there are lots of players out there who are better. I know it's a bit confusing but it does make perfect sense once you get your head around it.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a global star system? League 2 would consist of mostly 1 star players and EPL would have 4 stars?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a global star system? League 2 would consist of mostly 1 star players and EPL would have 4 stars?

That wouldn't make an awful lot of sense. The spectrum is far too wide for that to work. Almost everyone in the premiership would be 4-5 stars while everyone in the conference would be half a star. The current system is good, albeit slightly confusing to understand at first

That wouldn't make an awful lot of sense. The spectrum is far too wide for that to work. Almost everyone in the premiership would be 4-5 stars while everyone in the conference would be half a star. The current system is good, albeit slightly confusing to understand at first

If we use half stars, that's 10 different blocks. If we put all 100 or less CA players as 1/2 star, we can divide up each successive half star to 10 CA increments.

If we use half stars, that's 10 different blocks. If we put all 100 or less CA players as 1/2 star, we can divide up each successive half star to 10 CA increments.

I'd find that pretty boring. It'd mean that signing quality players for a top team would be extremely easy. Also there is the problem that Decent Premiership quality players can have CA/PA as low as 140 so you've 3 stars just to distinguish Premiership players.

The current system works just fine. It means you have to work harder to find players to improve your squad at a top team, and as your team improves and moves between leagues you see how your current squad copes with the higher standards. It's not like the poor teams have it easier finding players, they struggle to find quality that will join them, whilst at a top club you have the reverse where almost anyone will join but it's hard to distinguish the good players from the decent ones.

Finally I don't think you will ever see 6 or 7* players anymore as the scale only seems to go up to 5. The scale is easier to see with just 5* then it was in 09 or 08 with the 7 stars, and did anyone ever even look at player rated at less then 3* in previous versions?

Oh come on...seriously cech not top 5??? I know its a matter of opinion but if you take a hard look at goalkeepers out then cech is certainly among top five with castillas buffon julio cesar van der sar

Who else would you say is better than cech??

Pepe Reina is better then Cech for starters and I wouldn't put VDS in the top ten let alone the top five.

The star system works in a way that your players are compared to the leagues standard as as well as your own team. Messi could be say 3 or 4 stars, simply because yes he's better than pretty much all the players around him, but he's not exceedingly better.

This is why say you're a smallish team it's much easier to find higher star players than you've got, because simply there are lots of players out there who are better. I know it's a bit confusing but it does make perfect sense once you get your head around it.

can we see CA standard for every league out there ...

If we use half stars, that's 10 different blocks. If we put all 100 or less CA players as 1/2 star, we can divide up each successive half star to 10 CA increments.

And what about the people who manage in the lower leagues? All of our players would then be 1/2 star, the reports would be completely useless. The current system is fine because it takes into account your team, what league you are in, and your current players.

When you gain promotion you always laugh as your former 7 star player plummets to a 4. Oh and relegation is a classic as the 4 star player becomes a 7, but if you actually pay attention the system makes perfect sense.

If we use half stars, that's 10 different blocks. If we put all 100 or less CA players as 1/2 star, we can divide up each successive half star to 10 CA increments.

How would you distinguish players in your team then? I doubt there'd be a significant difference in Ca between most of them so you'd essentially have a team who have exactly the same star rating. I don't think you've put much thought into this system.

since ratings are given in half star increments, with 5 stars you can give 11 different star ratings (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5).

CA has a max of 200, so if you divide that by 11, you get a half star for every 18 points or so. Personally, that would work for me.

The problem with the current system is that a player with a 5 star rating playing for a conference side may be just an average player if he played for a prem side, or he could be the next c.ronaldo. But, you don't know unless you sign them and that sucks.

The star system works in a way that your players are compared to the leagues standard as as well as your own team. Messi could be say 3 or 4 stars, simply because yes he's better than pretty much all the players around him, but he's not exceedingly better.

This is why say you're a smallish team it's much easier to find higher star players than you've got, because simply there are lots of players out there who are better. I know it's a bit confusing but it does make perfect sense once you get your head around it.

Yeah, this is the way I see it too. If you took Messi out of Barcelona and placed him in, say, Southampton and then checked the star ratings, it would no doubt be 5. In fact it would more than likely explode.

The problem with the current system is that a player with a 5 star rating playing for a conference side may be just an average player if he played for a prem side, or he could be the next c.ronaldo. But, you don't know unless you sign them and that sucks.

If your a Premiership side and scout that player the scout report be based on how he would rate in your team. So if he was the next C. Ronaldo he would get 4-5 stars for his PA depending on how good your Premiership team is. If your the conference side it's irrelevant, your facilites are so poor and the level of football so low he will never improve to his PA whether it is decent premiership or World Class and he is going to be tearing up the Conference anyway.

The system makes sense and works, the better your team is the harder it is to find better players. If your Midfield is say Messi, Fabregas, C. Ronaldo, Pirlo then anyone else would have to be outstanding to improve your team so they will be rated poorly. It gives you a lot more flexability then a fixed system does.

Has anybody seen five stars???

QUOTE]

If you start as Tottenham, then Modric is 5 stars compared to the other players.

I see it as

3/3.5* squad player

4* first teamer

5* indispensible

6/7* Havent seen but I would have thought you would have trouble hanging on to them i.e. a team star like Aguero

Thats how I think of it to help myself. Might help others too Although if your a top team finding 5* players would b like a zidan, maradona, pele so very very rare I guess

mohammed zidan? lol or zidane? ahaha

cech has gone down IRL since his injury, not what he once was, good keeper but not a top5 keeper anymore

Pepe Reina is better then Cech for starters and I wouldn't put VDS in the top ten let alone the top five.

LMAO! Brilliant. Reina is pants. Chelsea have at most 3 truly world class players, in that they are within the top 10 in the world in that position. They are, imo, Lampard, Drogba and Cech. In relation to the rest of his team, cech should have the same rating as Lampard and Drogba as he is that important to the team.

I think the system makes perfect sense, and it's basically the same as FM09 except with 5 stars instead of 7, right? If three stars are "good" and your team is expected to win the Premier League, that's a pretty good rating. Like others have said, a two star player on a world class team would be great on a lot of mid table sides.

since ratings are given in half star increments, with 5 stars you can give 11 different star ratings (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5).

CA has a max of 200, so if you divide that by 11, you get a half star for every 18 points or so. Personally, that would work for me.

The problem with the current system is that a player with a 5 star rating playing for a conference side may be just an average player if he played for a prem side, or he could be the next c.ronaldo. But, you don't know unless you sign them and that sucks.

The main problem with that is, that CA and PA are meant to be hidden stats unknown to the user, and if there is a workaround system every increment in CA & PA it defeats the whole object and they may as well just show you the number. It also makes it impossible to then factor in the room for error scouts have when they aren't 20/20 for Judging potential and ability because otherwise you'd be complaining your scouts were saying a player categorically has X amount of PA yet when he signed your asst downgraded him because he didn't.

Has anybody seen five stars???

QUOTE]

If you start as Tottenham, then Modric is 5 stars compared to the other players.

I see it as

3/3.5* squad player

4* first teamer

5* indispensible

6/7* Havent seen but I would have thought you would have trouble hanging on to them i.e. a team star like Aguero

Thats how I think of it to help myself. Might help others too Although if your a top team finding 5* players would b like a zidan, maradona, pele so very very rare I guess

Nice one!!! As well as the players around them it also goes on form I think!!!

System works for me!

Has anybody seen five stars???

QUOTE]

If you start as Tottenham, then Modric is 5 stars compared to the other players.

I see it as

3/3.5* squad player

4* first teamer

5* indispensible

6/7* Havent seen but I would have thought you would have trouble hanging on to them i.e. a team star like Aguero

Thats how I think of it to help myself. Might help others too Although if your a top team finding 5* players would b like a zidan, maradona, pele so very very rare I guess

Would be hard to see it, seeing as there are only 5 stars

The star system works in a way that your players are compared to the leagues standard as as well as your own team. Messi could be say 3 or 4 stars, simply because yes he's better than pretty much all the players around him, but he's not exceedingly better.

This is why say you're a smallish team it's much easier to find higher star players than you've got, because simply there are lots of players out there who are better. I know it's a bit confusing but it does make perfect sense once you get your head around it.

It doesnt make any sense when one of the best players in the world is only 3 stars.

It works well when you arent in the top league when you can actually see whos better than your current players. You move into the top league and everyone just become mediocre.

This is one of the most useless parts of the game for me.

The worlds best player should always be the maximum rating, he shouldt be 2 or 3 stars just because you have a half decent alternative. The result of this poor system is the AM thinks everyone on the world is poor and wouldnt improve the squad which means the system is useless.

Why should he be the maximum rating if he's only slightly better than what you already have?

Because if hes not everyone ends up on the same part of the scale and scout/AM reports become worthless as every single international player has the same rating and you cant tell a Messi from a Carrick.

Im not convinced it just relates to your team either. A 5 star player in the CCC becomes a 2 star player once you get promoted and the star system is worthless for top level management and I ignore it completely or Id never sign anyone.

Do you honestly believe a scout would come back from watching Messi or Ronaldo and say, "well guv, Id only give him a 3 out of 5" or would they give them top marks and say they are the best in the world?

No, I believe the scout would come back and say "well, he's a little better than what you already have, but not overly-so".

Messi's star rating is (iirc) 2 stars higher than Carricks.

yeah right, so Real Madrid didnt go all out for years to sign a player because hes the best in the world.

They would just go "meh, hes slightly better than what we have already"

Whats the point in the star rating when no one can attain a 5, the best in the world are a 4 and virtually everyone else is a 3 or possibly a 2. That makes it worthless. The whole point of it is to differentiate between the ability of players and you cant do that when the vast majority of players are crammed into the same rating.

It works for lower leagues but doesnt for top leagues.

It works for top leagues as well imo.

When you're a team like Man Utd there really isn't that much difference between your players and most of the best of the world. When someone does rate higher, do what you can to sign them as they'll be something special.

Makes perfect sense, so can't see why people are struggling with it.

Because it doesnt make sense, Man U will still pursue those players as a top priority because they are the best in the world. They dont just think theyre only a bit better so its not worth bothering.

What is the point of a rating system where no one can achieve the maximum rating? All you are doing is just compressing all the other players into fewer categories therefore making it much harder to tell them apart.

With Man Utd and a 20JA scout:

Ribery 3.5 stars: a lot better than Nani

Adebayor 2.5 stars: not quite as good as Rooney

Fabregas 3.5 stars: a bit better than Darren Fletcher (which suggests Man U's researcher really likes Fletcher )

Lescott 2 stars: not as good as Ferdinand

Tevez 3 stars: not much different than Rooney

Essien 4 stars: better than Fletcher

Lampard 4 stars: a lot better than Giggs

Xavi 4 stars: better than Fletcher

Messi 4 stars: a lot better than Valencia

Ibrahimovic 4 stars: same as Rooney

Torres 4 stars: same as Rooney

Villa 4 stars: same as Rooney

Gerrard 4 stars: a lot better than Giggs

Buffon 4 stars: about the same as van der Saar

Eto'o 4 stars: same as Rooney

Maicon 4 stars: a lot better than O'Shea

Kaka 4 stars: a lot better than Giggs

Zhirkov 3 stars: better than Nani

Ronaldo 5 stars: twice the player of Valencia

Iniesta 4 stars: about the same as Fletcher

Aquilani 2.5 stars: not as good as Fletcher

Aguero 3 stars: about the same as Giggs

Julio Cesar 4 stars: about the same as van der Saar

Casillas 4.5 stars: better than van der Saar

So looking at that it's pretty easy to see which players would improve your squad - it's then a matter of comparing attributes and scout reports to decide whether they'd make a noticeable difference to the team considering the way you play.

Cech has been really sub par since his injury, which is unfortunate because he used to be awesome. He might be top 15 or 20 in the world. might.

Oh, and to stay on topic, the 5 star system makes perfect sense. see what Neil had to say about it.