Assistant dramatically revises his opinion

I've just started a game in the lower reaches of the English pyramid using SuperBladesman's excellent update and have come across the following strangeness. Not sure if it is a bug or a feature - judge for yourselves:

I hired a new assistant manager and switched to the Assistant Reports view to see what he thought of my squad, only to find that he was rating virtually all of my players as having five stars for CA. Most of the players I scouted or brought in on trial were also given 5 stars (yes, the scout is in on this conspiracy too). However, sometime around the second Saturday of the game (18th July in my case), checking the Assistant Reports view again suddenly reveals a much more realistic picture with the bulk of my squad (virtually everyone except my new signings) now ranked at half a star.

Not sure if this delay in reality reasserting itself is due to the time it takes staff to build up a decent picture of their new charges, or whether it's because I've signed some genuinely good players and the rest of my squad is now being compared against their superior quality and found wanting. Either way, it's a bit of a pain as a lot of the players I was exhorted to sign because their ratings were through the roof have suddenly turned back into pumpkins (so to speak)!

This has now happened at 2 separate Level 10 clubs, but I've never noticed it before when managing professional sides. Anyone else had this issue, or know why it might be happening?

obviously this mod will be bugged, but if your rep increased the ass man will re-evaluate his opinion

Mystery solved (I think) by a quick look at CAs. Most of the players I inherited had CAs in the 1-10 range, and I've just signed some 50-100 CA players on loans and frees, so by comparison the rest of my squad are beyond terrible. My understanding is that the star ratings are measured against your best player.

The reason this has never come up outside of SuperBladesman's update is that you'd never normally have players with such low CAs - in a professional club you wouldn't be able to bring in players with a CA ten times better than some of their team mates.

On a related note, what the heck is a tier 10 club?

Maybe When - yes, that's exactly right - the stars are measured against your best players.

Mystery solved (I think) by a quick look at CAs. Most of the players I inherited had CAs in the 1-10 range, and I've just signed some 50-100 CA players on loans and frees, so by comparison the rest of my squad are beyond terrible. My understanding is that the star ratings are measured against your best player.

The reason this has never come up outside of SuperBladesman's update is that you'd never normally have players with such low CAs - in a professional club you wouldn't be able to bring in players with a CA ten times better than some of their team mates.

Yeh, i was going to say all that.

On a related note, what the heck is a tier 10 club?

A club that plays in the 10th division, which is only available via SuperBladesman's editor file in the Editor's Forum.

Indeed the Star Rating for lower league sides will change as soon as you bring in a vaguely competent player.

Just think of a kickaround with your friends, and someday one of them brings along the proverbial "friend who's been in the youth team of a semi-famous club"... Suddenly those who are usually good will get nullified by the newcomer.

Considering the volatile and relative value of the Star Ratings, I really really hope it'll be slightly altered in the next patch/game, making it absolute.

I mean: my Striker has 3 1/2*, but related to WHOM? To my backup striker who's rated 2 1/2*? To the average level of my team? To the average level of the league's strikers? To the average level of strikers all around the world?

I'm pretty sure that the star rating wasn't based on the best players in your team but rather the level that your team plays at, and how good they are considering the league they are in.

I've just started a game in the lower reaches of the English pyramid using SuperBladesman's excellent update and have come across the following strangeness. Not sure if it is a bug or a feature - judge for yourselves:

I hired a new assistant manager and switched to the Assistant Reports view to see what he thought of my squad, only to find that he was rating virtually all of my players as having five stars for CA. Most of the players I scouted or brought in on trial were also given 5 stars (yes, the scout is in on this conspiracy too). However, sometime around the second Saturday of the game (18th July in my case), checking the Assistant Reports view again suddenly reveals a much more realistic picture with the bulk of my squad (virtually everyone except my new signings) now ranked at half a star.

Not sure if this delay in reality reasserting itself is due to the time it takes staff to build up a decent picture of their new charges, or whether it's because I've signed some genuinely good players and the rest of my squad is now being compared against their superior quality and found wanting. Either way, it's a bit of a pain as a lot of the players I was exhorted to sign because their ratings were through the roof have suddenly turned back into pumpkins (so to speak)!

This has now happened at 2 separate Level 10 clubs, but I've never noticed it before when managing professional sides. Anyone else had this issue, or know why it might be happening?

Surely the ratings will be based around value to the club. The more good players you have the less stars the others will have.

I'm pretty sure that the star rating wasn't based on the best players in your team but rather the level that your team plays at, and how good they are considering the league they are in.

I thought so too, but the fact the rating changes so drastically once you sign a more talented player suggests it is relative to your other players. I think the text beneath the rating on the report tab which says things like "x would be a good player for most premiership teams" covers off their ability relative to the division they're in.

I thought so too, but the fact the rating changes so drastically once you sign a more talented player suggests it is relative to your other players. I think the text beneath the rating on the report tab which says things like "x would be a good player for most premiership teams" covers off their ability relative to the division they're in.

Either way, most of my Starting Eleven is rated 3*, with just two 3.5* players and one 4.5*...

Despite that realtively low ratings, I've been dominating the league for 6 straight seasons, ending the last one with a record 28W 2D 0L, 73 GF and 14 GA, and I had massive rotation to preserve my best players for Champions League games...

That's NOT something a 3* team should achieve...

Or is my 4.5* player who's skewing the evaluation of the rest of the team?

is this based on the best player or on the position.

IE. Rooney Vs Carrick for a DM.