Star rating system for players

Are those stars calculated relative to the division you are playing in or relative to the quality in your squad? Does anybody have a certain answer?

Thanks.

Bit of both really but mainly on the level of your squad, if you have amazing strikers and scout another they will be compared against your current options.

Are those stars calculated relative to the division you are playing in or relative to the quality in your squad? Does anybody have a certain answer?

Thanks.

They are relative to your current squad, and accuracy depends on the quality of your scout/coach.

Thanks guys. I wish it was relative to the whole division. Because the way it is my players will always have 3-3.5 stars at most. Let's say I have a 3.5 stars player. If I sign a player that is better than him then he will probably drop to 3 stars. I don't like it this way.

It is relative to your current club reputation. So you can definitely get players with 1 star or 5 stars. The game does not compare players to determine stars.

Hmm, so can you even see a 5* player in Barcelona then?

Hmm, so can you even see a 5* player in Barcelona then?

probably not i'm playing as liverpool and messi is 4.5* player.

Another thing I wonder is:

I have a player who are rated 3* in his natural position (AM C), and 1.5* for positions in which he is "accomplished" (AM L for example). If you look at his attributes you would think that he should be rated 3* at AM L as well, but he is not. And he is not even 2.5* or 2*. There is big difference between 3* and 1.5*. A winger who has definitely worse attributes than him has 2* at AM L, just because AM L is his "natural" position. So, my question is:

1) Can you re-train a player in a position he is "accomplished" to make it "natural"?

2) Is this going to make his rating jump to 2.5-3 * ?

probably not i'm playing as liverpool and messi is 4.5* player.

Then I guess to be rated 5* in a world class team the players CA should be probably 195-200. Any idea what is Messi's CA?

Another thing I wonder is:

I have a player who are rated 3* in his natural position (AM C), and 1.5* for positions in which he is "accomplished" (AM L for example). If you look at his attributes you would think that he should be rated 3* at AM L as well, but he is not. And he is not even 2.5* or 2*. There is big difference between 3* and 1.5*. A winger who has definitely worse attributes than him has 2* at AM L, just because AM L is his "natural" position. So, my question is:

1) Can you re-train a player in a position he is "accomplished" to make it "natural"?

2) Is this going to make his rating jump to 2.5-3 * ?

1. yes

2. maybe

i had affelay who was only a natural as AMC but accomplished as an AMR, i played him as AMR and trained him there for a season and he became natural and that did improve his rating to just as good as an AMC but it also depends on their attributes. If you take a DMC and train them to be a winger their attributes probably won't make them a good winger and so even if they became natural there they wouldn't have a good rating for that position.

Then I guess to be rated 5* in a world class team the players CA should be probably 195-200. Any idea what is Messi's CA?

Another thing I wonder is:

I have a player who are rated 3* in his natural position (AM C), and 1.5* for positions in which he is "accomplished" (AM L for example). If you look at his attributes you would think that he should be rated 3* at AM L as well, but he is not. And he is not even 2.5* or 2*. There is big difference between 3* and 1.5*. A winger who has definitely worse attributes than him has 2* at AM L, just because AM L is his "natural" position. So, my question is:

1) Can you re-train a player in a position he is "accomplished" to make it "natural"?

2) Is this going to make his rating jump to 2.5-3 * ?

1) It depends on a number of factors such as age and adaptability (a hidden stat) of the player, as well as how often you play him in the position you're trying to make him a natural in, but yes its certainly possible.

2) In theory yes, but remember don't take reports as the definitive guide to a player - even if a player is accomplished in a position, if your coaches have never seen him play there the star ranking they give him will often be lower than his ability indicates.

1. yes

2. maybe

i had affelay who was only a natural as AMC but accomplished as an AMR, i played him as AMR and trained him there for a season and he became natural and that did improve his rating to just as good as an AMC but it also depends on their attributes. If you take a DMC and train them to be a winger their attributes probably won't make them a good winger and so even if they became natural there they wouldn't have a good rating for that position.

Thank you very much for the info. Now I know what to do with some of my hot prospects

2) In theory yes, but remember don't take reports as the definitive guide to a player - even if a player is accomplished in a position, if your coaches have never seen him play there the star ranking they give him will often be lower than his ability indicates.

Is that a fact? So, you mean that even without further training him for that position to change it from accomplished to natural, just by making him play in that position my coaches may start giving him higher rating in that position?

The relativity of the Star System has to be the most confusing and messed-up thing in FM10...

Just because I have Messi in my team, that doesn't mean the other strikers should suddenly be rated as 2.5*.

That would imply they are average, while instead they are "average" if compared to Messi, but still very good in the big picture.

Thanks to that skewed evaluation it's difficult, if not impossible, telling an average player from a good one, as both will probably get a 2.5/3* rating, just because the scout/coach will take your Best Player as term of comparison. And it's no use reading the report, as a "decent Premier League midfielder" is way too generic as well.

Basically the game seems to fail to recognize the differences at the lower end of the spectrum once you've got someone who's at the higher end.

Just as if you were told a Fiat Barchetta, a Lotus Exige and a 911 are sort of similar AND average, as in the end you already own a Bentley Continental GT...

star rating has to do with the ability of the coach/ scout that rates, the ability and power of your squad and in general with the rest of your team

The relativity of the Star System has to be the most confusing and messed-up thing in FM10...

Just because I have Messi in my team, that doesn't mean the other strikers should suddenly be rated as 2.5*.

That would imply they are average, while instead they are "average" if compared to Messi, but still very good in the big picture.

Thanks to that skewed evaluation it's difficult, if not impossible, telling an average player from a good one, as both will probably get a 2.5/3* rating, just because the scout/coach will take your Best Player as term of comparison. And it's no use reading the report, as a "decent Premier League midfielder" is way too generic as well.

Basically the game seems to fail to recognize the differences at the lower end of the spectrum once you've got someone who's at the higher end.

Just as if you were told a Fiat Barchetta, a Lotus Exige and a 911 are sort of similar AND average, as in the end you already own a Bentley Continental GT...

It's down to the expectations of the team (expected league finish). So obviously a very good player may be considered as an average player for a team expected to win the Spanish championship.

It's down to the expectations of the team (expected league finish). So obviously a very good player may be considered as an average player for a team expected to win the Spanish championship.

But that makes no sense...

If Torres is 4.5*, why should I get a 2.5* rating for pretty much any other good EPL striker, and like 1.5* for ok backups?

ANd all of that is even more ridiculous if you actually take a peep at the CA/PA values...

I had my AssMan rating the rest of my strikers at LFC [2016] between 1.5* and 2*, so I was frantically looking to give them away and to bring in some better alternatives... Then, after both subs netted goals with ease, I decided to see what their CA was, and lo! both were around the 155 mark...

Sure, 155CA is not good enough for Champions League glory, but for a substitute striker with good attributs it's far from awful

Even more with the game begins to be filled with crappy/underdeveloped newgens...

But that makes no sense...

If Torres is 4.5*, why should I get a 2.5* rating for pretty much any other good EPL striker, and like 1.5* for ok backups?

ANd all of that is even more ridiculous if you actually take a peep at the CA/PA values...

I had my AssMan rating the rest of my strikers at LFC [2016] between 1.5* and 2*, so I was frantically looking to give them away and to bring in some better alternatives... Then, after both subs netted goals with ease, I decided to see what their CA was, and lo! both were around the 155 mark...

Sure, 155CA is not good enough for Champions League glory, but for a substitute striker with good attributs it's far from awful

Even more with the game begins to be filled with crappy/underdeveloped newgens...

Lets say 165 is expected level for top 4 EPL player. So this will get 2 and a half stars.

190/195 or wateva Torres is is way above 165-170 so he gets 4 and a half stars. 150-155 is quite a bit below 165 so that player gets 2 or 1 and a half stars. I'm sure there are some players out there of 175-180 that would get 3 stars plus if scouted fully (for 3 games) by competent scouts.

If you just want average to be 3 stars then it will cause a problem with lower league managers differentiating between players who are able to play at a slightly higher level and those who can play at a much higher level as all will be 5 stars.

Anyway I think the whole star system is something that should never have been added. Surely you look at attributes and performance on pitch to decide on which players are good or not.

I brought in a player on a free that is rated as 1 and a half stars (for my expecting reasonable league position side). I don't care. His attributes are good in the key areas important to his position and he's valued at over 4 million.

Is that a fact? So, you mean that even without further training him for that position to change it from accomplished to natural, just by making him play in that position my coaches may start giving him higher rating in that position?

"may" is the key word there! I wouldn't pretend to be an expert but that is sort of my understanding, although its more like needing both than one or the other

i.e. for a player to become a natural in a new position he needs to be trained to play there and actually play there! Then his star rating will increase in the new position.

e.g. I'm training Buonanotte to be a left midfielder, not just a natural AMC. His star rating as a AMC has stayed the same but his rating for a LM (including potential) has gone up, despite he hasn't yet learned to play there as a natural. He does always play at LM though, hence I think where he plays is a factor.

I've also seen plenty of comments from ppl saying they've trained someone to be a natural somewhere, taken him off training for it and they lose their ability to play there in a month, usually because they fail to play them in their newly trained position.

Anyway I think the whole star system is something that should never have been added. Surely you look at attributes and performance on pitch to decide on which players are good or not.

I brought in a player on a free that is rated as 1 and a half stars (for my expecting reasonable league position side). I don't care. His attributes are good in the key areas important to his position and he's valued at over 4 million.

Star ratings are a good thing imo, so long as you don't treat them in isolation. As you say we have attributes, player values plus things like average ratings to help us evaluate players. Star ratings are just another method of evaluation, which can certainly help speed the game up e.g. for international squad selection...

Hmm, so can you even see a 5* player in Barcelona then?

Essien was 5 star for me at Chelsea, initially.