Star system - not entirely based on CA, right?

So far I was thinking that my coaches rate my players by guessing their CA. However yesterday I realised that there are other factors. My 31 year old midfielder was rated 2.5* just 1 day before his birthday, and as soon as he turned 32 his rating has dropped to 2*. He didn't lose any points in his attributes (which means his CA was still the same). His rating has dropped just beacuse he got 1 year older.

So this makes me believe that the star system is totally unreliable. I'm in my 4th season now, and until now I've lost 2 very good players apparently because they got 33-34 years old and I let them go just because they went down to 1* (which is supposed to be an indication that they are not good for my team any more). It was only their physical attributes that have dropped significantly (from 12-13 when they were 30 years old to 8-9 when they were 33-34). But my coaches were saying that I should get rid of them, so I did.

I wish we would either have a star system that works or not have any at all. This is only causing some confusion

You only realise now that the Star System is a load of codswallop? :confused:

Like I said, it has always been very confusing and unreliable. But my example above is the first real proof I found that shows it is utter nonsense

3 seasons ago my best performing player was my AM L, and he was rated only 1.5*. My AM R was rated 3.5*, but his performance was nowhere close to my AM L.

You only realise now that the Star System is a load of codswallop? :confused:

It's not really, it just takes a bit of work reading it. The system depends on a few variables, the most important (in my opinion) being CA/PA, the coaches/scout's JCA/JPA, and the age. CA/PA is obvious, the staff members' stats due to a better scout being more able to see potential a lot quicker, and age due to the older a player gets toe more likely he is to start dropping (older players) or less likely to fulfill his PA (younger players).

I'd much prefer it if you as a manager could see the Ca and PA rating right in the game. It's crazy to think that a real manager wouldn't see this in players.

Simply put, if you are good at finding players then the CA would be listed as 165 - 175.

If you're poor at finding players and have a bad track record then it's listed as 90 - 130.

This wouldn't affect the players real CA or PA, but it would a window to their CA and PA based on your ability to sign players.

The more successful you are the better you can read the stats and the closer the numbers are and the more accurate they are.

The Star System should be abolished, there is nothing in it.

The AI can find all your best young players, but your scouts can't.

take over that club and get a scout reports done and they won't come back with the players they just recommended from your team and tried a bid for.

I actually really like the star system, they provide just the right element of surprise (in both directions) for the development of my players. I would absolutely hate to see CA/PA numbers.

I'd much prefer it if you as a manager could see the Ca and PA rating right in the game. It's crazy to think that a real manager wouldn't see this in players.

Simply put, if you are good at finding players then the CA would be listed as 165 - 175.

If you're poor at finding players and have a bad track record then it's listed as 90 - 130.

This wouldn't affect the players real CA or PA, but it would a window to their CA and PA based on your ability to sign players.

The more successful you are the better you can read the stats and the closer the numbers are and the more accurate they are.

The Star System should be abolished, there is nothing in it.

The AI can find all your best young players, but your scouts can't.

take over that club and get a scout reports done and they won't come back with the players they just recommended from your team and tried a bid for.

Allowing CA/PA to be seen in the game will make it too easy, just hoover up the best regens you can afford every year, keep good tutor oldies around and you will win everything. The star system gives a more realistic guide to the whole process, in that it gives you a range allows the non-hidden stats to be shown and gives enough fallibility that you will have to use your own judgement to choose. Often I've looked at a 3 or 4 star potential player and not bought him because his physical stats have screamed "sick-note" at me or his mental stats said lazy boy who'll never get where he should be going. This I feel is exactly what the game should be aiming for.

how are the players performing in the actual games?

scoring goals? good game ratings of 7.0 or better?

if so, ignore the "star" ratings, pay more attention to what they are doing on the field

i had a 1-star gk start out the season for me, as my first choice keeper was injured. team won the first 6 games, so i felt i couldnt replace the kid as long as he was still doing well. i made it through 2/3 of the season before any serious goal leaking started happening. maybe the pressure got to him or something, but my original first keeper is back in his job. but it just shows that even a supposed poor player can do the job as long as he has some decent key attributes and proper motivation

Any system in game that gives ratings is flawed beyond belief.

Allowing CA/PA to be seen in the game will make it too easy, just hoover up the best regens you can afford every year, keep good tutor oldies around and you will win everything. The star system gives a more realistic guide to the whole process, in that it gives you a range allows the non-hidden stats to be shown and gives enough fallibility that you will have to use your own judgement to choose. Often I've looked at a 3 or 4 star potential player and not bought him because his physical stats have screamed "sick-note" at me or his mental stats said lazy boy who'll never get where he should be going. This I feel is exactly what the game should be aiming for.

Completely agree. This system allows you to categorically rule out some players (and occasionally puts you in a position where you simply have to snap someone up), but otherwise just gives you reassurance that you're not just wowed by stats with no substance. It lets you get down to reading stats and buying players that fit your system without either over-relying on scouts or feeling like you're taking a stab in the dark every time.

Any system in game that gives ratings is flawed beyond belief.

Well what are we going to use then? A system which says all variables are equal. There will always be some things better than others in a game like this, therefore some form of a rating system will be imperative in order to judge the differences. How else do you pick a team except by giving a players ratings depending on your personal system?

I can't stand the current system of star ratings, as I'm never certain of what is actually being rated. For instance "player x has the potential to play at a similar level as player y." Meaning? Player y, as he currently is, or player y's PA? If I have a player with 100 CA and 150 PA, I sure as heck would like to know which of the two values player x is being compared to.

Ditto with the fact that stars can magically disappear the moment a player signs with your team. That 3 star player you just signed? Oops...now he's 2 1/2. What the...?

I can't stand the current system of star ratings, as I'm never certain of what is actually being rated. For instance "player x has the potential to play at a similar level as player y." Meaning? Player y, as he currently is, or player y's PA?

It's obviously comparing him to the player you have as he is now now, as future levels are as yet un decided.

Ditto with the fact that stars can magically disappear the moment a player signs with your team. That 3 star player you just signed? Oops...now he's 2 1/2. What the...?

That's a matter of either your ass man being of a different level to the scout who first caught him (whether higher or lower shouldn't matter), or a previously unavailable stat being discovered on the training pitch, it being very hard to discover everything about a player until he's under your wing.

I actually really like the star system, they provide just the right element of surprise (in both directions) for the development of my players. I would absolutely hate to see CA/PA numbers.

I don't have a problem with it either, as you improve your team and expectations go up, you sign better players, you see players go from say 3 star to 2.5. Works fine for me, but I guess I don't pay too much attention to it, more keep an eye on it.

The star system is a decent system, flawed but generally gives you a very quick idea of which players are best and which are worst in your squad and which areas perhaps you need to improve on.

I'd also hate to be able to see CA/PA values. And the uncertainty in the star system is also very realistic, makes the game a little harder (which is good, there are already so many things in FM that give the human players the edge over AI). What I was complaining about was how for aging players those star ratings go down so quick, just on the day when they turn 1 year older. Doesn't make sense. Their star rating shouldn't change on their birthday, instead that little comment next to the star rating should change to something like "he got even older now but he still remains to be a valuable player".

How do the AI head coaches make their decisions? By looking at their coaches' star ratings for his players? If so, I suspect that way too many aging players are being let go by their managers too early, before they really are too old to play for them.

The star system is a decent system, flawed but generally gives you a very quick idea of which players are best and which are worst in your squad and which areas perhaps you need to improve on.

Not always. Like I said, my AM L with 1.5* (the lowest in my starting 11) is one of my best performing players. His attributes are perfect for a winger (his pace, acceleration, dribbling, crossing are all 16+), but somehow he gets only 1.5*. And that's his natural position too (light green dot). Currently the evaluation of players in the star system is flawed. I like the general idea of having a system like this, giving us an idea with some certainty, not entirely accurate (which is realistic, just like the certainty of the scouting reports in real life), but I wish in FM2011 it won't be flawed like it is now. Right now it is making some wrong calculations. In the example I gave above the star system is apparently underestimating the importance of pace, acceleration, dribbling and crossing for the AM L position. What I'm trying to say is that the current star system is NOT COMPETIBLE WITH THE ME.

I think that just reflects that he's not very good on paper but you are getting the best out of him.

Allowing CA/PA to be seen in the game will make it too easy, just hoover up the best regens you can afford every year, keep good tutor oldies around and you will win everything. The star system gives a more realistic guide to the whole process, in that it gives you a range allows the non-hidden stats to be shown and gives enough fallibility that you will have to use your own judgement to choose. Often I've looked at a 3 or 4 star potential player and not bought him because his physical stats have screamed "sick-note" at me or his mental stats said lazy boy who'll never get where he should be going. This I feel is exactly what the game should be aiming for.

I disagree - because the Star System doesn't reflect how you as a manager can judge players potential.

Fine keep the Star System, but let your ability and your experience (whether you bought players that turned out ace or turned out as flops) be a basis for the Star System.

All you see is the Scouts idea of the player, if you go to watch the player you should be able to draw your own conclusion.

But that would involve you having to actually go watch a game - and I don't know if too many people would be interested in that.

So at least let the Star System reflect how your track record is in signing players.

I think the current Star System is pure junk, and your scouts don't find the same players as the AI scouts - ever.

And on top of that - I'd like to see the Scouts Stats when looking at Scout Reports, so I can see what the star system is based on when Looking at the player. And I'd like the player stats to be displayed along the scout reports.

Currently going through scout reports and looking at players is an unbelieveable boring and tedious task.

Just simplify it, I'm not saying give it away - but at least put all the info on one screen and let your own ability and track record reflect the Star System too

What I mean is I'd like to see the Scout and his stats along side the player in the scout report.

The scout could be talking about a 16 year old - but the scout could have a stat for judging ability of 2.

YOu don't see that in the scout report, you have to go to the Scouts profile to see their stats.

And then you also have to go to another screen to see the players stats.

Why not give a summary of what the scout is best at in his stats

Then a few stats relating to the players position - like a winger would have good pace, dribbling, crossing etc.

I don't know, just an idea, a more comprehensive report than just a few stars that may or may not mean something.

my scout gives 2* stars to a young striker with 14 finishing, composure and off the ball, and 13/14 speed acceleration, and then gives 3* to a young striker with 7 composure, 8 off the ball, 14 finishing and same physical stats all the time, im starting to ignore these reports.

Shouldnt scouts have set areas aswell what they tend to look for?

Take Marcel Desailly, if he was a scout wouldnt it be fair to say that he'd be better at finding defenders or defensive players rather than a striker?

This applies to coaches but not scouts. When a Goalkeeper retires and takes up coaching im pretty sure all of them go on to be goalkeeping coaches maybe with the odd execption being a fitness coach or one that has attributes for an ass man aswell might do tactical, but you won't find an ex Goalkeeper coaching shooting.

So should scouts be better at finding a certain type of player maybe depending on their past experience as a player?

Star ratings are a much better indicator than CA imo!

The important thing to realise is that they are just another indicator to a player's ability.

there's also a player's overall, plus those key to his position,

also there's average ratings

goals scored/assists/tackles made etc. depending on position

and of course, CA/PA.

That's a total of 5 indicators to ability that you can already see in-game (off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more), why would you want another in CA/PA?

I did use a scout in FM08 and it ruined my experience, because I treated it like as if this was the defining indicator to a player's ability - it's not. A player with a CA of 10 less can be more effective if he suits your tactics and philosophy better than the player with more CA.

On a side note, my game mucked something up so I downloaded fmrte to try and solve it (which it didn't:( ) but what I did have a newgen in my squad who I'd bought from Middlesbrough at the start of the second season, just after he'd been created, after my scout scouting England came back saying he had the potential to be better than Ochoa. My assistant concurred after I bought him, so now I had FMRTE I had a look at his PA - 199 I bought him solely on the word of a scout and the star rating he gave - turns out I was right to trust it!!

I don't trust it because I currently have a 0.5 star-player doing well as my DR.

Well what are we going to use then? A system which says all variables are equal. There will always be some things better than others in a game like this, therefore some form of a rating system will be imperative in order to judge the differences. How else do you pick a team except by giving a players ratings depending on your personal system?

I never said they shouldnt be used.More that they need to be fixed, and then properly defined. Im sure there are a lot of people who dont realise that the stars systems apply to your clubs specific needs. I dont like that system anyway. Id prefer to have Mr X as a reference point and everyone based around him, regardless of club and needs etc.

The star system should be based on positional rating along with CA and PA imo.

I never said they shouldnt be used.More that they need to be fixed, and then properly defined. Im sure there are a lot of people who dont realise that the stars systems apply to your clubs specific needs. I dont like that system anyway. Id prefer to have Mr X as a reference point and everyone based around him, regardless of club and needs etc.

But the star system currently gives you that, in that when all the other variables a scout would look at then they judge compared to the best player in the position. Anyway basing a report solely around a comparison based on one single player for every one (as you are seeming to suggest) would lead to a BSS team looking at right wingers, and saying "How good is he compared to C. Ronaldo? What he's only a half star, clearly he's not good enough for us."

The fact of the matter is that scouts are an aid, and it's up to you to judge if it is worth what a scout report is worth. That is the main reason why the reports also reveal the stat ratings as well as giving a star rating. It's the game's equivalent of a scout coming up to the manager and saying "Boss, I think you should look at this lad Y, he's what you need at left back. Here's a video I've done of his last five games, and two tickets to the match Friday night."

@ACMilanBRA I suspect you are either looking at the potential star rating where the second player could have a 165PA and the first a 130PA or you are forgetting about the 8 hidden stats in the game (Adaptability, Ambition, Loyalty, Pressure, Professional, Sportmanship, Temprament, Contrversy) which in the right configuration could give you the next Kevin Keegan a very limited player who far surpassed his innate abilities.

@Eugene Tyson. I think all your concerns are addressed already in the scout reports, as the scout will give you his opinion on the players strengths and weaknesses, his personality type and his positions in the report. The only thing not included is a list of the scout's own stats although a click on his name will give you that.

@Eugene Tyson. I think all your concerns are addressed already in the scout reports, as the scout will give you his opinion on the players strengths and weaknesses, his personality type and his positions in the report. The only thing not included is a list of the scout's own stats although a click on his name will give you that.

and TBF you should already know your scouts abilities.

and TBF you should already know your scouts abilities.

I agree....you should already know how good your scouts are. I mean, if you have not gotten rid of them you must think that they are reliable enough to how good a potential target is right now or in the future.

I disagree - because the Star System doesn't reflect how you as a manager can judge players potential.

Fine keep the Star System, but let your ability and your experience (whether you bought players that turned out ace or turned out as flops) be a basis for the Star System.

The issue with this is that your not the one making the reports....that jobs has been left to the scouts and coaches.

Even if you good at picking players that you want to be scouted, that should not have any affect/influence on how the scout/coach chooses to rate a player.

If you wanted something like that then you would need a separate page where you, the manager, could give a star rating for whatever player you are looking at.

I just think the star ratings is a load of nonsense. Sometimes I get told a centre back with 4 heading, 7 tackling and 5 marking would be a superb signing for my blue square south team but in matches they would be terrible. I just look at a players stats if they're good I will sign them if not I won't and I trial players when possible or if I'm not sure.

I just think the star ratings is a load of nonsense. Sometimes I get told a centre back with 4 heading, 7 tackling and 5 marking would be a superb signing for my blue square south team but in matches they would be terrible. I just look at a players stats if they're good I will sign them if not I won't and I trial players when possible or if I'm not sure.

So you expect blue square north scouts are gonna be able to evaluate talent effectively?

If they were good at scouting, he wouldn't be your scout.....he'd be employed by a team in a higher division.

The same can be said if the evaluation was made by your coach; he's not a top quality coach so don't expect top quality reports from him.

The lower you go down in the leagues, the higher the margin of error in their reports and evaluation of players.

Honestly, you don't have to look at the stars. You could just read the reports themselves.

I just think the star ratings is a load of nonsense. Sometimes I get told a centre back with 4 heading, 7 tackling and 5 marking would be a superb signing for my blue square south team but in matches they would be terrible. I just look at a players stats if they're good I will sign them if not I won't and I trial players when possible or if I'm not sure.

The star system is a good idea, but like I said before, currently it is NOT compatible with the ME. That's why sometimes a player that is rated only 1-1.5* creates wonders in your matches. Attribute weightings that are being used in the scout's star calculation should be updated to reflect the importance of specific attributes for different positions on the field.

Right now speed, dribbling, acceleration is extremely important in ME for a winger. So important that a player that has 16+ in those attributes will be very good even if he is horrible in the other areas. Scout star system underestimates/undercalculates the contribution for these attributes, and rates the player as a 1* winger if most of his other attributes are low.

Star system at the time being can give us false evaluations about players. In my experience the more I play FM, the more I realize which attributes are more important for each position, and to what degree. For example 'jumping' is a must for CB in the current ME. Even if a CB has 20 marking, 20 tackling, 20 positioning, etc., if his jumping is 8 he will be a liability for you and he will never get good match ratings, but he will probably still get 3-4* from your scouts, bc they have no idea how important jumping is in the ME.

In other words, attribute weightings in ME don't match with the attribute weightings the scouts star system uses.

Star system is rubbish and it's always been. I have regens that are wonderkids with PA of around 200 and my top scout who has 19 in judging potential and 19 in current ability says that in the future the most he will be is 3 stars... Only thing i ever find remotely useful out of the scout reports if the report says that X player can be "leading (position) in the future". That seems to be the most reliable thing out of the whole scouting system.

Star system is rubbish and it's always been. I have regens that are wonderkids with PA of around 200 and my top scout who has 19 in judging potential and 19 in current ability says that in the future the most he will be is 3 stars... Only thing i ever find remotely useful out of the scout reports if the report says that X player can be "leading (position) in the future". That seems to be the most reliable thing out of the whole scouting system.

So you have a team of stars and complain when your AM rates a wonderkid at the same level :confused:

He is hardly going to be better when the max is 200 is he

No, you misunderstood. IF my current player is let's say 150 CA and i know his PA is 200 and my scout says that in the future the best he'll be is 3 stars, then i see something wrong with that. My scout should tell me that this guy has potential to be 5 stars, if he's a good scout. At least that's the way i see it.

No, you misunderstood. IF my current player is let's say 150 CA and i know his PA is 200 and my scout says that in the future the best he'll be is 3 stars, then i see something wrong with that. My scout should tell me that this guy has potential to be 5 stars, if he's a good scout. At least that's the way i see it.

In theory that is a good idea. In practise it just turns ingame scouting into a hit and miss version of using a external scouting program. It's currently setup in such a way as that is difficult to distinguish a player with 150 PA from one with 200 PA. Both of those PAs are more then good enough to play for a top European team depending on the stat distribution, and the game forces you to make a decision on which player rather then giving the 200 PA player 5 stars and bascially saying this is the player to sign.

There is also the fact that a 14 or 15 year old with less then 60 or 70 CA and 200 PA will rarely get anywhere near 200 CA. Scouting in game could be better but making it too accurate isn't they right way to go, in my opinion.

I don't care for the current system of comparing players to your current squad and assigning stars based on that; I'd much rather the stars (10, if you count the halves) be tied into the PA numbers (-1 through -10) with an error margin of, say, a full star.

For example-

You scout a player with a four star PA rating. In extreme cases, he could be either a 3 star or 5 star player, but it's far more likely that his actual PA would lie in the 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 range.

Agreed with the OT the star system is massively flawed in this game and all those before it. For starters the issue of a player dropping 0.5-1 stars form scouting to signing is just simply infuriating! If my ass man and my scout agree that it's a "quality" player we're signing and the moment he joins my team he's "2nd best AMC in the club" or whatever what's the point in scouting and signing players?

Not to mention some of the time the stars given seem absurd. I signed a 150-something CA regen, with a PA of 165 as a DC with above 16 stats in all of the key areas, 17 for technique, 17 for concentration and great first touch and my ass man rates him as a 1.5 star! WTF?!? I just don't get it. His decision making is average (10) but that's the ONLY thing that's wrong with him! I then Genie Scouted the player to find out what hidden attributes he has and he had an injury proneness of 11, important matches 17 and consistency 16 so hidden attributes were definitely not the case. So then does an average decision making skill outweigh a technically, physically and (mostly) mentally perfect player? I would really like to know the answer to that!

Agreed with the OT the star system is massively flawed in this game and all those before it. For starters the issue of a player dropping 0.5-1 stars form scouting to signing is just simply infuriating! If my ass man and my scout agree that it's a "quality" player we're signing and the moment he joins my team he's "2nd best AMC in the club" or whatever what's the point in scouting and signing players?

Not to mention some of the time the stars given seem absurd. I signed a 150-something CA regen, with a PA of 165 as a DC with above 16 stats in all of the key areas, 17 for technique, 17 for concentration and great first touch and my ass man rates him as a 1.5 star! WTF?!? I just don't get it. His decision making is average (10) but that's the ONLY thing that's wrong with him! I then Genie Scouted the player to find out what hidden attributes he has and he had an injury proneness of 11, important matches 17 and consistency 16 so hidden attributes were definitely not the case. So then does an average decision making skill outweigh a technically, physically and (mostly) mentally perfect player? I would really like to know the answer to that!

So you've an ass man that can't give you a proper scouting report and you think that the whole star system is broken. I generally get consistent reports across the boards from my scouts on a player as regards the stars (some will pick up different strengths and weaknesses), but thats because at the level I'm at I refuse to employ a scout who's below 15/15 unless he's a club legend, and I'm training him up.

The second best AMC in the club thing is a pile of rubbish frankly. If you have Kaka at the club and you go out and scout Gourcuff and then buy him, no matter how good Gourcuff is he's still going to be No.2.

On your defender, how good are his physical stats if his heading pace strength and stamina are down that is going to be a big handicap. Also if he is young he will usually be rated lower in the CA stars than if he was 27.

The stars are a guide to help you sort out the players you are looking at. It is up to you to decide who to buy, who to sell and how good they are. The stars are not there to make your decision for you. If they were I'd have given up long ago.

So you've an ass man that can't give you a proper scouting report and you think that the whole star system is broken. I generally get consistent reports across the boards from my scouts on a player as regards the stars (some will pick up different strengths and weaknesses), but thats because at the level I'm at I refuse to employ a scout who's below 15/15 unless he's a club legend, and I'm training him up.

The second best AMC in the club thing is a pile of rubbish frankly. If you have Kaka at the club and you go out and scout Gourcuff and then buy him, no matter how good Gourcuff is he's still going to be No.2.

On your defender, how good are his physical stats if his heading pace strength and stamina are down that is going to be a big handicap. Also if he is young he will usually be rated lower in the CA stars than if he was 27.

The stars are a guide to help you sort out the players you are looking at. It is up to you to decide who to buy, who to sell and how good they are. The stars are not there to make your decision for you. If they were I'd have given up long ago.

I have a worldclass ass man with 19/18, I also don't hire assistant managers below 15/15. However, what I'm saying is that some of those ratings ARE nonsensical. Of course you as the manager have to take the final decision but what happens when you go on holiday? The ass man picks what he presumes is the best option, ignoring worldclass players based on his assessment of the issue. I personally think the star system should be refined, but I'm also looking at it from the perspective of a newbie. Loads of people that buy this game rely on it as well as the assistant managers assessments of a particular area of your squad so it would be a serious issue if any instances such as the one described by me happen... especially since they happen regularly!

No, you misunderstood. IF my current player is let's say 150 CA and i know his PA is 200 and my scout says that in the future the best he'll be is 3 stars, then i see something wrong with that. My scout should tell me that this guy has potential to be 5 stars, if he's a good scout. At least that's the way i see it.

No, you misunderstand.

The stars compare the player against your current squad.

So if you sign a regen with 200 pa and you already have Messi/Ronaldo/Rooney in your squad at that position then he will get a 3* rating ie he has the potential to be as good as Messi/Ronaldo/Rooney. It can't give a five star rating as that would be saying the player will be miles better than Messi/Ronaldo/Rooney which is impossible as PA has a maximum of 200.

It would be good to be able to ask your scout to go and find a right back or any other position. And then to be able to tell him I don't want to pay any more than £XX.XX and if he's quick its a bonus or something like that.

star system is good to give you a idea about the player sometimes its right but other times its rong but make its easyer and better to scout about, but with old players it will say there poor even tho they will play good

I actually really like the star system, they provide just the right element of surprise (in both directions) for the development of my players. I would absolutely hate to see CA/PA numbers.

i second this notion. its an added element of risk and fun in that theres lots of players rated 2 and a half and some of those will end up as much as 4 stars, where others wont go that high. its fair to say it might not make perfect sense, but when you get used to it its actually alright.