Star Rating System

Just a quick one for you. I know the answer is probably on here already but I'm struggling to find it using my phone at work.

With the star rating system I understand that they are comparative values. But what do they compare with?

Your own team/squad

Your league

Your country

The world you operate in?

Would a three star player in the premiership be a five star player in league 2?

I think everyone must be busy complaining about the game to help!

it's your own team. if you have a team full of 3'stars and buy a 5 starred player who is "better" than 5 stars the rest of the team will get less stars

They are relative to your other players but I think the league you play in also has a small effect.

You'll never see a team full of 5* players.

I think it is a combination of the league you are playing in and the quality of the players currently in your squad (and probably a few other things).

Really? I'd love an SI official answer on this one. I've always assumed they were a rating for the players abilities relative to the league and your own team ratings had no influence on them and vice versa. I.e. a 4.5 star striker was a very good striker in this league, as opposed to he's just better than your strikers.

Hmmmm..... The true answer to this is pretty significant....

I'm pretty sure someone out there on this forum must have a suitable amount of insight into this!!

You can tell that the relative quality of players on your team is involved with a very simple experiment. Hire a 5-star player and watch what happens to the ratings of all your team players. To make the effect really dramatic, fire everyone except about 15 players.

You will get the same result, btw, if you fire all your youth and reserves; the star value of your less-able remaining players goes down.

However, it cannot be completely a "relative to squad mates" thing because as I recall, dafuge's T&M team last season had every player on it with 3 stars or more, and he had no youth or reserves players, so if it was only the team, he would have accomplished the amazing mathematical feat of having everyone be "above average"!

You can tell that the relative quality of players on your team is involved with a very simple experiment. Hire a 5-star player and watch what happens to the ratings of all your team players. To make the effect really dramatic, fire everyone except about 15 players.

You will get the same result, btw, if you fire all your youth and reserves; the star value of your less-able remaining players goes down.

However, it cannot be completely a "relative to squad mates" thing because as I recall, dafuge's T&M team last season had every player on it with 3 stars or more, and he had no youth or reserves players, so if it was only the team, he would have accomplished the amazing mathematical feat of having everyone be "above average"!

If that's true, then it's really a poor system. It would be much better if they could make it relative to the league or just make it absolute. Why can't the scout just give a 1-20 overall rating like all the other attributes?

However, it cannot be completely a "relative to squad mates" thing because as I recall, dafuge's T&M team last season had every player on it with 3 stars or more, and he had no youth or reserves players, so if it was only the team, he would have accomplished the amazing mathematical feat of having everyone be "above average"!

That's why I'm pretty sure it is a combination of the quality of the squad and the league you are playing in. In the very lowest English leagues it is reasonably easy to assemble a squad of players that are too good to play in that league, meaning the star ratings all appear 'above average'.

to throw a spanner in the works...

I currently have a team of dross... hey, they were good but then I signed better players and now the squad is garbage... my 3 star right-back is now a one-star! (and I don't have a better one!)

But even those 5 stars that I signed are now only 4 stars... I don't have a single 5 star

so I'm going to say that it's relative to the best player in your division... if you're in a top league and the player with the highest CA has 200 and all your squad are 170 or less then you aren't going to have any 5 stars... but if the highest CA is 175 then you will...

it would explain why players star ratings alter without us ever doing anything to change it...

(and I could be completely wrong)

It is related to your team's (hidden) reputation.

Categorically.

I'd say the same as the previous poster.

But it would be nice for si to confirm this.

The star rating system is complex. It's based off of your existing squad, what you told your board your expectation's for the year were, your league, your team's reputation within that league, etc.... What you add a new player, they may be a 5 star for you but only a 3 star to another team in the same league. Also, if you add a player that is immensely better, they may create a new team standard, thereby affected your current team players' ratings. So you may add someone who rates at a 5 but not everyone on your team dropped a half star or more. This doesn't mean that your entire team suddenly got worse; it just means you are now judging your team based off of new data.

cerud

cerud, where did you get this info? I'd really like someone from SI to pop in and give us a definitive answer.

cerud, where did you get this info? I'd really like someone from SI to pop in and give us a definitive answer.

Actually, you don't need them to. Simply fire up the game, start a new save with one league only, and then use FMRTE to play with the settings and see what happens. Wouldn't take long to figure out what affects the star ratings.

That's why I'm pretty sure it is a combination of the quality of the squad and the league you are playing in. In the very lowest English leagues it is reasonably easy to assemble a squad of players that are too good to play in that league, meaning the star ratings all appear 'above average'.

Actually, as I was going to sleep last night, it hit me that there is one other possible explanation I'd have to examine: the greyed out players automatically assigned to your youth and reserve teams could be being considered. I'll have to look into this and figure out if that's true...

The greyed players I have don't have any stars, so I'm guessing they don't matter.

Do scout reports automatically adjust their star rating if your team drastically changed? For example, if I signed a superstar GK, any new scout reports for GK will be judged more critically. However, would the existing scout reports be adjusted? Or do I have to rescout everyone again so they can on the same measuring scale?

Again, why does FM use such a convoluted relative scale? I can't think of any benefits for this. All of the other attributes are absolute. An 20 passing is better than 19 passing no matter what league you're in. Just give me the same 1-20 overall rating.

Wait, the stars are dynamic? There's no way.

Well, after some testing with a dummy game and FMRTE, I can say this with confidence:

The club's reputation directly affects the star ratings instantaneously.

Nothing else created an instantaneous affect upon star ratings, not even sacking everyone on the team with less than 2 stars. I even edited in five wonderkid/legends to the team, and no stars for anyone else changed.

However, club reputation can't be the only factor, because even when I made the club reputation max out, the star ratings for players who would never make it in, say, the EPL were still 4 stars +, having only lost a half-star or maybe a full star. Yet, we know that such players, with time as our clubs become better, get rated poorer.

One thing I didn't try was to see what effect the raise in AVERAGE reputation of clubs in the league would have. I did try raising the League's rep, but that didn't seem to matter, even when I made the Welsh Premier League the top League in all of Europe.

I would say the next controlled experiment would be to see what effect raising the reps of the other teams in the league has. I am also predicting that signing a good player has an effect upon club reputation, whereas I know for a fact merely having better players doesn't do anything for the club's rep at all.

Well, after some testing with a dummy game and FMRTE, I can say this with confidence:

The club's reputation directly affects the star ratings instantaneously.

Nothing else created an instantaneous affect upon star ratings, not even sacking everyone on the team with less than 2 stars. I even edited in five wonderkid/legends to the team, and no stars for anyone else changed.

However, club reputation can't be the only factor, because even when I made the club reputation max out, the star ratings for players who would never make it in, say, the EPL were still 4 stars +, having only lost a half-star or maybe a full star. Yet, we know that such players, with time as our clubs become better, get rated poorer.

One thing I didn't try was to see what effect the raise in AVERAGE reputation of clubs in the league would have. I did try raising the League's rep, but that didn't seem to matter, even when I made the Welsh Premier League the top League in all of Europe.

I would say the next controlled experiment would be to see what effect raising the reps of the other teams in the league has. I am also predicting that signing a good player has an effect upon club reputation, whereas I know for a fact merely having better players doesn't do anything for the club's rep at all.

Interesting...

While you're playing in the DB, could you try making one single player in the league a CA 190+ superstar (not in your team) and see if it has an effect on the star rating of your team please? TIA

SiN8 - Unfortuately no...scout reports do not adjust star ratings unless you rescout those players.

cerud

SiN8 - Unfortuately no...scout reports do not adjust star ratings unless you rescout those players.

cerud

Too true. But think of it this way, that gives them something to do.

Lazaru5, mebbe tomorrow. The rest of today is all about bragging about my Prestatyn Town FC save.