FM09 - please spread the ratings more :!

I absolutely love the 3d-contribution.

But looking at the screenshots make me worry. Back in the CM-days, the ratings were perfectly spread, but eversince the 2dengine, the ratings-range have been so much more narrow.

I miss back when getting the score 10 didnt require about 4 goals (making it almost impossible for other than attackers to gain)

Take a look at this screen:

http://fmfreaks.dk/data/billeder/fm09/1721.jpg

Havin played almost an entire match and only 0.5 rating-points between all 11 players. COME ON. That is just so far from being realistic and it takes away the "personality" from the players when they hardly are able to differ from the rest of the squad.

Hopefully you will look into this issue before the release.

I absolutely love the 3d-contribution.

But looking at the screenshots make me worry. Back in the CM-days, the ratings were perfectly spread, but eversince the 2dengine, the ratings-range have been so much more narrow.

I miss back when getting the score 10 didnt require about 4 goals (making it almost impossible for other than attackers to gain)

Take a look at this screen:

http://fmfreaks.dk/data/billeder/fm09/1721.jpg

Havin played almost an entire match and only 0.5 rating-points between all 11 players. COME ON. That is just so far from being realistic and it takes away the "personality" from the players when they hardly are able to differ from the rest of the squad.

Hopefully you will look into this issue before the release.

Only 25 mins has been played actually.

Previously all the players there would've had a 6 or a 7. The new rating system is also in FML, and is much better to be honest.

Previously all the players there would've had a 6 or a 7. The new rating system is also in FML, and is much better to be honest.

Better how ? Could you elaborate, for those of us who have not played FML.

Cheers mate

Almost the whole match?

Yes, all 25 minutes of it!

Only 25 mins has been played, what are you on about? FML has this, i liked it.

Better how ? Could you elaborate, for those of us who have not played FML.

Cheers mate

Well, i dunno about the other guy, but i felt that FMLs ratings were far more accurate. It was rare for a 10 rating as far as i recall.

Well, i dunno about the other guy, but i felt that FMLs ratings were far more accurate. It was rare for a 10 rating as far as i recall.

So a better spread then ? Ie 5's to 8's for example in the same team ?

Yeah, Sorry. I thought 80 minutes were played.

At 25 minutes, ratings of course will be somewhat narrow.

After 90 minutes of play, I certainly hope it will be more spread than in 07.

If you win 1-0 in 07/08, all players get a 7-rating in most cases. A 0-0 draw will probably see 6 at all players. Thats not good enough. Footballratings is far more spread irl. Some have a good match, others below par. That I dont think the FMseries have manage to show via ratings.

If you win 1-0 in 07/08, all players get a 7-rating in most cases. A 0-0 draw will probably see 6 at all players. Thats not good enough. Footballratings is far more spread irl. Some have a good match, others below par. That I dont think the FMseries have manage to show via ratings.

7 and 6 are basically the same IMO, and average for a player. Anything lower is disappointing and anything higher is excellent, if we started taking 8 as an average it's too far away from the lower numbers and far too close to the high numbers.

They're done in "tenths", so a 6.5 and a 7.4 are both a "7", but clearly very different. Hope that clears some things up.

The new rating system is great... it's far more realistic than the current rating system...

I think splitting it into tenths is good, but I don't see how it makes it more realistic. If it was to be realistic there wouldn't be numbers it would just be good, ok, poor, diabolical lol, and if you take the numbers as realistic I don't see many papers etc using tenths.

It's not about realism though, is it, it's about judging how well your players have played? Or would you prefer this was hidden and you had to deduce it yourself from pass completion, tackles and headers?

Perhaps by "realistic", he meant "nuanced" or "informative"?

Millie, considering your previous post I fail to see how it makes us more aware of how a player has been playing.

They're done in "tenths", so a 6.5 and a 7.4 are both a "7",

If that's the case, breaking it down into tenths is totally pointless and they may as well be given a 7, it doesn't serve to enhace realism or information provided if we take that quote as fact.

The new rating system is great... it's far more realistic than the current rating system...

Thats great fella, but could you elucidate please ? ie - why is it great ? why do you feel it is more realistic ?

player properties are in the scale of 0-20, this is to spread much better i guess. why not same for the match ratings too?

player properties are in the scale of 0-20, this is to spread much better i guess. why not same for the match ratings too?

Because now you've got 1-100 effectively. Far better.

Millie, considering your previous post I fail to see how it makes us more aware of how a player has been playing.

If that's the case, breaking it down into tenths is totally pointless and they may as well be given a 7, it doesn't serve to enhace realism or information provided if we take that quote as fact.

You're misunderstanding me. In terms of the "form" guide that you see next to a player in the squad screen, a 6.5 and a 7.4 will come up as a "7". But that's not to say that someone with 6.5 has played as well as a 7.4.

How does this not give you more information? It shows that one player has performed quite a lot better than another. As has already been said, most players play in the 5-8 band, with the vast majority of those being 6s or 7s. By giving you more feedback about how well a player is performing (and also you can see a player improving and declining through a game) you can more easily judge who to bring off, who is in better form and who is working the hardest.

In the old system you only got the base number, had had no idea who was playing better. Half a point is quite a difference, and it's one I'm glad I know.

If the difference between x.5 x+1.4 doesn't give you any extra information, you're far more intuitive when watching the ME than I am.

This is a very nice addition that should have been implemented long time ago...

You will have a better knowledge of the players on the pitch than before..

There is a BIG difference when you see a player having 6.1 rating and the other one 6.9 than seeing 6 for both like it used to be...

Thats great fella, but could you elucidate please ? ie - why is it great ? why do you feel it is more realistic ?

Well players are given votes constantly irl... Look at the Serie A in Italy for example... After every game players are given ratings (by media) according to the performance. Although the vote is divided into 1/2 only, ie 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, etc up till 10... However unless the player in particular does not score 4 goals in one game (which rarely happens irl) the player is not given a vote more then 8 - 8.5 which imo is very realistic (no player deserves a 10 unless he was a god in a particular match). Now SI implemented the ratings in tenths so players can get 6.4, 7.3, etc, which is more advantageous than the current system because we can see more how a player performs... Right now consider 2 players that got a 7... one of them was 6.6 which was rounded to 7 and the other got 7.3 which was rounded to 7 as well... Right now there isn't any difference and you couldn't tell which player of those 7's played the best. If they implement the new ratings than you can judge a player better if he is performing and how he is performing. Besides I think that players should not have a 10 easily cause you never see that irl and that's the point of FM... realism (as much as possible anyway). So yeah in the long run I think the rating system will help us more than the current one and it will be far more realistic when comparing it to real life ratings.

Interestingly, if you ever read The Times, I find you have to add one to each of their player ratings in order to get what you would see in FM.