The extra decimal place for player ratings - what does it actually achieve?

I've been playing the demo a bit now, and I'm still struggling to enjoy the match-day experience as much as I was before. Partly it's because it's just a demo and I can't get myself in to it like a normal game - partly it's because, I think the match-day interface is not as helpful as it was before (TV-view is the only useful 2D option, but then you lose the ability to click back to player ratings, match stats, formations, without obscuring a bit part of the pitch).

But a big reason, I think, is the player ratings. Previously, I could get a quick, intuitive feel of who was playing well and who wasn't by looking at this screen. Now, with the extra decimal place, I've got to do that extra bit of mental work before I can see what's going on. I've got a postgraduate degree in statistics - I'm not stupid, honest! - but I have to stare at it for quite a while to work out what's happening.

I'm for all extra detail - FM is built on its depth of information - but can we have a re-think about how we present information so that it's actually meaningful and helpful for the user? If you want to include the extra decimal place (and I'm not entirely convinced you need it), then why not have it in the home/away stats and still show the decimal-less numbers in the player rating view? Or better still, give us a display option so we can choose which version we'd like to see.

If nothing else, the decimal place is just a step away from reality. We're all used to see player ratings out of ten in newspapers and web-sites, but when exactly are you going to see player ratings with a decimal place, in real life? You don't, because it's not really a helpful or realistic concept.

The big shame is that it has a knock-on effect for other parts of the game. When I go to my squad list now, instead of seeing a form guide in a helpful 7-7-7-8-8 format, I get a graphical representation which doesn't actually tell me much without having to stare at it for a bit. That's not helpful.

Similarly, when I click on a player's profile, I could previously see that 7-7-7-8-8 format, but now I just get an average. Now 5-10-5-10-8 gives a player the same average as 8-7-8-7-8, but they would indicate very different form. Before I could see that. Now I can't.

Yes, it doesn't help. It also now has "Last 5 games" with an average rating rather than giving the actual ratings of the last 5 games.

I don't mind the new ratings, gives a more precise rating on how the player because there is a difference between a player playing a 6.1 or a player a 6.9!

Gives more accuracy which will help when making tactical decisions.

I 100% agree, although I think it will become easier and better as we get used to it. I too find it hard to tell who is playing as easily as we could before, but at the same time I like the granularity that is there if you need it. It is a fine line between the two I think.

i agree, it's pretty confusing and does not help. Why did they change this fom the previous versions? nobody complained about it, but they decided to change it... i do get confused with the average #..

I'm starting to agree with this as well. In the beginning I liked the new concept, but as the OP said it rather confuses things on a matchday. And the graphical representation of the last 5 games is well, not good at all. It's just blocks in a different shade of green so it's quite hard to make anything out of it whereas it was really simple and logical with the old 7-7-7-8-8 format.

I think it's great and gives me a much more realistic picture of how a player performed. And since when did a manager base his players rating on a newspaper?

I've been playing the demo a bit now, and I'm still struggling to enjoy the match-day experience as much as I was before. Partly it's because it's just a demo and I can't get myself in to it like a normal game - partly it's because, I think the match-day interface is not as helpful as it was before (TV-view is the only useful 2D option, but then you lose the ability to click back to player ratings, match stats, formations, without obscuring a bit part of the pitch).

But a big reason, I think, is the player ratings. Previously, I could get a quick, intuitive feel of who was playing well and who wasn't by looking at this screen. Now, with the extra decimal place, I've got to do that extra bit of mental work before I can see what's going on. I've got a postgraduate degree in statistics - I'm not stupid, honest! - but I have to stare at it for quite a while to work out what's happening.

I'm for all extra detail - FM is built on its depth of information - but can we have a re-think about how we present information so that it's actually meaningful and helpful for the user? If you want to include the extra decimal place (and I'm not entirely convinced you need it), then why not have it in the home/away stats and still show the decimal-less numbers in the player rating view? Or better still, give us a display option so we can choose which version we'd like to see.

If nothing else, the decimal place is just a step away from reality. We're all used to see player ratings out of ten in newspapers and web-sites, but when exactly are you going to see player ratings with a decimal place, in real life? You don't, because it's not really a helpful or realistic concept.

The big shame is that it has a knock-on effect for other parts of the game. When I go to my squad list now, instead of seeing a form guide in a helpful 7-7-7-8-8 format, I get a graphical representation which doesn't actually tell me much without having to stare at it for a bit. That's not helpful.

Similarly, when I click on a player's profile, I could previously see that 7-7-7-8-8 format, but now I just get an average. Now 5-10-5-10-8 gives a player the same average as 8-7-8-7-8, but they would indicate very different form. Before I could see that. Now I can't.

I always use split view with the 2D or 3D on the right and can flick between stats on the left.

I don't see how the decimals complicate things...? Sure it's not CM 01/02 anymore, but I think it does help since most players will get 6, 7 or 8 and this just helps make that range that bit more accurate. I agree though that an option to have the decimals rounded up/down would be nice even if I wouldn't use it.

I find the average rating for the last 5 games helps rather than have 5 numbers there, gives an instant idea of who's playing well. 5 decimal numbers wouldn't fit there anyway.

I think it's great and gives me a much more realistic picture of how a player performed. And since when did a manager base his players rating on a newspaper?

and since when did a manager base his players rating on green boxes? the point is that the old system was much clearer to see and understand... this does not need to be complicated.. the green boxes are not as clear since i`m not sure if this shade of green shows 5 or 7?

...the green boxes are not as clear since i`m not sure if this shade of green shows 5 or 7?

Agreed. Hard to distinguish between the subtle shades and pixel heights of the boxes.

i like the decimals places as its more accurate when thinking about substituting a player. im more likely to sub a player if hes a low 6.1 compared to a 6.9 which could go up.

however the green box is annoying. maybe different colours would help but i prefer the last 5 games ratings (but i like the way they dont count if they have played a short amount of time)

perhaps in a match situation would could see the decimals (or at least just use .5s to get a bit more accuracy) then they could be rounded up in the squad screen then you could see the decimals again on the player screen or last match screen. i think in the next FM or patch SI could get the balance right

i liked the old way better, to be able to see ratings of every game, just a thought for SI next time

I don't think it needs the decimal numbers. 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5 could be useful as that is a clear difference, but it seems pointless having all of them.

i like the decimals places as its more accurate when thinking about substituting a player. im more likely to sub a player if hes a low 6.1 compared to a 6.9 which could go up.

however the green box is annoying. maybe different colours would help but i prefer the last 5 games ratings (but i like the way they dont count if they have played a short amount of time)

perhaps in a match situation would could see the decimals (or at least just use .5s to get a bit more accuracy) then they could be rounded up in the squad screen then you could see the decimals again on the player screen or last match screen. i think in the next FM or patch SI could get the balance right

but its basically a 6 and a 7 it would just be clearer i think

It's a good addition, it provides better clarity between performances. Previously if a player got 7.4 and 6.5 they would both be shown as having a rating of 7, which is silly

The thing is, the player ratings should just be a summary, not a detailed analysis of how well a player is doing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine the rating is just derived from a formula involving information which is all available on the home/away stats section, anyway. I mean, why not have 2 or 3 decimal places if we really want more information?

I'm not opposed to them including that information somewhere, but I think you should keep the player ratings to whole numbers. A rating of 6, a 7, an 8, a 9 - they're all concepts I can immediately understand - I can't really look at a 6.3 or a 7.4 rating and do the same. Previously, we had a quick summary in the player ratings section, then if we wanted to know a bit more, we could look at the stats and get a better picture. Now we don't really have that option.

My point about 'last 5 games' summary is that we've actually lost information here. An average is not as useful as the actual numbers, because like I say, a 5-5-10-10-8 is very different form to a 7-8-7-8-8.

Yes, it doesn't help. It also now has "Last 5 games" with an average rating rather than giving the actual ratings of the last 5 games.

Both of these are bad additions

I've been playing the demo a bit now, and I'm still struggling to enjoy the match-day experience as much as I was before. Partly it's because it's just a demo and I can't get myself in to it like a normal game - partly it's because, I think the match-day interface is not as helpful as it was before (TV-view is the only useful 2D option, but then you lose the ability to click back to player ratings, match stats, formations, without obscuring a bit part of the pitch).

But a big reason, I think, is the player ratings. Previously, I could get a quick, intuitive feel of who was playing well and who wasn't by looking at this screen. Now, with the extra decimal place, I've got to do that extra bit of mental work before I can see what's going on. I've got a postgraduate degree in statistics - I'm not stupid, honest! - but I have to stare at it for quite a while to work out what's happening.

I'm for all extra detail - FM is built on its depth of information - but can we have a re-think about how we present information so that it's actually meaningful and helpful for the user? If you want to include the extra decimal place (and I'm not entirely convinced you need it), then why not have it in the home/away stats and still show the decimal-less numbers in the player rating view? Or better still, give us a display option so we can choose which version we'd like to see.

If nothing else, the decimal place is just a step away from reality. We're all used to see player ratings out of ten in newspapers and web-sites, but when exactly are you going to see player ratings with a decimal place, in real life? You don't, because it's not really a helpful or realistic concept.

The big shame is that it has a knock-on effect for other parts of the game. When I go to my squad list now, instead of seeing a form guide in a helpful 7-7-7-8-8 format, I get a graphical representation which doesn't actually tell me much without having to stare at it for a bit. That's not helpful.

Similarly, when I click on a player's profile, I could previously see that 7-7-7-8-8 format, but now I just get an average. Now 5-10-5-10-8 gives a player the same average as 8-7-8-7-8, but they would indicate very different form. Before I could see that. Now I can't.

Pretty much spot on. I find myself a little tangled by the decimal rating system as well. I preferred the system in 08 but I think we'll get used to it.

I don't like it.

Not that it's a bad idea, I think it's great.

But now my players never get 8's:(

it's the difference between 1-10 and 1-100. its 10 times more accurate. 6 is pretty frickin' vague if you ask me. 6.1 is closer to five and 6.9 is closer to seven.

if its the decimal points that bather you then just try to think of it as a full number. i.e. 6.7 = 67 out of 100. not sure how this could be bad for people.

the extra decimal place is just marketing, anything to bump up the "feature" count, no matter how trivial.

would we of missed this if it wasn't implemented? hell no.

It's a good addition, it provides better clarity between performances. Previously if a player got 7.4 and 6.5 they would both be shown as having a rating of 7, which is silly

I don't think it does. If anything, I believe the motivation comments do a better job. It is far more intuitive than decimal points, as is the Assman report.

Imagine two 6's but one is playing with confidence the other is looking complacent, it's much quicker to determine which performance is likely to grow.

the extra decimal place is just marketing, anything to bump up the "feature" count, no matter how trivial.

Lol, some of the 'fluff' is nice, some isn't.

It does nothing but i like it!

It's not the decimal points I mind (although I've had a guy score a hat-trick and only get 8.2) but those stupid green blocks.

Hey SI, would you mind asking us what we think in future when you're still mulling this stuff over? Or perhaps change the stuff we all hate and don't change the stuff nobody has ever mentioned, ever.

If you don't like it then round it up/down to a whole number yourself, then you are basically getting the same information as before

I actually prefer the decimal rating, for me a 5,6 is quite different than a 6,4, specially when you are comparing averages between players. Imagine a situation like this:

Player A:

5,6 - 7,0 - 7,0 - Average = 6,5

Player B:

6,4 - 7,0 - 7,0 - Average = 6,8

In the old system, both would be 6 - 6 - 7, and both would average at 6,7 and would appear exactly equal.

For me it's better this way, and I think it's a matter time to get used to it .. Although having the option to choose wouldn't hurt either.

i like the decimals places as its more accurate when thinking about substituting a player. im more likely to sub a player if hes a low 6.1 compared to a 6.9 which could go up.

If there was no decimal point system then the performances would be rounded up, surely? If so then it kind of negates this kind argument.

I don't like the decimal points, I think the only real difference it has made to the game has been a poorer representation of recent form & a more needlessly confusing way of judging players. I'd also like to see the option to choose between this new system or the old way. As far as the decimals making it easier for you to judge between two players on the same kind of form... a few decimal places isn't that much, surely a manager would look to the player who is fittest, has more experience or is on better wages rather than this?

1 possible on the last 5 match indicator is to have graduated colour change based on ratings

0-4.4 reds

4.5-5.9 oranges

6.0-7.9 yellows

8.0+ greens

(numbers arent absolute, just examples for reference)

that would at least give us a clearer visual quick-glance instead on 5 green blocks

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=56749

already posted saying i would like a way to change it, maybe in the full game you can edit a file or something?

i like the new feature

they are a nice addtion

If you don't like it then round it up/down to a whole number yourself, then you are basically getting the same information as before

But you can't round up a green block can you. I don't know. I never had a problem with the system before. I don't think I've seen anybody complaining about it either. An option to set it back the way it was before would be appreciated.

the extra decimal place is just marketing, anything to bump up the "feature" count, no matter how trivial.

would we of missed this if it wasn't implemented? hell no.

It was actually requested by a lot of people, mostly from the tactics driven fraternity iirc.

They didn't include this in the feature list which negates yet another of your increasingly puerile criticisms, you sure you don't work for BGS?

Personally I don't like it much, but that's another story.

I wasnt keen on the extra decimal place at first but its actually very helpful now ive gotten used to it.

Personally, where's before I mightof left a 6 rated player on the pitch at half time, if now I see 5.6, then i'm gonna think twice about it. And you kind of appriciate a player getting 8.0+ in a game now, where's before that was almost the norm. for a good win.

The form thing though I havent really got used to, it might be my screen (and my eyes!) but its hard to distinguish between all these greenish blocks! The graphical way of presenting it itsnt the problem, its just the blocks arn't different enough in height and colour to see what form they represent.

At first i had issues with this, it was difficult for me to tell how bad a player was playing and how to give my team talks during half time, as i always give my individual team talks via player ratings..

But i can see why it was added in and it kinda makes sense to me now and does actualy give a better understanding on how your players are performing.

For people who don't understand, just round up or down to the nearest whole number and pretend it doesnt exist.

I personally prefer it, a 7.6 average over 5 games tells me how the player is playing lately. A 7-8-7-8-5 tells me yeah he had a bad game last time, but im not going to leave him out and say he's not in form, I will take the average of the last 5 which is now done for me

Personally I don't like it much, but that's another story.

Go on, Kriss, pour your heart out...

Here's a suggestion: Instead of decimals, use colours on the numbers. This will make the last 5 games more readable too.

For instance, assuming we're rounding upward:

6,5-6,7 = red 7 (or yellow, if red is too "negative looking")

6,8-7,1 = yellow 7 (or grey, whatever)

7,2-7,4 = green 7

I think I prefer the old rating system. I really can’t see the need for a 100 point scale to rate a player’s performance. Seems unnecessarily complicated.

I have to say I dont like the decimals, it over complicates an area and makes it look quite messy. The previous ratings were fine, its been messed with.

i like them. i think that the ratyings are alot more real this time. as in if your striker scores one but has a turd game otherwise then his ratin stays quite low. also theyve got the ratings for the holding midfielder alot better.

It produces more accurate average ratings over a period of time - that is the main thing for me.

i don't mind the decimals, but wouldn't care if they weren't put in. my problem is the last point the OP makes, in fm08, if my striker got 10-10-10-6-6, i'd drop him, his form's dropped off. in fm09, he'll be on 8.4, which is pretty good, but shows no actual indicator to his recent form, as if he's a rotation player his earliest counted game could've been a month ago.

SI: if it aint broke (and a few things are, but an adequate scoring system isn't one of them!), don't fix it

i agree, it's pretty confusing and does not help. Why did they change this fom the previous versions? nobody complained about it, but they decided to change it... i do get confused with the average #..

Plenty of people requested this change. Just as plenty of people requested 3d. Sweeping statements such as 'nobody complained about it' are simply not true.

The thing is, the player ratings should just be a summary, not a detailed analysis of how well a player is doing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine the rating is just derived from a formula involving information which is all available on the home/away stats section, anyway. I mean, why not have 2 or 3 decimal places if we really want more information?

I'm not opposed to them including that information somewhere, but I think you should keep the player ratings to whole numbers. A rating of 6, a 7, an 8, a 9 - they're all concepts I can immediately understand - I can't really look at a 6.3 or a 7.4 rating and do the same. Previously, we had a quick summary in the player ratings section, then if we wanted to know a bit more, we could look at the stats and get a better picture. Now we don't really have that option.

My point about 'last 5 games' summary is that we've actually lost information here. An average is not as useful as the actual numbers, because like I say, a 5-5-10-10-8 is very different form to a 7-8-7-8-8.

But you can still go into the player's profile and look at the actual game by game ratings, I know it takes more time but you can still get accurate representations of form. And the average graphs are a nice touch and in my opinion quite easy to use.

I just loaded up the demo again, and by floating your mouse over the little green bars, it comes up with a tool tip pretty quickly showing the actual match rating. Problem solved.

Statistically, since the match ratings were on whole-number scales before, the second decimal place of the average ratings was statistically absolutely useless. Now at least that second decimal place on the average ratings means something. In versions gone before, someone could get let's say 6.2, 7.2 and 6.9 and it would be rounded to 6,7,7 giving a rating of 6.67 when it actually should have been 6.77. That is a whole 0.1 off. How useful was that second decimal place then (and note that I didn't use an example like 6.4, 6.4, 6.4 or something, I used random numbers)? Nobody complained about a meaningless extra decimal place then so why complain now about a meaningful extra decimal place?

The green block display thing is absolutely useless though. Color-coding with a wider spectrum of colors like Saevel suggested above would make it much more useful.

Even though the decimals don't appear on your TV at home when you watch games, a manager should have more information than the audience do. The decimals help you work out which players did just that much better than the other ones. Adding a decimal to the ratings does the same as adding a decimal place does in any calculation, it makes it better.

Oh, the green blocks are useful, but I would prefer them to be a choice between the rating chart or the bars, as both of them together look restricted and cluttered.

how hard would it be now to get a 10, even with 3 goals in a game and came back 9.2

I quite like the green boxes - I can actually get a better feel for form than I could looking at rows of 7-7-7-8-7. My only real complaint is that it needs to show that last rating.

The decimal point is actually realy helpful when it comes to decisions on substitutions. Instead of a player sitting on 6 for the whole match I can see some go backwards into the 5s and some progress towards 6.4 then 6.5 (which would be a 7 in old money). In one case I would make a substition based on performance in the other I would wait and see and only make the sub if there was a tactical reason to do so.

At the moment I have two players in my team who would both be getting sixes previously. One is on the brink of being dropped while the other I know just needs that extra bit of confidence and luck to be getting good ratings. It makes so much difference to how I manage my squad and I really wonder how I ever did without this system.

As for this being a feature not requested - I'm all for SI listening to the fans, but do you seriously think the game would progress if they didn't come up with some of their own ideas. The game always rated the players like this, it's just never shown us before.

Anything new like this takes time to get used to and I'm sure once people have played a couple of seasons it will feel more natural.

I don't like this either. It makes things look more messy and they coulda just used the 1-10 more. In the previous games if a player got a 2 or 3 you would be outraged with him. I'd rather see they used that range much more instead of the new system.

I found from testing it when it was first introduced in FML that you go "Man, thats really annoying and awful" for a couple of days.

Then as you get used to it, you tend to notice just how useful it is. When you look at it and you see players playing a 6.2 you know they're playing average. However seeing them play a 6.7 you'd think they're having an ok game.

It really does help when looking at players and noticing just how well they're playing. Trust me.