Star ratings and "endgame", something isn't working right now.

Lemme get this out of the way: I get that star ratings are based off of your current squad and club stature, I wish they weren't, but I know they are.

I'm currently 20 years into the future with this save, in the year 2035. Apparently in the year 2035 something's gone horribly wrong because there are no great footballers anymore. Why would I say that? Lemme tell you:

When you hover over a star rating, it tell you what the rating means; A 3 star player is rated "Good" for the senior team, a two star player is rated "Useful" and so on. In the year 2035 there are no 5 star players in the world anymore and even the best players money can buy often have a "Useful" or "Good" rating AND WORSE... We're talking 50 million euros+ for players rated "Fairly good" by 20/20 scouts. My club is currently 8th in Europe club rankings and my highest reach was a championship club semi-final in 2034, yet my team's highest rating is a single unheard of 4.5 stars player that everyone and their mother wants to buy. The rest of the team is anywhere from youth star ratings to 4 senior stars. The best goalkeepers in the world are currently rated 1.5-3 stars AT THEIR PEAK.

My normal routine would be to find the guys with a 2-2.5 star potential and get rid of them for players with higher potential, except that better players don't exist. I have 15 "20 PA" scouts, they're scouting everywhere and better players simply don't exist with the ONLY exception being the old "hand made, non-regen" players that haven't retired yet. There are NO as good or better new regens IN THE WORLD. ANYWHERE. I have 30+ year olds that I simply cannot find a replacement for because ALL THE new REGENS ARE TERRIBLE compared to them. Not just for my team, for all the teams. When I scout the other 9 clubs in the top 10 of europe, they're filled with poorly rated players. Players worth millions upon millions still. We have star players for some of those teams that my own scouts tell me are "not worthwhile signings". One of my best central defenders ever fell to a 1.5 rating and my assistant advised me to get rid of him even if he still had better stats than pretty much everyone else.

I have told scouts to only show me 4+ stars PA players and they don't find anyone. If they rarely find one, I will scout them to 100% and find that it's always a 2-3 star player in reality.

"So why not just give a toss about star ratings?" you ask. Because the game cares. The game will advise you to do this and that based on star ratings. If I hire some poorly rated player with decent stats the game will frequently remind me that he is terrible and should be scrapped. (and most of the time he is). It will also auto pick players based on star ratings, it does a lot of stuff based on those ratings so it's not an option to just ignore them.

Overall the game is doing a very poor job at regenerating players in the long game and the star ratings are infuriating to deal with. Having a team filled with a mix of 1-4.5 rated players is INFURIATING because everything tells you to do something about those low rated ones. Well.. you can't. The game doesn't care that those 15 players with ratings from 1-4.5 are amongst the best 50 players in the game, it's still handing out 1-2 star ratings for ***** and giggles. The best defender in the database should be 5 stars. REGARDLESS. He shouldn't be 3 stars because it's "theoretically possible" to have a better defender if he only existed in the database. That's BS. He is the best defender in this save, in this version of the game. He should be rated as such.

Furthermore, when you scout a player with 2 different 20PA scouts to 100% to have a 4.5 PA rating and you then buy him to see his 2.5 PA rating that's just BS. That's a game WANTING to screw you over. Why even bother scouting him?

My solution is this:

A MUCH BETTER star rating system that has the ratings set in stone but with a tiered system like the current youth ratings. You'd have youth rating, "silver" ratings, "gold" rating and "platinum" ratings and it would be all about those 3+ platinum star players, the best in the world. The ratings would not be relative to status but instead ONLY relative to all other known players in your current game. Right now it's disheartening to see your favorite players dropping to terrible ratings as your club goes up in stature. If it was fixed you'd know by looking at your opponents that your players needed upgrading. (as in you were fielding mostly silver players vs. their mostly gold players)

Make the regen system consistently regenerate players equally as good as "planted players" from the start, even 20 years into the future.

How many leagues are you running and what is the size of the database?

So basically, you want to be able to see an approx. rating of every players CA. CA is something that we should not know anything about. Your scouts are comparing the players you scout against the players currently in your team, which I would say is quite normal and the way it is done in real life.

Also, the star ratings are a guide, not the be-all and end-all of how good a player is. Attributes, stats, form, the tactics and roles you use should all come in to play when buying a player, not just a generic, 'oh these players are 5 stars, I must have them whether they fit into my team or not'.

My solution is this:

A MUCH BETTER star rating system that has the ratings set in stone but with a tiered system like the current youth ratings. You'd have youth rating, "silver" ratings, "gold" rating and "platinum" ratings and it would be all about those 3+ platinum star players, the best in the world. The ratings would not be relative to status but instead ONLY relative to all other known players in your current game. Right now it's disheartening to see your favorite players dropping to terrible ratings as your club goes up in stature. If it was fixed you'd know by looking at your opponents that your players needed upgrading. (as in you were fielding mostly silver players vs. their mostly gold players)

Make the regen system consistently regenerate players equally as good as "planted players" from the start, even 20 years into the future.

So completely taking any kind of skill or risk out of the equation, and introducing a FIFA style number which tells you unequivocally how good a player is?

Nah, you're alright.

Star ratings are relative to the players in your team and your reputation. In my Man Utd team I have players my coaches tell me "would be a star player for any Premier League side" who have 2.5 or 3 stars. It is just an at-a-glance guide to your scout's opinions of players.

If you want to know about a player, learn to read the stats. I do not care what star rating a player has if he has the stats I need him to have to play in a particular position. I had a 1.5 star right back playing 20 games for my premier league winning side last season because he was a CWB with crossing 19. He was not a great player, but he got into the right position and his crosses created chances and goals. I would play him over my 4 star first choiuce RB if I thought I could exploit the opposition with crossing.

Furthermore, when you scout a player with 2 different 20PA scouts to 100% to have a 4.5 PA rating and you then buy him to see his 2.5 PA rating that's just BS. That's a game WANTING to screw you over. Why even bother scouting him?

The rating a scout gives a player - at least on the search screen - is not how good he is currently but how much he thinks you should sign the player. So the player may be not great right now, but with tonnes of potential to improve in the future. I think the problem you have is that you are paying too much attention to star ratings. I have never and will never sign a player - or play a player - on his star rating alone.

How many leagues are you running and what is the size of the database?

http://i.imgur.com/scokc1f.png

Database is large.

I added 50 thousand more players/leagues(around 100k players) but the game has a bug with that so it hard crashed and I had to go with what I started with.

The rating a scout gives a player - at least on the search screen - is not how good he is currently but how much he thinks you should sign the player. So the player may be not great right now, but with tonnes of potential to improve in the future. I think the problem you have is that you are paying too much attention to star ratings. I have never and will never sign a player - or play a player - on his star rating alone.

Neither have I, and in this new version I pay the most attention to stuff like injury proneness, selfishness, personality and so forth.

But please read the post again, I took preparations for all the "just ignore star ratings" answers I knew I would get.

So completely taking any kind of skill or risk out of the equation, and introducing a FIFA style number which tells you unequivocally how good a player is?

Nah, you're alright.

Nope, but thanks for your knee jerk input.

It would still come down to scouting abilities and MOST IMPORTANTLY; your KNOWN group of players. With this you could think you had the best complete forward in the world (again according to your scouts) until you found some guy in Haiti or something.

Nope, but thanks for your knee jerk input.

It would still come down to scouting abilities and MOST IMPORTANTLY; your KNOWN group of players. With this you could think you had the best complete forward in the world (again according to your scouts) until you found some guy in Haiti or something.

But you're still taking out a massive chunk of it by saying that if a player is the best defender in the database, you want to be told of that through a 5* rating. You now don't need to take any risks, or use any skill, and just sort by star rating and be assured that you now have a star on your hands.

Or you could act like a normal manager, take the advice of your staff or actually look at the player yourself, or even just make a wild leap of faith and see how the player is.

Never mind the fact that in either the current or your proposed system, players who are "worse" than others can end up being your most important player.

http://i.imgur.com/scokc1f.png

Database is large.

I added 50 thousand more players/leagues(around 100k players) but the game has a bug with that so it hard crashed and I had to go with what I started with.

Ok - so you have 20 leagues - and that means roughly 400 clubs, given a Senior team, U19 and maybe a C team... 1200 teams

You have 50k players in your game - and you have 1200 teams...

Seems like there are more players than teams.

Considering each team might have a filling of an average 30 players per team, youth, senior perhaps a C squad.

Would give 36,000 players available to fill all teams.

Leaving you with 14,000 players without a club.

Or if it was the 100k database there'd be more players unemployed.

I seriously feel your choice of 20 leagues is affecting this.

Plus you had a hard crash so it's hard to know if the game is broken in some other way.

The rating a scout gives a player - at least on the search screen - is not how good he is currently but how much he thinks you should sign the player.

PA ratings and recommendation ratings are EXACTLY the same. Try firing up your squad and add recommendations to your list. Exactly the same.

Ok - so you have 20 leagues - and that means roughly 400 clubs, given a Senior team, U19 and maybe a C team... 1200 teams

You have 50k players in your game - and you have 1200 teams...

Seems like there are more players than teams.

Considering each team might have a filling of an average 30 players per team, youth, senior perhaps a C squad.

Would give 36,000 players available to fill all teams.

Leaving you with 14,000 players without a club.

Or if it was the 100k database there'd be more players unemployed.

I seriously feel your choice of 20 leagues is affecting this.

Plus you had a hard crash so it's hard to know if the game is broken in some other way.

My thread is in the bug section, it was confirmed that the game has a bug even when my save was loaded by SI themselves. It's not my computer, my windows or anything like that.

With that out of the way, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I have a lot of really terrible unemployed players, sure. So?

Clue: Random Numbers is stupid.

It's the basic rule of tossing a coin 10 times vs tossing a coin 1000 times. With only 10 tosses you have a fairly high chance of all tosses becoming heads, unfortunately computer programmers don't understand that just because you use a random number generator to create ONE toss, it's not the same as having X% chance.

If you want x% chance of crosses resulting in goals, you need to design ahead of time, how many tosses you do, or you need to code it so the code adjust for bad rolls or good rolls.

In the Ops case the code rolls for each player and keep rolling badly, resulting in horrible regen players, because the code never check that x% is good players overall.

But you're still taking out a massive chunk of it by saying that if a player is the best defender in the database, you want to be told of that through a 5* rating. You now don't need to take any risks, or use any skill, and just sort by star rating and be assured that you now have a star on your hands.

Or you could act like a normal manager, take the advice of your staff or actually look at the player yourself, or even just make a wild leap of faith and see how the player is.

Never mind the fact that in either the current or your proposed system, players who are "worse" than others can end up being your most important player.

Why all these wild unfounded assumptions? I don't want an "easier" system. I want a working one. It makes no sense to have the 50 best teams in the game sport poorly rated players across the board. Not in the game, not in the real world.

I DO look a the whole picture. I don't want a highly rated attacker with poor bravery for instance. Or terrible workrate. Or high injury proneness, selfishness and all that stuff.

I have played poorly rated players many times, you know what I found? Highly rated players are better. Full stop. Sure, gimme some anecdote from FM 2011, but right now? Higher rated players are better. They perform better in the match engine.

And you're asking me to take the advice of my assistants when they're telling me to sack one of the best defenders in the game because they arbitrarily dropped his rating?

Why all these wild unfounded assumptions? I don't want an "easier" system. I want a working one. It makes no sense to have the 50 best teams in the game sport poorly rated players across the board. Not in the game, not in the real world.

I DO look a the whole picture. I don't want a highly rated attacker with poor bravery for instance. Or terrible workrate. Or high injury proneness, selfishness and all that stuff.

I have played poorly rated players many times, you know what I found? Highly rated players are better. Full stop. Sure, gimme some anecdote from FM 2011, but right now? Higher rated players are better. They perform better in the match engine.

And you're asking me to take the advice of my assistants when they're telling me to sack one of the best defenders in the game because they arbitrarily dropped his rating?

You're just ignoring what everyone is saying. Just because your scouts say that everyone is only a 4 star or below player doesn't mean there aren't any world class players. You're still basing your whole opinion of these players based of their star rating, which isn't how it's supposed to work.

Do you know what I've found? And what almost every other user playing FM15 has found? There are plenty of times where a player with lower star rating performs much better. On my save on FM15 I had a 4.5 star right back and a 2 star right back. Started off with the 4.5 star as first choice and couldn't even break a 7.0 rating in any match. I started playing the 2 star and he ended the season with over 7.5 average rating.

There's no problem with the system, you just insist on placing too much value on the star rating.

I've had a 3 star DR player who got high ratings for years. I tried replacing him but nobody else could match his performance levels.

He went on to win Defender of the Year numerous times.

There are plenty of reasons why those lower ranked players were better for you. Everything from relationships to other players or the manager, teamwork, personality and all that stuff.

This doesn't change the fact that when everything else is even, the higher ranked player performs better. And there is a huge problem with the star rankings right now.

There's no problem with the system, you just insist on placing too much value on the star rating.

When ALL the top teams in the world are fielding players that all the best scouts agree are not very good, then yes, there is something very wrong with the system.

There are plenty of reasons why those lower ranked players were better for you. Everything from relationships to other players or the manager, teamwork, personality and all that stuff.

This doesn't change the fact that when everything else is even, the higher ranked player performs better. And there is a huge problem with the star rankings right now.

This is just simply not true. You're still insisting on putting too much value on the star ratings. You can have a 2 star play better than a 4 star in every situation.

When ALL the top teams in the world are fielding players that all the best scouts agree are not very good, then yes, there is something very wrong with the system.

There's nothing wrong with the system. The only thing wrong is you insisting that star ratings have some actual hard value. Star ratings are only intended to be a sort of rough guide.

Ask yourself this: If you pick 5 great scouts and pick the top 10 teams in the world right now, do you think that these scouts are gonna give average and less ratings to the majority of their players? Does that sound probable to you? If that was true, don't you think that these top 10 teams would be scrambling to find better players and replace most of their team? Or are you convinced that they don't listen to their scouts and assistant managers either?

Furthermore, as I said in my first post, the game does not consider star rating a "rough guide". If you have two near identical players for a position, the game will pick the one with the highest rating. The game will consider a less than 3 star player a "lesser" player. Even if there are no better alternatives in the world, he is considered inferior by the game itself because of the terrible way that star ratings are implemented and referenced.

So for all the friendlies, and U19 matches and whatever else that you yourself don't play, the game is picking its roster based on these star ratings. All the other teams that you're playing against are doing the same. So yeah, it's a pretty big deal if they're just a "rough guide".

The game doesn't pick the player.

It's your Assistant or staff coach.

You ask your staff to pick a recommened team.

As the staff rate one player higher than the other of course they will pick the player they conceive to be better.

And no - if there are no better alternatives in the world he is not considered inferior by the game - he's considered inferior by your coaching/ass man/scouts to the players in your squad or against other players scouted (if you're only scouting the players).

And the scouting report only gives the recommendation based on the Scout(s) perceived current and perceived potential ability - based on the Scout(s) stats for JPA and JPP.

The game doesn't pick the player.

It's your Assistant or staff coach.

You ask your staff to pick a recommened team.

As the staff rate one player higher than the other of course they will pick the player they conceive to be better.

Yes, based on their ratings which differ by 0.5-1 star RARELY amongst good or great staff and usually it hardly differs at all. Once a player is in your roster, your staff is pretty unanimous about the nature of his abilities. You won't see one rate him a 2 and another rate him a 4.5. You won't.

And no - if there are no better alternatives in the world he is not considered inferior by the game - he's considered inferior by your coaching/ass man/scouts to the players in your squad or against other players scouted (if you're only scouting the players).

He is majorly judged by the game's intrinsic values of how good, say, a defensive midfielder is "supposed to" be in a club with my reputation. Ok fine that's 1. He is also 2. judged by comparison to other players on my team, regardless if they're able to play his position or not. Have 1 star striker on your team and all of your defenders and midfielders are stupidly judged against his abilities and get average or worse ratings.

A defensive midfielder should be judged on his capabilities as a defensive midfielder against all other KNOWN defensive midfielders(taking his and their flaws into account). If my scouts have worked day and night to find someone as good or better, and they can't, then judge him on that. If they find that he is in a league of the top 3 defensive midfielders that they know of, then judge him on that. Don't judge him on arbitrary values such as how good the best striker on your team is? huh? what?

For years I can't even find a regen that has the potential to come close to him and he is still rated as a 3 star defensive midfielder. That's simply illogical design and/or a major fault in the way new players are generated.

That's major fault in what you expect from the game. You keep placing value on these star ratings when you as a manager need to be looking at attributes and stats and not just lazily doing your whole job based on star ratings.

completely agree with the op. The reputation based system is far from ideal.

fx if a player has 15 for all the key attributes, but a lower reputation, then he wont be picked ahead of a player with 10 in said attibutes, but with a higher reputation.

Ai squadbuilding, transfers and such are linked to this ***** and thats why the ai is acting like an idiot, i assume.

while youre adressing and answering, do you mind telling why , that getting regens right is so difficult, Alex?

If you base your player's ability on his star rating, you're doing it wrong.

One thing the OP hasn't mentioned is what Current/Potential Ability rating his staff are giving the players, if they are describing them as leading/star/world class players then there isn't a problem you already have the best players in the world so it's nigh on impossible for a player to be miles better than the best players in the world (you should be looking at the CA/PA descriptions in the reports anyway as the stars are just a quick guide - if a player is described as having a World Class Ability it doesn't matter whether he is rated as 3 or 5 stars he is still World Class).

Further the current system of rating World Class players when you are at the top as 2.5/3/3.5 stars is better than the alternative of them all being five star players as if they are all rated as five star players then you won't be able to tell which one is better even though they are all good enough. (adding another level isn't really an answer as then you'd just be complaining that your World Class players are rated at only 3 platinum stars).

I don't think going back to a static star rating (i.e. where CA=200=5 stars, CA=195=4.5 stars etc...) is the answer as it causes problems scaling through the leagues, the dynamic system works better once you understand how it works rather than assuming it works how you want it to work.

And unless something has changed in recent years the regen system is designed to keep the quality of players the same over the years (it's not a one-for-one change like the very old versions, but it should keep the general balance over the years) rather than just generating completely random players each season.

One thing the OP hasn't mentioned is what Current/Potential Ability rating his staff are giving the players, if they are describing them as leading/star/world class players then there isn't a problem you already have the best players in the world so it's nigh on impossible for a player to be miles better than the best players in the world (you should be looking at the CA/PA descriptions in the reports anyway as the stars are just a quick guide - if a player is described as having a World Class Ability it doesn't matter whether he is rated as 3 or 5 stars he is still World Class).

Further the current system of rating World Class players when you are at the top as 2.5/3/3.5 stars is better than the alternative of them all being five star players as if they are all rated as five star players then you won't be able to tell which one is better even though they are all good enough. (adding another level isn't really an answer as then you'd just be complaining that your World Class players are rated at only 3 platinum stars).

I don't think going back to a static star rating (i.e. where CA=200=5 stars, CA=195=4.5 stars etc...) is the answer as it causes problems scaling through the leagues, the dynamic system works better once you understand how it works rather than assuming it works how you want it to work.

And unless something has changed in recent years the regen system is designed to keep the quality of players the same over the years (it's not a one-for-one change like the very old versions, but it should keep the general balance over the years) rather than just generating completely random players each season.

A tiered system would allow for very different ranges in their skill evaluations. Right now the ratings are too rigid, it's counterintuitive to have what may be some of the best players in the game rated as "useful" and "fairly good". Fairly good compared to what? To arbitrary numbers? Certainly not to anything that makes sense considering he is at least in the top 3 in the current database. Fairly good compared to players who can't play his position? That makes no sense at all.

And you keep bringing up that ratings are just rough guidelines and I keep bringing up that the engine/AI disagrees. I should be playing the exact same game as it does and right now it's putting a lot of stock into the ratings.

Furthermore, that the game even knows a player's real PA value is a design flaw in itself, imho. Masking attributes and making scouting take longer does not solve this inherent problem.

And please don't mistake my criticism for anything but passion to make a game I enjoy even better. Some of the stuff that the match engine does(2D FTW, scrap 3D), it boggles my mind how you programmed it and kudos for that, but I don't think you got it nailed down with the star ratings at all. It would make much more sense to have them based purely on the skill of your coaches and scouts and the estimated and known abilities of all other players in your database who play this particular role and position.

I WANT uncertainty and risks but when you reach a point where you've played this player for years and you've seen what he can do and you know that he has better stats than any other player in that position, then it's fair to stop rating him against arbitrary values and just say; "yeah, this guy is probably one of the 3 best defensive midfielders in the world, so let's not give him a 2-3 star rating shall we?"

I should mention that the game, or I be more precise the AI staff in the game, do not know the fix PA value of a player. The AI works with PPA & each member of staff will give a different score to a player based on a number of factors.

It doesn't matter if it knows the actual number or not, what matters is that all the great scouts will give this guy 4-5 stars if his real PA is above X. So someone knows the number's direct correlation or you'd have wildly different estimates and you don't. At all. Like I said in this thread; PPA=Recommendation and two 20 PA scouts will never disagree to an extent that has any impact at all.

Wait wait wait... just like every real scout in the world know of the next wonderkid on the market... like Odengard, formerly Ronaldo, Messi, Hazard, or the ones that missed the boat, Partridge, Saviet, Vela etc.

So you're saying the game is realistic.

I think what the OP means is that the likes of "Messi" and "Ronaldo" 20 years from now are being considered 2-3 star players when they are clearly (statistically, form, reputation, etc.) the best in the game and should be a 5 star rating?

I agree in that staff should rate the players value against those within the club, and those that are known to the scout, so the more elite you become, the more plateaued the stars are, usually being a 2.5-3.5 rating.

I like how a player can be discovered as a 4.5 or 5 star potential, and then drop to a 2 star player because he didn't reach the potential or was over estimated by scouts, etc.

I also like how a 2.5 star player may play better than a 4 star player based on the needs you have and whom can fulfill them best. I generally use a 2 star left wingback over a 4 star left back because he has better pace, dribbling and crossing, and I play a higher tempo, and further up the pitch than the left back can cater for.

However, I agree to an extent that, if you have a player who has amazing reputation, has played well year upon year, is applauded by his pears and the media as a great player, has "is a world class player" description and wins the World Player of the Year consistently (akin to Messi and Ronaldo currently), they should be a 4.5-5 star player, where as the game is saying this type of player is only a 2.3 or 3 star player when they are clearly not. And this may only apply to a very select few (similarly how Messi and Ronaldo currently would be considered 5 star players now by virtually everyone today, whereas players like Mata, Hazard would be less, despite their ability, and peoples evaluation of them would fluctuate more, also.)

I think the system works fine as it is. It displays their potential, their current against the squad, and is also not the true indication, but more of a guide. But at the same time, in every generation there are a very small sect of players that are the talismen and should garner the 5 star rating.

I have a player in my squad, world player of the year 5 years in a row.

He has a PA of 175, because I looked and know.

But he's not the best player in the game. He's just the best player in the world because of performance.

His star rating is 3.5 and there's better players than he in my squad.

Should I stop playing him because he's 3.5 stars???

Heck no.

I have a player in my squad, world player of the year 5 years in a row.

He has a PA of 175, because I looked and know.

But he's not the best player in the game. He's just the best player in the world because of performance.

His star rating is 3.5 and there's better players than he in my squad.

Should I stop playing him because he's 3.5 stars???

Heck no.

I agree, I would and do play players based on how well they perform, not the stars.

Lemme get this out of the way: I get that star ratings are based off of your current squad and club stature, I wish they weren't, but I know they are...

...Overall the game is doing a very poor job at regenerating players in the long game and the star ratings are infuriating to deal with. Having a team filled with a mix of 1-4.5 rated players is INFURIATING because everything tells you to do something about those low rated ones. Well.. you can't. The game doesn't care that those 15 players with ratings from 1-4.5 are amongst the best 50 players in the game, it's still handing out 1-2 star ratings for ***** and giggles. The best defender in the database should be 5 stars. REGARDLESS. He shouldn't be 3 stars because it's "theoretically possible" to have a better defender if he only existed in the database. That's BS. He is the best defender in this save, in this version of the game. He should be rated as such.

Well if your 20 year old team is filled with top class defenders with 170+ CA, of course he will only get a 3 star rating, i dont see why this is so hard to accept.

Example 1: I have 3 DC's all about 140 CA. Buy a new one with 170 CA, he gets a 5 star rating.

Example 2: I have 3 DC's all about 170 CA. Buy a new one with 170 CA, he gets a 3 star ratings.

Hes still the same player, its just that relative to the rest of my DC's he is average. The reason he is only 3 star is not as you said:

because it's "theoretically possible" to have a better defender if he only existed in the database

In summary, my best DC that year was a 31 year old chap with 130 CA (2 stars) his stat distribution means he performs better than any of the other options.

People seem very hung up on star ratings. Your 1st paragraph states what they are, yet you seem to ignore that and just want star ratings to be based on some kind of overall knowledge of the whole database. Personally i like it when my 5 star rated SC drops to 3 star, it means that 17 year old i signed to develop has just as high a PA. It does not mean he is in any way worse than when he was 5 star.

I would prefer the assistants star system to be removed or replaced, from the threads i read here it seems to be so misunderstood.

Question i have on the subject, do star ratings from your assistant in relation to your team, bear any relation to the star ratings from scout reports? I always considered the answer to be no

Is it wrong that my 2.5 star rated defender won Defender of the Year in Serie A, at the Balon D'or?

Another thing that is worth a mention is that 2.5 stars is the average CA ability of your squad, if you have a squad filled with 165+ players then finding a player who will be rated as 4 or 5 stars is going to be a rare event because there are very few players in the 185+ bracket which is what it would take to be rated at 4+ stars

This is the most important post in the thread that seems to have gone completely overlooked, at least by TC.

This is the most important post in the thread that seems to have gone completely overlooked, at least by TC.

Nono, I didn't overlook it and if you've read my posts you'd know that I'm against it. This system is still judging my defenders against my strikers which is ludicrous in my world. It's taking world class players and judging them to be "useful" or "fairly good" because you have other world class players on your team. I cannot understand why people think this is a reasonable system. You have to look at this criticism from a computer game point of view. It's disheartening to see your elite team filled with players rated to be average. It's disheartening to have your club rise in ranks onto to see your player ratings drop through the floor even if their stats went up. It's a non-intuitive system.

If you're in the top 10 clubs in Europe and your Defensive Midfielder is maintaining a higher game score average than any other DM in your current known database of players, then he should not be rated average. It doesn't matter why it currently works this way, all that matters is that it's illogical in it's current state.

The world's best mature regen goalkeeper in 2035 is rated 2 stars. Makes sense.

It's entirely reasonable. The star rating is, completely unambiguously, whatever staff members opinion of a player compared to the rest of your squad. If everyone in your squad is world class, then a world class player will be average for your squad, hence around 2.5 stars. Your fundamental misunderstanding of the star system is the problem, there is nothing wrong with the game. Star rating has no effect on anything other than star rating. As your team gets better and a players star rating goes lower, that doesn't effect the player. It doesn't effect how they play, it doesn't effect them winning awards, it effects nothing. If you feel like players with low star ratings aren't being chosen, maybe you should do your job as a manager and pick your team, because of course if someone else does it they're going to base it off their opinion.

People are missing the point. I have the same problem. Everyone understands its relative to your squad and the league but why should say a defender be compared to a striker? In my game, after about three seasons i cannot find any better than three star full backs. Surely it should be related to position and not the best players in your squad.

People are missing the point. I have the same problem. Everyone understands its relative to your squad and the league but why should say a defender be compared to a striker? In my game, after about three seasons i cannot find any better than three star full backs. Surely it should be related to position and not the best players in your squad.

So let me get this straight. You want a separate rating for defenders midfielders goalies and strikers just so you can get 5 stars shown for your best players??

I want 5 stars shown for my best players if they are indeed the best players known to me, yes. Full stop. If I only had one scout, scouting the entire world and in his opinion this particular player was the best DM in the world, why would he ever rate him average?

Just because two world class players are compared to each other doesn't make both of them average. They are both superstars and should be rated as such.

They're not being rated as average. They're being rated basically on par with what you have - they won't improve your team too much - unless you're looking for a specific type of player to fit your system.

I want 5 stars shown for my best players if they are indeed the best players known to me, yes. Full stop. If I only had one scout, scouting the entire world and in his opinion this particular player was the best DM in the world, why would he ever rate him average?

Just because two world class players are compared to each other doesn't make both of them average. They are both superstars and should be rated as such.

you are really stubborn mate. best player in world is rated by scout as "world class player" that is the only important thing. you just have fetish on star rating which is quite reasonable, we live in society where everything needs to be put in the drawer and fit in the place. but what you repeatedly fail to accept although you do understand it, is that star rating is just the comparison between players in your squad and nothing more.

what you want is basically new system where messi and likes would be 5 star players no matter what. that is fine, it brings up different problem though. if you look on the other side of the scale a half star player. if you chose to play in lower leagues, the lowest in fact. 99 per cent of players would be guess what, a half star player. whole point of the system would disappear your scouts wouldn't be able to tell you who is actually perceived to be better at doing job.

I want 5 stars shown for my best players if they are indeed the best players known to me, yes. Full stop. If I only had one scout, scouting the entire world and in his opinion this particular player was the best DM in the world, why would he ever rate him average?

Just because two world class players are compared to each other doesn't make both of them average. They are both superstars and should be rated as such.

They are only rated as average in relation to your squad full of world class players. If your squad is world class, and a player is rated 2.5 stars, that means he is world class. If your squad is world class, and a player is rated five stars, that means he makes Messi look like Andy Carroll.

Plus the scout rating won't be accurate - you need to scout the player over a long period of time to get an accurate star rating, plus the star rating will be based on the scouts abilities, and how he compares them to players in your team.

Why should Messi get 5 stars all the time? What about when he's 38? Should he still be 5 stars?

What if Messi has a PA of 196 and he's 31, and you get a youth player with a PA of 199, should Messi still have 5 stars in his PA?

Probably not, as he's aging and his CA would possibly starting to decline, about 180 CA and PA of still 196, the likelihood of him reaching his PA is gone, therefore his star rating reflects this in the PA by giving them 4.5 stars.

The further the CA slips the less stars he has in CA and PA.

Plus the scout rating won't be accurate - you need to scout the player over a long period of time to get an accurate star rating, plus the star rating will be based on the scouts abilities, and how he compares them to players in your team.

Why should Messi get 5 stars all the time? What about when he's 38? Should he still be 5 stars?

What if Messi has a PA of 196 and he's 31, and you get a youth player with a PA of 199, should Messi still have 5 stars in his PA?

Probably not, as he's aging and his CA would possibly starting to decline, about 180 CA and PA of still 196, the likelihood of him reaching his PA is gone, therefore his star rating reflects this in the PA by giving them 4.5 stars.

The further the CA slips the less stars he has in CA and PA.

Yep, totally agree with that, and I see this happen as players start to age in my squads. They may still perform but as their physical stats regress, so too do their stars.

The good thing about the system now, is how experience and cohesion play a big role, as opposed to the star rating and or stats alone.

I currently have a left wing back who played 24 matches last season at the age of 34. He averaged 7.23 and was one of our top performers despite having a fairly big drop in his star rating as well as his stats. But he has had 2 spells with us for a combined total of 9 seasons, was captain and has been integral with the tactics and squad over the years. As a result of his experience in the league, or tactics and the players around him, he has actually played better over the last 4 seasons (average ratings of 6.99, 7.11, 7.18 and 7.23)

In saying that, while I like how the system pretty much runs at the moment, I can also see the OP's point of their being no 4-5 star players in the existing game world, at all, when every generation usually has a player or two that stand out above the rest.

I have no problem with the system as is though and make decisions based on factors other than the stars my scouts/coaches provide.

TC's problem seems to be just that his feelings get hurt if his best players aren't rated 4-5 star, regardless of how the system works or is supposed to work. I bet if he loaded up his save as another team and scouted the players from his initial team, they'd be five stars. Seems to be missing the point that if a player at your club is rated 5 stars they are pretty much outstanding and generally head and shoulders above the average standard of players at the club.

Edit: Not to mention that as far as I can tell, the system rates them against the other players in that position at your club, the average level of players overall at your club, and several other things.

3 years later the game still has severe problems with star ratings. Play long enough and a 5 stars player and rating is shrinked to 4.5 stars, then 4 stars until, from what I've seen, nobody is rated above 2.5 stars. Makes ZERO sense. Keep defending this useless system.

That's because as your squad gets better there are fewer players who will be considered as 5* for your squad.

In a nutshell the star ratings you see are based on the average ability of your squad, 2.5* is the average ability so if the average CA of your best match squad is 170 (not impossible after years of progress) even a 190 CA/PA player is not going to be seen as a 5 star player.

It's been this way for years so what needs to change is your understanding of the rating system but clearly despite everyone telling you this for over year & maybe more you do not want to accept that fact.