under review Player ratings on full detail leagues aren´t working correctly! Relevant issue. I give you a comparative between full detail vs no full detail leagues.

[pejocho]

I write this post for show that full details leagues are getting very different and lower player ratings than no full detail leagues. Full detail league is always the league where your managed club is playing, and the user has the option to put other playables leagues at full detail to improve the simulation sacrificing the perfomance of your PC.

This issue is relevant for ALL SAVES, because even if you dont care about put other leagues at full detail, in this case your managed league will be the only one simulated with full detail, and you league would be harmed in comparision with the rest. All other leagues will get lots of players with good ratings as usual, so they will get more reputation, value and develop, while your league will get only a few good rated players, with less value, reputation and develop.

I have done an easy simulations. I have done a save with Bundesliga, Premier League, Serie A and the Spanish League until 31/5/2021.

I had filtered players that have played 20 or more matches to obtain significant results.

I´m going to show you the differences between player ratings of these players of that 4 leagues in two different saves: one with all at full detail, and the other with all at no full detail.

That differences are happening in all your saves!

Goalkeepers

No full detail:

Full detail:

Central defenders:

No full detail:

Full detail:

Fullbacks

No full detail:

Full detail:

Defensive Midfielders

No full detail:

Full detail:

Central Midfielders

No full detail:

Full detail:

Wingers

No full detail:

Full detail:

Attacking midfielders

No full detail:

Full detail:

Strikers:

No full detail:

Full detail:

 

Please, I would appreciate of some SI staff gives a message about this is under review now or at least that they are going to look into this after I have spent a relevant time doing and presenting this data!!!

Thanks.

 

[pejocho]

I have uploaded the two saves, named "Full detail.fm" and "No full detail.fm"

[RSCA4Ever]

@pejocho Thanks for doing this mate, I really am getting tired of seeing my players get lower ratings than in previous FM's.

I'm at the point now that I've stopped playing until this gets fixed.

[damjanovski]

This is important issue. I do not think it is too big of a problem to fix this with a quick patch. As small as it seems it creates big problems like players loosing value and other clubs are not interested in your players. 

[evilpimp972]

Please SI do not think this is not an issue

[Zeze]

Please Fix that, solve this problem

[pejocho]

Up, it has to be fixed!

[ImDaWeasel]

Thanks for doing this proving we ain't all paranoid. Latest patch has screwed the game up.

[Luizinho]

Yeah I'm not playing until this has been fixed - gamebreaker for me unfortunately 

[Tjorven]

Same here, I just won the la liga with Badajoz and my starting wonderkid right back has a value of about 300.000 gbp.. Mostly due to to bad ratings I assume?!

[Neil Brock]

Statistics, player ratings etc have always been calculated differently between quick match and full match - the quick matches aren't played out and cannot be viewed, but are calculated using a formula based on reputation, player ability etc. 

The full match engine plays out the matches in their entirety using a huge number of factors which are much more in-depth and detailed. Player ratings in the full match engine are always being tweaked to make them more representative of player performance, however requires significant balancing across the entire engine.  It's never just a case of saying 'we'll just make all players in X position get a boost as they're a bit low'. Would require a thorough investigation as to what may potentially be causing a specific player to have lower or higher rating within the full match engine. 

Player average ratings only have some affect on player transfer interest and value, so will not drastically affect how the gameworld plays out. Whilst we appreciate this looks fairly jarring, this has always been the case in previous FM's and does not have significant ramifications in game. 

Appreciate you taking the time to raise it here. Thanks. 

[pejocho]

hace 1 hora, Neil Brock dijo:

Statistics, player ratings etc have always been calculated differently between quick match and full match - the quick matches aren't played out and cannot be viewed, but are calculated using a formula based on reputation, player ability etc. 

The full match engine plays out the matches in their entirety using a huge number of factors which are much more in-depth and detailed. Player ratings in the full match engine are always being tweaked to make them more representative of player performance, however requires significant balancing across the entire engine.  It's never just a case of saying 'we'll just make all players in X position get a boost as they're a bit low'. Would require a thorough investigation as to what may potentially be causing a specific player to have lower or higher rating within the full match engine. 

Player average ratings only have some affect on player transfer interest and value, so will not drastically affect how the gameworld plays out. Whilst we appreciate this looks fairly jarring, this has always been the case in previous FM's and does not have significant ramifications in game. 

Appreciate you taking the time to raise it here. Thanks. 

Thanks for your answer. 

In my opinion, that quick match engine and the complete ME should be adjusted for give approximately the same ratings in all positions, players awards as fifa ballon dor and golden boy etc are going to be affected and players at non full detail leagues are going to be more likely to be awarded. 

[ajw10]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

Statistics, player ratings etc have always been calculated differently between quick match and full match - the quick matches aren't played out and cannot be viewed, but are calculated using a formula based on reputation, player ability etc. 

The full match engine plays out the matches in their entirety using a huge number of factors which are much more in-depth and detailed. Player ratings in the full match engine are always being tweaked to make them more representative of player performance, however requires significant balancing across the entire engine.  It's never just a case of saying 'we'll just make all players in X position get a boost as they're a bit low'. Would require a thorough investigation as to what may potentially be causing a specific player to have lower or higher rating within the full match engine. 

Player average ratings only have some affect on player transfer interest and value, so will not drastically affect how the gameworld plays out. Whilst we appreciate this looks fairly jarring, this has always been the case in previous FM's and does not have significant ramifications in game. 

Appreciate you taking the time to raise it here. Thanks. 

Hi Neil

I can't remember where the posts are but someone had worked out that key tackles are not being tracked which is affecting player ratings.

[BuzzR]

5 minutes ago, ajw10 said:

Hi Neil

I can't remember where the posts are but someone had worked out that key tackles are not being tracked which is affecting player ratings.

Here !

[Neil Brock]

26 minutes ago, ajw10 said:

Hi Neil

I can't remember where the posts are but someone had worked out that key tackles are not being tracked which is affecting player ratings.

Thanks, this has been flagged to our match team now  

[Josh Brimacombe-Wiard]

Hi All,

Thanks for sending this in, we're going to review the above feedback in the studio.

We appreciate the feedback as always.

Cheers,

Josh

[Zeze]

Muchas gracias 

[pejocho]

Any news about this issue? I would like to know if SI has detected yet that the issue is not only related with fullbacks, in fact there are more differences in the ratings of attackers in the comparatives full details vs no full detail, but it is less visible because "both ratings are in green colour".

Thanks! @Josh Brimacombe-Wiard

[Johnnymotto]

 

Announcement for a hotfix?

[pejocho]

I have done a new test with the new update and the attackers ratings are not fixed. The ratings are -0.20 lower at average, a huge difference regarding no full detail leagues. @Neil Brock @Josh Brimacombe-Wiard

Wingers: -0.15 lower at average

Strikers: 0.20 lower at average

 

I wouldnt understand if you tell me that attackers ratings are fixed:

Vardy 28 goals 7.06

Haaland 25 goals 7.02

Mane 23 goals 7 assists 7.13

Bernardo Silva 15 goals 13 assists 7.13

These are just examples, but ALL of them in no full detail leagues would get >7.30 for sure

[Pasonen]

1 hour ago, pejocho said:

I have done a new test with the new update and the attackers ratings are not fixed. The ratings are -0.20 lower at average, a huge difference regarding no full detail leagues. @Neil Brock @Josh Brimacombe-Wiard

Wingers: -0.15 lower at average

Strikers: 0.20 lower at average

 

I wouldnt understand if you tell me that attackers ratings are fixed:

Vardy 28 goals 7.06

Haaland 25 goals 7.02

Mane 23 goals 7 assists 7.13

Bernardo Silva 15 goals 13 assists 7.13

These are just examples, but ALL of them in no full detail leagues would get >7.30 for sure

Just got a thought. Thinking this "ST ratings thing" difficulty wise could it be that lowering goal value to ratings overall game between human Vs AI comes more even. Human player plays traditionally more attacking mentalities for a longer periods of time in game and throuh season too. This means crushing multiple opponents with multiple goals have bigger impact in morale and gives edge for human player at the long run. We all know the saying "it's not how many goals you score it's who wins" and this saying should be listened in this case too. What you think @Jack Joyce?

[Obaaa]

2 hours ago, Pasonen said:

Just got a thought. Thinking this "ST ratings thing" difficulty wise could it be that lowering goal value to ratings overall game between human Vs AI comes more even. Human player plays traditionally more attacking mentalities for a longer periods of time in game and throuh season too. This means crushing multiple opponents with multiple goals have bigger impact in morale and gives edge for human player at the long run. We all know the saying "it's not how many goals you score it's who wins" and this saying should be listened in this case too. What you think @Jack Joyce?

Interesting theory but I don't think that is the case. I think that SI have acknowledged that what @pejochohas raised is an issue that needs to be fixed but it didn't make it into this update which is a shame.

This, and other stats based issues are ruining the experience for some of us. But we are unfortunately in the minority who either care about it or notice it at all.

[jdmk88]

On 06/01/2021 at 17:46, jdmk88 said:

My league (League One).



Another league...



My league (Dribbles per game)



Another league (dribbles per game)



My League (crosses attempted)



Another league (crosses attempted)



My League (Key Passes)



Another league Key Passes

 

I brought this up in a separate post highlighting the unrealistic stats 'full detail' leagues are producing.  

[DP]

Strikers still a bit of an issue for playable leagues. 
 

Not quite as high as they should be. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by DP

[pejocho]

I copy here the new test I have done.

Strikers and wingers continue getting low ratings:

 

[Ipswich Staying Up]

@Josh Brimacombe-Wiard Is this still being reviewed? The other thread at the top of the board has a high number of people still seeing issues since the hotfix was released... I know it must be mad busy but just good to know it's still on the radar

[rumian83]

I also see that offensive players (strikers and wingers) should have higher match ratings. Now they are definitely underestimated. If i look at the ratings during match I can't judge my strikers properly (good or not) because every time they have 6,4-6,5 if they don't score. The goals shoudn't be the only impactful factor on strikers ratings, there are also creating the chances, key passes etc.

[evilpimp972]

il y a 42 minutes, rumian83 a dit :

I also see that offensive players (strikers and wingers) should have higher match ratings. Now they are definitely underestimated. If i look at the ratings during match I can't judge my strikers properly (good or not) because every time they have 6,4-6,5 if they don't score. The goals shoudn't be the only impactful factor on strikers ratings, there are also creating the chances, key passes etc.

Either that or give forwards a better rating when they score a goal 

[mfjin]

Are there plans to address this larger than usual ratings discrepancy between the FME and QME? @Neil Brock (sorry for tagging again, thought this thread was more relevant)

[MadBeagle81]

While this discrepancy is concerning (I generally play a smaller number of leagues on full detail for this reason), my main problem with the ratings is how arbitrary they seem. I play watching full match, because I know from experience of the rating system in previous years that it's the only way you can really judge how a player is doing.

You can be sat there after 30 minutes thinking, 'jeez, my AM/C is having a stormer - he's everywhere, spraying passes about, driving forward with the ball, generally running the show'. Then you look at his rating and he's stuck on 6.8. Meanwhile your winger who keeps ignoring team-mates, running down blind alleys and hasn't been tracking back scores off his arse at a set-piece and he gets a boost to 7.2.

What I found interesting was when Jack on the WorkTheSpace channel put a 1 CA + PA striker at a Premier League club, he would average 6.2 despite doing absolutely nothing, literally a handful of touches per game and a goal a season. What would a player have to do to get a rating of 4 or 5? Why is everything on a scale of 1-10 so tightly bunched between 6.3 and 7.1, in the absence of a goal or an assist, which then distort things massively? 

Goals are important yes but if my centre-back has been absolutely awful, not won a header all day and always getting caught out of position, scoring a consolation from six yards at a corner does not change that. If I hadn't watched him have a nightmare with my own eyes and was just speeding through games like many do, I'd think he'd actually done a good job defensively compared to his partner.

I think the whole system could do with a rewrite. If players are doing nothing and not getting involved, their rating should steadily be falling. They can only win back rating points by doing positive things in general play. Goals should not in and of themselves result in a ratings increase - if an attacking player is playing well, getting into good positions and involved in the play, the ratings will follow anyway.

As a manager it would also then be easier to identify the poacher-type players, a Jermaine Defoe or Dwight Gayle, who aren't great in open play but come alive in the 18-yard-box. If you see a player with a 6.6 average and 18 goals, you know he's a fox in the box - conversely if you see a guy with an average of 7.2 and 7 goals you know he's a Kevin Davies or an Emile Heskey. A good shot is a good shot, if the keeper happens to make a world-class save then why should the striker be marked down compared to if he hit a terrible shot straight down the middle that the keeper spills over the line?

Assists likewise, they shouldn't result in any more of a boost than any other key pass - if De Bruyne played with Christian Benteke or Shane Long instead he'd get a lot less assists, but that doesn't mean he's played any worse.