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

[MBarbaric]

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.

this really made me laugh now... i've read the whole thread and just after i've realized how old it is, your new post pops up.... :D hillarious

seriously,as bearside says, it is really you.

[PandaL]

I guess the problem OP having is what the rating system using as reference. However, A set-in-stone rating system and a system based on all known players are not the same in that regard. A set-in-stone rating system use no reference and basically is equivalent to showing the PA/CA value directly. A system based on all known players means that the rating will change if the very top player's CA is changed, hence not set-in-stone. For example, if Ronaldo and Messi retire, the rating of all wingers in the world may get a jump since the top player's CA is lower, every winger is now "closer" to the top level.

The suggested system is based entirely on the very top level team experience in either case. There will need to be many MANY tiers of rating to cover the whole range of PA/CA the game feature in either case, just look at the range from the lowest level of English football to the top (EPL). The current system work well in all levels as rating is based on the average of your current squad, so you can get a rough idea about how good the players are in your current setup. The suggested system can be just as disheartening unless playing the very top teams in very top leagues, because your favourite players will always get crappy rating.

The suggestion I will give is, when roleplaying, trying not to view the current rating system as your scout/assistant telling you how good a player is in the world, but as they telling you how good a player is comparing to your first team members. For example, Mata is a important player in the Manchester United squad, but he will not look as special in the squad of Barca or Bayern Munich. When looking at how good a player within your own squad is, look at their average match rating rather than the star rating.

[leonavich]

Whether it would work or not, I do not know, but the concept of two tier rating caters for both systems as mentioned above. Based on their talents when compared to the game world, and talents only within your squad.

One which looks at a player against your own squad and then one against the world list of players based on your current scout / coaches perspective.

This way, you get the: your player is a 2.5 star player in your squad because the overall level of the squad is very similar in CA, however on a global scale, he is equivalent to a 4 star player

You would then see 5 star players when you look at the world stars and also how good they are comparative to your squad.

This will also allow you to see who are the worlds best players in the current game world and how strong your team is, as well as how good new signings are in comparison to your current team.

The below examples are just examples, but show how their could be varieties with how your team, other teams and the world view the players based on the two ratings

As an example (1)

Arda Turan at Barcelona. Turan may appear as a 3.5 star player on your squad as the overall talent is very good, but there are players that are or may be better.

If Aston Villa where to scout, he would be one of, if not their best player, so may get a 4.5 star rating when viewed by their scouts.

In comparison to a world view, he would be a 4 star player according to yours / most scouts

As an example (2)

Jay Simpson is top scorer in League 2 with 23 goals. He may be a 3.5 star player at Lleyton Orient as on this squad he is one of the better players, but there may be a few others who are better / also very good.

Should Aston Villa scout him, he would not be one of their best, but may be better than some of the younger players so may get a 2 star rating in that team.

In comparison to a world view, he may be a 1.5 star player according to your / most scouts

[leonavich]

Another note,

Jamie Vardy's rise in recent years would also be a good example of the star system having some leway in current ability, not just the black stars for potential ability.

Not sure how you would cater for this, but the more important a player becomes for you or the better they become in the game world, a slight rise would be nice to see. Likewise, if they were to have a dip in form, a slight drop to reflect this would also be nice.

This wouldn't need to change their CA or PA behind the scenes, but will be a bit more reflective of average ratings and yearly performance. So for those that use the star rating system as their main baseline for scouting, viewing team performance and signing players, it is a bit more to what they would expect.

I prefer to look at average player ratings and stats per game to gauge how important they are or would be to my team, but as has been noted above, a lot of people use the star rating system, so perhaps something a little more dynamic, would bridge that gap just a little to make it more appeasing?

[wkdsoul]

Another note,

Jamie Vardy's rise in recent years would also be a good example of the star system having some leway in current ability, not just the black stars for potential ability.

Not sure how you would cater for this, but the more important a player becomes for you or the better they become in the game world, a slight rise would be nice to see. Likewise, if they were to have a dip in form, a slight drop to reflect this would also be nice.

This wouldn't need to change their CA or PA behind the scenes, but will be a bit more reflective of average ratings and yearly performance. So for those that use the star rating system as their main baseline for scouting, viewing team performance and signing players, it is a bit more to what they would expect.

I prefer to look at average player ratings and stats per game to gauge how important they are or would be to my team, but as has been noted above, a lot of people use the star rating system, so perhaps something a little more dynamic, would bridge that gap just a little to make it more appeasing?

Isnt that linked to a players reputation rather than ability? Just because he's in a system that's getting the best out of him, doesn't make him a better player just the CA is being utilized correctly rather than increased?

[HUNT3R]

Another note,

Jamie Vardy's rise in recent years would also be a good example of the star system having some leway in current ability, not just the black stars for potential ability.

Not sure how you would cater for this, but the more important a player becomes for you or the better they become in the game world, a slight rise would be nice to see. Likewise, if they were to have a dip in form, a slight drop to reflect this would also be nice.

This wouldn't need to change their CA or PA behind the scenes, but will be a bit more reflective of average ratings and yearly performance. So for those that use the star rating system as their main baseline for scouting, viewing team performance and signing players, it is a bit more to what they would expect.

I prefer to look at average player ratings and stats per game to gauge how important they are or would be to my team, but as has been noted above, a lot of people use the star rating system, so perhaps something a little more dynamic, would bridge that gap just a little to make it more appeasing?

Star ratings already are influenced by form. Form being (probably) the last 5 or so games instead of yearly as well, as you suggested.

[barto123]

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.

It's all RELATIVE to the players in your team. If you switch clubs to a lower team those 2.5 star players will become 5 star players again.

If you have a team filled with 180+ players and you come across a 180 rated player he will only be rated 2.5 stars because he's only another average player relative to the players you already have. If you are a club with no players near 180 he would be 5 star for sure. It's about measuring a players ability relative to your current group of players.

I don't think you understand just what the star rating system actually wants to achieve. It's not like a FIFA rating. Don't expect it to work like that.

[Guest]

Star ratings already are influenced by form. Form being (probably) the last 5 or so games instead of yearly as well, as you suggested.

Last time I got a look under the hood the form based perceived CA was based on a 1 year aveage.

[HUNT3R]

Even better then!

[PandaL]

Star ratings already are influenced by form. Form being (probably) the last 5 or so games instead of yearly as well, as you suggested.

That's definitely the case. I remember in one of my game as Everton in FM15 Naismith's rating became 5 stars after scoring in at least 5 games consecutively, while normally he was 3.5 stars.

[Guest]

See my post on the subject, it was originally set at a year & I see no reason way SI would have reduced that but I've been away from SI for just over a year now so I'll accept that what I used to know should not be taken as being 100% accurate.

[PandaL]

See my post on the subject, it was originally set at a year & I see no reason way SI would have reduced that but I've been away from SI for just over a year now so I'll accept that what I used to know should not be taken as being 100% accurate.

How about the first season though? In that game it happened in the first season, later I sold him for a good sum but I don't quite remember if it was January or summer window.

[Guest]

First season is always a problem in many areas of the game, iirc there was something like a 10 match requirement & that they had to be within a certain time period, not anywhere close to 100% on that though.

[leonavich]

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the current system. But I can see how it can cause conflict with those not use to it, hence my suggestion and examples of a two tier system that looks at both the current method and a scaled method based on all players in the game world.

As I said, I do not know how this would work, or if it would work.

Personally, I base my selections and signings on the performances and the system I plan to use, whether they are suitable for the tactics or otherwise, rather than the star ratings.

I do follow the PA stars for youth signings though as representations of their potential and what they can grow into.

[MBarbaric]

people are confusing star rating with media description/reputation.

star rating is technical, scouting, description of any player compared to your squad. being represented with stars it suggests to a player it might do something with stardom... i guess it might be well on subconscious level something to do with bad UI design. i think it would make a lot of difference if it was descriptive or represented with, i don't know... clubs, stones, footballs, whatever but not stars, crowns, diamonds, ... you get teh picture.

what people want to see in these stars, however, is described in player description where player is mentioned as world class i.e. midfielder, run of the mill and so on.

so technically speaking, there is nothing wrong with the system, however the way ti is represented in the UI it leaves the space for confusion for some people.

[noikeee]

I think it's absolute nonsense to want the ratings to NOT be relative to your squad. If it worked this way then Ronaldo and Messi would be the only 5 star players in the world, and if you played a bottom level lower league side then all of your players would be 0.5 silver stars. That would be stupid.

However I also think it looks silly if there's a situation where your players are so good, nobody in the world is better than 3 or 3.5 stars. Perhaps the average CA of your squad, or whatever other metric is used to compare players to, should be capped to a certain level to prevent this from happening. Just because you have the best 11 in the world doesn't mean Ronaldo can't be 5 stars.

[sporadicsmiles]

Stars most certainly should not factor in to who you select in your squad anyway. They are more a quick guide to see how a scout rates a player against your current set of players. It is infinitely more important to look at a) the scout report and b) the player attributes when deciding to buy a player. If he has the perfect stats for the role you want to play him in, then who cares how many stars he has. Similarly, when deciding which players to play, pick the ones who are playing well, not who has the most stars. My 4.5 star playmaker is currently sitting on the bench because a 1.5 star youngster is playing really goddam well.

If you use stars as they are meant to be used - a guide and a convenient sorting method for scouted players - then they work just great!

[Guest]

Stars most certainly should not factor in to who you select in your squad anyway. They are more a quick guide to see how a scout rates a player against your current set of players. It is infinitely more important to look at a) the scout report and b) the player attributes when deciding to buy a player. If he has the perfect stats for the role you want to play him in, then who cares how many stars he has. Similarly, when deciding which players to play, pick the ones who are playing well, not who has the most stars. My 4.5 star playmaker is currently sitting on the bench because a 1.5 star youngster is playing really goddam well.

If you use stars as they are meant to be used - a guide and a convenient sorting method for scouted players - then they work just great!

This is exactly what the star rating system is for, what NPCs do with their version of the star system should be irrelevant to the users decision making.

[rordona]

Slow day at work and I needed this laugh. Thanks for a great read!

[Phero]

The star rating system has always been a major source of frustration for me with this game. I don't understand the point of comparing strikers to defenders and vice versa and a lot of other things.

What I want to know though is this: When I start a new game a player that is "OMG must sign" has a 5 star PA rating. The longer I play the game. The "OMG must sign" rating is turned into a 4.5 star rating. It keeps dropping the longer I go on. 5 star players are now 4 star players, 4 star players are 3 star players and at some point players above 3 stars are nowhere to be found.

So the logic here is that the players are being compared to your existing crowd. What's illogic is that when you hover over a what would have been a 4-5 star player he is now rated as something like "fairly good".... Because he's not much different from the rest of your team. This guy is still a 4-5 star player but because you have a lot of those, the game calls him "fairly good".

I would really love to see some kind of neutral comparison between players vs. my fame + league. I think the stars shrinking over game time is a terrible feature.

[ArranoBeltza]

It's probably because the overall quality of your team/league is increasing.

[Phero]

It's probably because the overall quality of your team/league is increasing.

It is for sure, but I despise the GUI element of having world class players rated a 3 star just because I have other good players on my team.

I've said this before, rate the players against the entire scouted database of players instead of just rating them against my own players. That way it becomes possible to have an entire team full of 4-5 star players because you have the best in the world. Right now, when you play for years, you end up having a team full of elite 3 star players, which to me makes little sense. Especially when the tooltips call them basically "average". They're not average, they are world class players and the game no longer has players rated above 3 stars because you have the best.

Rate the players against EVERY OTHER KNOWN PLAYER IN THE WORLD THAT YOU KNOW OF. Only then would it make sense to call your elite team "average". If there are no better players in the known world, give everyone 5 stars.

[ArranoBeltza]

It is for sure, but I despise the GUI element of having world class players rated a 3 star just because I have other good players on my team.

I've said this before, rate the players against the entire scouted database of players instead of just rating them against my own players. That way it becomes possible to have an entire team full of 4-5 star players because you have the best in the world. Right now, when you play for years, you end up having a team full of elite 3 star players, which to me makes little sense. Especially when the tooltips call them basically "average". They're not average, they are world class players and the game no longer has players rated above 3 stars because you have the best.

Rate the players against EVERY OTHER KNOWN PLAYER IN THE WORLD THAT YOU KNOW OF. Only then would it make sense to call your elite team "average". If there are no better players in the known world, give everyone 5 stars.

I don't know- it makes sense to me. I'm currently running a save as Dundee FC and I have a midfielder who used to be four stars. I'm in my fourth season and he's still with the team and still fairly good, but I've since brought in a number of good players and promising youngsters, especially in the midfield. At the same time, my club's reputation has climbed a lot and the SPL is also climbing rankings. He still plays well for me (although he now plays a lot less), but now he's rated at 2.5 stars; I really don't see how that's unfair.

The star system doesn't necessarily mean that a five star player is world-class, he's just five stars relative to your team/league. If you bring in all five star players, then it makes sense that they are now shown at a lesser rating. If the star system showed players ratings based on every player that you can scout, I would probably not have anybody above maybe three stars in my Dundee save because I have been scouting a number of top leagues/nations/competitions.

[Welshace]

This comes up quite often, and I'm still stumped how it doesn't make sense to people to be honest..

The player is 'fairly good' .. read as: 'fairly good compared to Joe Bloggs in our first team' ...

Makes perfect sense to me.. your scouts aren't going to be saying ' well.. he's better than di maria, but less so than messi'.

[Guest]

The game even tells people how it works, press the '?' icon when viewing a report card & a description is available.

An alternative rating system that the OP refers to defeats the point of simulating opinion because it would have to follow a 1/2 star = 10CA/PA points.

[rordona]

Relative vs Absolute.

This is a game where you can play at multiple levels (top flight to amateur) with tens of thousands of players. Judging one singular player RELATIVE to how it may or may not improve your team, at whichever level you play, facilitates your decision making on whether or not to sign him.

Looking at an ABSOLUTE value of a player does not make your decision making as easy.

[davidnio_422]

If you judge players against all the players in the world, if you are managing at the top level virtually all the players you have and consider signing will be 4.5 - 5 star level, so you arent going to be able to tell whether a given new player represents a significant step up on what you already have. Ditto at amateur level all the players will be 0.5-1 star, and any player of 2 star level and above will be out of your realistic target range.

[barto123]

Rate the players against EVERY OTHER KNOWN PLAYER IN THE WORLD THAT YOU KNOW OF.

You cant do that. This is game that simulates a lot of different levels of football. Doing that would make the star ratings more or less useless to tell between similarly skilled players. Every player in the EPL would be 4.5 star to 5 star under your system, which would be useless to tell them apart at all.

What you are asking for is essentially a rating like in FIFA but in star form. THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Anyway, the star ratings are not a true indicator of how they will play in your team, look at the relevant stats instead.

[Guest]

Decided to merge this with your other thread on this issues, I hope you will now get the message that your idea is not workable in the context of what FM is attempting to simulate.

[Yankee112DK]

I think the central point is that the star system would be far to inaccurate if it was some kind of absolute value.

You must consider that your database likely holds at least 50,000 players. If you must separate these between 10 levels of star and half-stars, you would place about 5,000 players on each level. That means that every player in the 10 best Leagues would be 5-star players. So Messi would be rated alongside not only Danny Welbeck or Danny Ings but also 5-star player Dennis van der Heijden of ADO Den Haag and Danis Gyanatullin of Rubin Kazan. They would all be 5-star players compared to all the utter crap players in the database.

Naturally that would render the star system completely useless.

[barto123]

For anyone who thinks that the star rating system should have absolute value and not relative value, consider this: you may as well just use the in game editor and look at the CA and PA of players and forget the star system entirely. That is already an available option to anyone who has a problem with the star system as it currently stands.

[Sankalan]

The difference is that scouts can get it wrong, as in real life. The editor will always get it right.

[Guest]

The system the OP has twice suggested will mean that scouts cannot be wrong.

[herne79]

Until it's binned, just ignore the star rating system.

Focus on player attributes and scout / coach reports instead. Personally I couldn't care less how many stars one of my players has compared to a team mate, or how many stars somebody at a different club has.

If he's good enough, buy him and/or play him.

For developing players, coaches and scouts will tell you their potential. Is it infallible? No, but then it isn't supposed to be.

I think you'd enjoy things far more if people stop placing so much emphasis on stars. Get rid of them imo.

[forameuss]

Until it's binned, just ignore the star rating system.

Focus on player attributes and scout / coach reports instead. Personally I couldn't care less how many stars one of my players has compared to a team mate, or how many stars somebody at a different club has.

If he's good enough, buy him and/or play him.

For developing players, coaches and scouts will tell you their potential. Is it infallible? No, but then it isn't supposed to be.

I think you'd enjoy things far more if people stop placing so much emphasis on stars. Get rid of them imo.

So because some people misunderstand a system that doesn't really do anything wrong, it should be binned? As a relative idea of strength of your own squad and potential signings, it works fine.

[Rhobium]

The system the OP has twice suggested will mean that scouts cannot be wrong.

How? I don't see why, if star ratings were to be relative to all the players in the game world, scouts couldn't still misjudge the ability of players.

The biggest issue I have with the current system is that scouting reports go out of date as your team improves.

[herne79]

It's not about misunderstanding the system (although many do).

It's about too many people placing too much emphasis on these star ratings, when a simple look at coach / scout reports instead can tell you all you need to know.

As the Manager, I should know who my key players are, who my back ups are, who my transfer targets are to improve my squad and who my bright young prospects are, without feeling the need to rely heavily on some star rating system that the AI and not me the Manager is in control of. That's why (in my opinion) we could do away with the star system because it's simply unnecessary.