Please Explain This To Me (Stars vs Attributes)

[Weston]

Okay, so I know this has been discussed at great lengths now, but in my current Parma save I have been relentlessly bothered by a particularly glaring example of scout reports that are seemingly at all odds with attributes, and I want someone to explain this to me.

Maikol Benassi started out as my co-captain, and has solid attributes, but all my coaches rate him as 2* (save for a 3 and 2 CA that say 2.5*, but we'll ignore that). But, compared to my two highest rated defenders, Marchizza and Coly, who are both 3.5* (a 75% increase over Benassi), I cannot for the life of me figure out why. All three are one-footed and none can play any wildly different positions. Benassi even seems to have favorable traits, like consistency. Sure, the others may have slightly higher numbers across the board, but if we isolate just the ideal attributes for the center defender (defend) position and add them, this is how they stack up blue/gray:

Benassi: 63/93
Coly: 64/87
Marchizza: 65/79

Not only are those all pretty close, but if anything, Benassi is best! Even if the latter two are better, surely the gulf isn't so large that Benassi is recommended to play TWO WHOLE TIERS BELOW THEM?

So my questions is, why the hell is this happening? Are all of my coaches all in on some secret I am oblivious to and I should trust them? Or are all of my coaches unanimously and inexplicably completely missing the plot here? I haven't played him once all season, and the others have done just fine, but am I stupid for excluding him seeing as his attributes are good? Interestingly his value is also very rock bottom, so apparently everyone else agrees with this low assessment. I'm scouting another defender who is literally double the stars and valued much higher, but again he has similar attributes, so what's the point?

I'm really tempted to take a peek with the editor but I don't want to ruin the integrity of what I hope will be a long-term save...

[santy001]

Attributes:
Attributes are fixed, the actual real attributes of a player. You can't see all the attributes as a number of them are hidden, but you get a pretty good spread right there, which helps with making decisions based around what you're after.

The attributes you see, once they're refined down to an exact number, cannot be wrong. They can change over time, but right now they are what they are. 

Stars:
The stars are an in-game staff members interpretation on a player as the whole package, including the players CA/PA (as the staff member perceives it) and the hidden mental attributes you cannot see but they provide a bit more insight towards. They're also (I think) combining factors like the relative level of players in the same position in your squad, and generally the kind of level of the player you would expect a team of your stature to have in that position. However, this whole interpretation is based off the AI staff members interpretation of all these factors which is not a fixed or sure-thing. 

The stars basically fill a more easy to understand at a glance void than a text label would (although if you hover over, I'm sure there's a tooltip with text in for what that star means, like I think 2.5 stars is good, 2 stars is fairly good or something to that effect, just a scale that you can see improving with quality for each .5 star increment). It's important to remember that the stars can be very much wrong though, particularly where potential is concerned. 

A black star represents uncertainty. So in the Benassi screenshot your staff member thinks he's probably a 4 star potential player in comparison to your squad (meaning if he fulfills his potential he's better than whats expected for your squad) but he could potentially be a 5 star player which if that's the case he would be a huge upgrade over what's expected for your squad & compared to the current players. 

- - - - -

Ultimately its a very useful layer of filtering to help know which players might be worth more than a second glance at. You might look at a player and think he's underwhelming, but a staff member can give him 4 star potential which warrants at least another look or a bit of a closer look to see if your initial assessment was wrong. You also get the same with low star ratings, I often sign players who are 1.5 or 2 stars for back-ups/rotation spots which is generally against staff members advice, but I know what I'm looking for so their input isn't that useful. 

It's a tool that has its uses, on its own its extremely limited in scope, and relying on it alone is a terrible idea... but as part of the package of scout reports, your own judgement of attributes and the other factors you consider when buying a player it helps with making decisions.

[Cougar2010]

@Weston

I can see why you are confused with those examples and do have some sympathy.

You've done everything sensibly, isolated the important attributes, checked the footedness and looked at the playable positions (Can you clarify where each can play).

That leaves you with the following:

A) Are any of them relative new signings? say less than a season with the club.

B) reputation of the players I think has a minor influence on the stars.  Without that influence Coly could possibly slip to 3* while Benassi might gain a little to 2.5* and then the stars wouldn't look so bad.

 

Aside from that its swings & roundabouts, you can look at it one of two ways:

A) Go from the attributes & give him a chance.  I've had plenty of consistent 2* players over the years that have been important to my team.  It could also be that your staff are wrong of course.

B) Presume your staff know a little something else and trust them.

 

Generally I do a bit of both, early on with a club I'll more likely go with A, once the squad is settled & established I'll maybe more lean to B as I look to improve it.

 

EDIT

Forgot to add that form plays a minor role as well so a player in top form might gain 0.5* while a player in poor form might lose 0.5* giving you a swing of 1*.

[Weston]

5 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

@Weston

I can see why you are confused with those examples and do have some sympathy.

You've done everything sensibly, isolated the important attributes, checked the footedness and looked at the playable positions (Can you clarify where each can play).

That leaves you with the following:

A) Are any of them relative new signings? say less than a season with the club.

B) reputation of the players I think has a minor influence on the stars.  Without that influence Coly could possibly slip to 3* while Benassi might gain a little to 2.5* and then the stars wouldn't look so bad.

 

Aside from that its swings & roundabouts, you can look at it one of two ways:

A) Go from the attributes & give him a chance.  I've had plenty of consistent 2* players over the years that have been important to my team.  It could also be that your staff are wrong of course.

B) Presume your staff know a little something else and trust them.

 

Generally I do a bit of both, early on with a club I'll more likely go with A, once the squad is settled & established I'll maybe more lean to B as I look to improve it.

 

EDIT

Forgot to add that form plays a minor role as well so a player in top form might gain 0.5* while a player in poor form might lose 0.5* giving you a swing of 1*.

To be honest I never once played Benassi, because I saw how badly he was rated by my staff and immediately loaned in Marchizza and Sernicola so he slipped to 5th or 6th choice according to stars and was never needed. All three can really only play CB though Benassi is decent at LB, so if anything he is the most versatile as well.

If I give him a chance based on attributes, and the staff see him play at a higher level than they anticipated, could I see the stars jump up? I don't mean just based on form being super high, I mean in terms of them properly coming to terms with just the base ability of the player that was always there? He was one of the few who I started the season with, though, so they should have a really good understanding of him already (Coly began the season with me as a new signing). Coly and Marchizza are 7.01 and 7.06 on form respectively, though they were already ranked this high or higher when I started playing them.

If the coaches do know something that I don't know, which is amazing that they all found it and none of them can tell me, and also that the CA judging 3 and 2 also saw the same thing and didn't just look at the attributes and think "yes, good" is baffling to me, but what are some of those hidden things that it could be? I just don't understand why if scouts / coaches are so infallible why they always seem so consistent with each other.

[enigmatic]

The reputation of the players plays a pretty large role in how they're judged, so yes, his star rating can rise even if he doesn't actually get any better. I've seen my coaches gradually revise their opinion of players from "good Championship player" to "good Premiership player" without their ability changing at all

Coly is clearly a better player in terms of CA and although they're remarkably similar in most defensive areas, he does have a significant advantage in strength, which is pretty important to a centreback. Marchizza has a couple of weaknesses so it's less obvious he's a superior player to Benassi, but again, he's quicker and stronger in the air, which is weighted more highly in terms of CA than Benassi's marginally better stats in a couple of mental areas, and Marchizza's lack of natural fitness and aggression isn't a factor in the calculation on CA at all. A couple of areas in which Benassi is particularly strong; aggression and determination don't count towards CA at all, and nor does consistency which is very helpful indeed.

Ultimately the [coaches' guess at] hidden CA is a rough guide to players' ability to perform for you though, and the attributes are more detailed relevant information. Better dribbling, technique and leadership might make Coly more talented but it isn't likely to make much difference to how he performs in a conventional central defensive role. 

Benassi's substandard first touch and lack of strength compared with the others might affect things a little more, but he still looks a relatively well balanced defender and it's possible that with his consistency and determination as well he can play at a similar level to the others, which is the only thing that really matters.

[Weston]

32 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

The reputation of the players plays a pretty large role in how they're judged, so yes, his star rating can rise even if he doesn't actually get any better. I've seen my coaches gradually revise their opinion of players from "good Championship player" to "good Premiership player" without their ability changing at all

Coly is clearly a better player in terms of CA and although they're remarkably similar in most defensive areas, he does have a significant advantage in strength, which is pretty important to a centreback. Marchizza has a couple of weaknesses so it's less obvious he's a superior player to Benassi, but again, he's quicker and stronger in the air, which is weighted more highly in terms of CA than Benassi's marginally better stats in a couple of mental areas, and Marchizza's lack of natural fitness and aggression isn't a factor in the calculation on CA at all. A couple of areas in which Benassi is particularly strong; aggression and determination don't count towards CA at all, and nor does consistency which is very helpful indeed.

Wait, why don't some attributes factor into CA and some do? (And how do I know which are which?) Is this because those attributes are far less important, or are they still important and we have to factor that into our consideration along with the star ratings that leave them out for some reason..?

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, Weston said:

Wait, why don't some attributes factor into CA and some do? (And how do I know which are which?) Is this because those attributes are far less important, or are they still important and we have to factor that into our consideration along with the star ratings that leave them out for some reason..?

I explained it in your other thread.

Each attribute is given a weighting/ratio depending on the position of a player.  The more important the attribute for the position the more CA it costs.  So for example finishing is a very cheap attribute in CA terms for a DC but a very expensive one for a ST.

Some attributes are outside of the scope of CA, I'm not 100% which but off the top of my head I would guess something like penalty taking.  Its not relevant for any position and isn't used in open play.  Free kicks/corners could possibly be others.

[Weston]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I explained it in your other thread.

Each attribute is given a weighting/ratio depending on the position of a player.  The more important the attribute for the position the more CA it costs.  So for example finishing is a very cheap attribute in CA terms for a DC but a very expensive one for a ST.

Some attributes are outside of the scope of CA, I'm not 100% which but off the top of my head I would guess something like penalty taking.  Its not relevant for any position and isn't used in open play.  Free kicks/corners could possibly be others.

I'm just confused as to why aggression and determination apparently don't count towards CA for a CB then, especially considering they're literally highlighted as important attributes for the position..? Do I consider them or not? And how come, then, CBs with the same highlighted roles but will have different stars if one is higher in other less relevant areas (which is why I assume Coly earns a slight edge)?

[enigmatic]

Natural Fitness doesn't factor in because it doesn't affect how they play (except how likely they are to be tired at the start) and Flair and Aggression don't factor in on the basis they're styles of play can theoretically be good or bad traits depending on the players' abilities (not much point in having lots of flair if you don't have the technical ability to pull any of the things you try off) . Determination doesn't factor in because it's supposed to be a personality trait rather than how good they are as a footballer  (which doesn't make much sense when Bravery is factored in). That doesn't mean you don't consider them. (Set pieces are factored in, but have a very low weighting.)

And Coly has a higher CA because he's a better footballer, even if in a small subset of defensive attributes he's quite similar to Benassi. Just because he doesn't dribble or shoot much much doesn't mean he isn't better at dribbling or shooting.

 

[Weston]

2 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Natural Fitness doesn't factor in because it doesn't affect how they play (except how likely they are to be tired at the start) and Flair and Aggression don't factor in on the basis they're styles of play can theoretically be good or bad traits depending on the players' abilities (not much point in having lots of flair if you don't have the technical ability to pull any of the things you try off) . Determination doesn't factor in because it's supposed to be a personality trait rather than how good they are as a footballer  (which doesn't make much sense when Bravery is factored in)

 Set pieces are factored in, but have a very low weighting.

This is so confusing. So basically CA only factors in attributes that are relevant to the position except for personality-based ones, barely weights set pieces, only short term / immediate physical attributes like strength count, etc.? How is anyone supposed to make sense of this?

And none of this changes how baffling it is that the gulf is a full 75% difference between the players AND all coaches, even terrible ones, reached the exact same conclusion...

[Weston]

So to take another comparison into consideration, why on Earth then is Sernicola rated higher than Benassi if Benassi has literally every single highlighted attribute higher except a measly -1 difference at heading? Why am I paying 50k in wages to bring in Sernicola at all? Sernicola can sorta play a few deep midfield roles and is more two-footed, but how would that drag his lower attributes to a 50% increase in stars..?

[enigmatic]

No, CA factors in all attributes except for the ones I've said (and the hidden ones), weighting them reasonably appropriately to the position. But it's only a rough comparison.

 

Two stars and three and a half stars isn't a 75% difference, and its because your staff think Coly is a better footballer, partly because he is, and partly because as he's a more famous footballer they might slightly overrate him and slightly underrate the other one.

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, Weston said:

This is so confusing. So basically CA only factors in attributes that are relevant to the position except for personality-based ones, barely weights set pieces, only short term / immediate physical attributes like strength count, etc.? How is anyone supposed to make sense of this?

And none of this changes how baffling it is that the gulf is a full 75% difference between the players AND all coaches, even terrible ones, reached the exact same conclusion...

I really don't know why you struggle with it so much when thousands of other users cope with it just fine.

You don't need to know every single little detail.  Personally I just look at the octagon and watch the players on the pitch to make my decisions, I rarely even look at attributes any more.

In terms of your example you either give him a chance or you don't.  If you do and he plays rubbish you get rid, if he plays well you have a squad player & if you don't want to give him a chance then move him on.

 

[Cougar2010]

4 minutes ago, Weston said:

So to take another comparison into consideration, why on Earth then is Sernicola rated higher than Benassi if Benassi has literally every single highlighted attribute higher except a measly -1 difference at heading? Why am I paying 50k in wages to bring in Sernicola at all? Sernicola can sorta play a few deep midfield roles and is more two-footed, but how would that drag his lower attributes to a 50% increase in stars..?

You've answered your own question there I would say.

A) He is more two footed meaning more CA points spent on his weak foot ability.

B) Ability to play DM means other attributes are increased in importance.  So things like Passing, team work, work rate & stamina cost more CA despite being at a similar level to Benassi.

 

[Weston]

5 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

You've answered your own question there I would say.

A) He is more two footed meaning more CA points spent on his weak foot ability.

B) Ability to play DM means other attributes are increased in importance.  So things like Passing, team work, work rate & stamina cost more CA despite being at a similar level to Benassi.

 

It's just crazy to me that the change would be that drastic, especially because it feels like half the time I'm being told positions don't matter outside of a hit to decisions and to play people based on attributes, but then half the time I'm being told that a CB who sorta knows how to play CDM deserves an entire extra star for it. Is two-footedness even important for a CB? Probable not. Meanwhile, I have a RW who has solid attributes for CAM but because he has 0 positional ability there I can't even get a coach to give me a rating for his use there at all.

[Cougar2010]

5 minutes ago, Weston said:

It's just crazy to me that the change would be that drastic, especially because it feels like half the time I'm being told positions don't matter outside of a hit to decisions and to play people based on attributes,

The ME works simply on attributes.  The only hit from playing a player out of position is the decisions attribute.

Stars mean nothing to the ME, they are only there to give you as the user an overall idea of how good the player is.

 

5 minutes ago, Weston said:

but then half the time I'm being told that a CB who sorta knows how to play CDM deserves an entire extra star for it.

He doesn't "deserve" an extra * for it.

If he could only play DC and no other position then his attributes would likely be higher as he would have spare CA to spend on them.

 

5 minutes ago, Weston said:

Is two-footedness even important for a CB? Probable not. Meanwhile, I have a RW who has solid attributes for CAM but because he has 0 positional ability there I can't even get a coach to give me a rating for his use there at all.

Not so much, two footedness is much more useful in attacking positions.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

15 minutes ago, Weston said:

It's just crazy to me that the change would be that drastic, especially because it feels like half the time I'm being told positions don't matter outside of a hit to decisions and to play people based on attributes, but then half the time I'm being told that a CB who sorta knows how to play CDM deserves an entire extra star for it. Is two-footedness even important for a CB? Probable not. Meanwhile, I have a RW who has solid attributes for CAM but because he has 0 positional ability there I can't even get a coach to give me a rating for his use there at all.

The game isn't giving the player an extra star because he can play in another position or use his other foot, he gets the extra star because he has a higher CA, however his attribute spread is different, so whilst the guy with the higher star rating might be a better all round footballer, he could be a worse defender than the other guy who is a worse footballer but just happens to have all of his CA points put into the key attributes for that one DC role.

At the end of the day star ratings are just a rough guide (you are basically condensing down lots of data into a 10 point scale, and the scale is constantly moving) and personally if the stars are within one of each other I don't pay that much attention to them and either pick players on performance or if signing them their key attributes are higher and they don't have any negatives in their report or elsewhere (bad PPMs, etc...)

[Weston]

1 hour ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

The game isn't giving the player an extra star because he can play in another position or use his other foot, he gets the extra star because he has a higher CA, however his attribute spread is different, so whilst the guy with the higher star rating might be a better all round footballer, he could be a worse defender than the other guy who is a worse footballer but just happens to have all of his CA points put into the key attributes for that one DC role.

But I'm looking at their star ratings for one position, not their overall ability as a footballer, it just happens to be the same, right? (In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a player without at least one positional star rating equal to the overall report, leading me to think the overall report is always just the highest positional report?) My coaches say Benassi is 2* as a CB and Sernicola is 3* at CB. And, obviously we can't know 100% without consulting the editor, but looking at those attribute spreads and scout reports, do you think Benassi truly has a non-negligibly lower CA than the other three?

I just don't know what would make me feel more inept at this game, signing a 3.5* for lots of money and letting the 2* go on a free (no one will make an offer for him) when they have very similar attributes, or playing someone that every single member of my backroom staff has told me is worthless (I still struggle to avoid the mindset of thinking "the game knows what the game wants more than I do, so I should listen to its reports on itself").

[RandomGuy.]

Unless your Scout/Coach, has a JA, and JP, rating of 20, and a 100% knowledge of the player, then they can "misjudge" a player. Its just their opinion based on their own ability and knowledge of the players.

 

 

[Welshace]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Unless your Scout/Coach, has a JA, and JP, rating of 20, and a 100% knowledge of the player, then they can "misjudge" a player. Its just their opinion based on their own ability and knowledge of the players.

 

 

Actually even with those conditions met they will frequently get it wrong... they aren't super human

[RandomGuy.]

1 hour ago, Welshace said:

Actually even with those conditions met they will frequently get it wrong... they aren't super human

Indeed.

[enigmatic]

Personally, I'm not convinced I would play Sernicola over Benassi unless I was hoping for him to develop into a better player, but he's a bit quicker which matters a lot in FM, much better on the ball because his weaker foot is so much better and only marginally worse in other areas of defending.

They actually start with similar CA but at this point in the game he's probably 10-20 points better, which is definitely a difference of a full star at that level when the coaches are accurate in their assessments. (Sernicola is also better known, at a bigger club and on more of an upward career trajectory).

Which is why CA is only a guideline, and a determined player that's good at doing the stuff you want him to do might well be better than a more skilful player with a weakness. So you look at the attributes, and decide that Sernicola isn't really strong enough and he probably won't need to use his good left foot and save yourself some money because you're at least as happy with what you've got. Same as real life, where Chelsea fans had their doubts about re-signing the world class technical ability and physique of David Luiz because his mistakes often matter more than his dribbling and free kicks

 

As an extreme example, in FM16 I created a team of 125CA players (that's around the level of the better backup players at a newly-promoted side) that were a late cup final goal away from winning English domestic treble in the first and only season I played with them. Part of this is because they were extremely mentally sound, but also because my central defenders - whilst not capable of doing anything with the ball other than play a simple pass with their stronger foot - were better at actually defending than all but the elite players in the division.

 

 

[Weston]

8 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Unless your Scout/Coach, has a JA, and JP, rating of 20, and a 100% knowledge of the player, then they can "misjudge" a player. Its just their opinion based on their own ability and knowledge of the players.

 

 

6 hours ago, Welshace said:

Actually even with those conditions met they will frequently get it wrong... they aren't super human

The thing that bothers me though is that for all the variability scout and coach reports supposedly have in relation to the true hidden value they seem to have very little variability in relation to each other. In other words, sure, I get that a report may differ from the player's actual ability, but how do all of my staff agree on that inaccurate report? Right now I have staff with almost 10 pt differences in CA that are a half star apart in their conclusions at most, while, as confused as I am myself, I would expect a wider range in opinion in the backroom as well.

[Weston]

4 hours ago, enigmatic said:

Personally, I'm not convinced I would play Sernicola over Benassi unless I was hoping for him to develop into a better player, but he's a bit quicker which matters a lot in FM, much better on the ball because his weaker foot is so much better and only marginally worse in other areas of defending.

They actually start with similar CA but at this point in the game he's probably 10-20 points better, which is definitely a difference of a full star at that level when the coaches are accurate in their assessments. (Sernicola is also better known, at a bigger club and on more of an upward career trajectory).

Which is why CA is only a guideline, and a determined player that's good at doing the stuff you want him to do might well be better than a more skilful player with a weakness. So you look at the attributes, and decide that Sernicola isn't really strong enough and he probably won't need to use his good left foot and save yourself some money because you're at least as happy with what you've got. Same as real life, where Chelsea fans had their doubts about re-signing the world class technical ability and physique of David Luiz because his mistakes often matter more than his dribbling and free kicks

 

As an extreme example, in FM16 I created a team of 125CA players (that's around the level of the better backup players at a newly-promoted side) that were a late cup final goal away from winning English domestic treble in the first and only season I played with them. Part of this is because they were extremely mentally sound, but also because my central defenders - whilst not capable of doing anything with the ball other than play a simple pass with their stronger foot - were better at actually defending than all but the elite players in the division.

 

 

Yeah, if they were both my players I would definitely play Sernicola for the future, but since he's on loan for 50k and my wages are over-budget by 49k I'm really tempted to send him home and just slot Benassi into that same sub role in my squad. I don't really need 5 CBs in any case. I suppose I should give Benassi a run out first to test him, though.

I'm still confused by the "better known" bit, though. Sure, Sernicola is from a more reputable club, but I don't think my coaches would be less familiar with my starting co-captain than some random youth player two tiers away.

[enigmatic]

It's not a case of preferring players which are more or less familiar. It's a case of having reputation scores which may result in a "well he's considered a good prospect at a bigger club; he must be pretty good" vs "we signed him from a Serie D club that didn't consider him an automatic choice, he's unlikely to be that special" bias when judging how good a player actually is.

Same with any inaccuracy in coaches opinions tending to be fairly correlated. Nobody thought Jamie Vardy the little-known Conference player was actually that good until proved otherwise (only the very best scouts might have imagined his game could work in the top couple of divisions... if they'd actually watched him). Every coach assumes the player that's been playing at a level for a while is good enough to continue doing so until their limitations become really obvious (and only the very best might correctly identify that some obscure player at a lower level would actually be a slight upgrade)

[Weston]

6 hours ago, enigmatic said:

It's not a case of preferring players which are more or less familiar. It's a case of having reputation scores which may result in a "well he's considered a good prospect at a bigger club; he must be pretty good" vs "we signed him from a Serie D club that didn't consider him an automatic choice, he's unlikely to be that special" bias when judging how good a player actually is.

Same with any inaccuracy in coaches opinions tending to be fairly correlated. Nobody thought Jamie Vardy the little-known Conference player was actually that good until proved otherwise (only the very best scouts might have imagined his game could work in the top couple of divisions... if they'd actually watched him). Every coach assumes the player that's been playing at a level for a while is good enough to continue doing so until their limitations become really obvious (and only the very best might correctly identify that some obscure player at a lower level would actually be a slight upgrade)

I get all of that in terms of scouting but it's still strange for that to have such a heavy-handed presence in coaches who have an intimate, long-term knowledge of players at my club.

[jayahr]

On 13.11.2016 at 02:31, Weston said:

But I'm looking at their star ratings for one position, not their overall ability as a footballer, it just happens to be the same, right?

Maybe this is the main issue in here. Could there be a difference between your understanding/expectations and the way in which the game does things? It sounds like you want the stars rating to reflect how good a player is in a certain position or role, but that is not, how it works in my understanding.

 

In my understanding, the stars rating reflects the overall ability of a player, i.e. his CA, but not his suitability for one certain position or role. That means that players with less stars might actually be better in performing one special role or task.

With this understanding in mind, I do not consider the stars rating as the all-important one, but look at the attributes as much, just because it doesn't help me a bit, if a player can also play another position or if he is gifted in areas which are not needed that much for the position I want to fill. I just look at what I need, and that is the attributes and, for some positions, also the footedness.

 

That means, that the stars rating is more clever than us in the respect that it factors in also information which is not or not as readily available to us.

On the other hand the stars rating is less clever than us, because it does not weigh information in the way we do, therefore leaving us with work to do. They work as a first impression and evaluation, but if you trust them blindly, you won't get the best result, because in detail tehy are lacking.

 

That said, I find it misleading, that there is also a stars rating below the overall one for the different roles in each position. As these ratings are limited to the overall stars rating, they do reflect the best role in that posiion for a player, but they do not reflect the fact, that a limited player with a beneficial attribute spread but easily be as good for a role as a better one with a broader attribute spread.

[Cougar2010]

14 minutes ago, jayahr said:

In my understanding, the stars rating reflects the overall ability of a player, i.e. his CA, but not his suitability for one certain position or role. That means that players with less stars might actually be better in performing one special role or task.

Just for clarity.

There are different types of stars.

On the main player screen there are stars which refer to the overall CA/ability of a player.

However there are also a different type of star on the reports screen which shows the staff's opinion of the ability of a player in each position.

For his natural/main position these are likely to be the same/similar however for other positions they can be lower depending on his attributes.

[mikelfc8]

Whilst I share every one of Weston's frustrations about the star-rating system, it might be worth mentioning that I perceive it to be very deliberately vague.

Am I wrong in thinking that it is SI's best attempt to encode real-world uncertainty into the game. It feels/is gamey, but it works pretty much as intended. We are not really supposed to understand it, in much the same way as we have no truly precise understanding of human subjectivity and the mechanisms of opinion and judgement.

The fact that, despite every real-world best guess, judgements are proven incorrect in the real world, means that sometimes the star-system will be/has to be maddening, confusing and way off the mark. Sometimes one opinion could be right and fifty wrong, because that happens.

Having said that, I am sure that Weston is correct and the internal diversity and sophistication of the system could be improved to reflect more nuance, and it would be nice if there was a less gamey way to represent all of this.

In short, this is why I focus on attributes rather than stars for current ability and pay more attention to the potential ability stars combined with scout/coach reports.

[Auqakuh]

I'd like to add to this that the attributes we see in-game are not the true player attributes, exactly; the actual attributes are 1-200, not 1-20. This means two players with, say, 12 for Technique can actually be quite different - one being 124, one being 116. This means players with identical visible attributes are not identical at all. Not unless you made them that way!

[Double Indemnity]

You can largely ignore stars. The only thing I use them for with any weight at all is potential ability, and even then it's with an acknowledgement that scouts are hazy at best in their assessments. Stars are a very vague look at CA/PA, and raw CA/PA are far, far less important than how they're distributed.

Trust in attributes (especially ones that are relevant to position/role/your tactical philosophy), personality, footedness, and some of the hidden stuff scouts can tell you (e.g., consistency, important matches, injury proneness).

Also, in Serie C, you can really ignore stars, because your scouts and coaches are just not going to be very good. And your players are going to be so relatively poor in the game world that almost any half-decent young player will have "five-star" potential in comparison.