Printable View
I think there my be a bugette in the Performance table...
Attachment 48748
Performance ratings of [Casuals] players concerned:
T Cong Vinh: first match, dnp; second match, 9 (Ave. 9.00).
B De Wree: first match, 8; second match, 10 (Ave 9.00).
A Arma: first match, 9; second match, 7 (Ave 8.00).
K Pigott: first match, 9; second match, 8 (Ave 8.50).
Nice to have 4 players in the top 5, though :cool:
Yeah, my Left Winger has had 2 league games rating 10 in each and is rated 9.84
My Right Winger and Striker both have had a 10 and a 9 but rate 9.49 and 9.46 respectively.
Its either a buggipops or match ratings have a more precise value to 1 or more decimal places but are displayed as rounded up/down whole numbers in some screens.
I vote bug though. ;)
Hey guys,
I would like to shed some light on this :).
This is, while it may seem so, not anor aQuote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
Yet we are currently investigating ways of calculating those numbers in a much more precise way and we are aware of the fact, that many of you would like to see a much more detailed overview.Quote:
Originally Posted by talisman
In other words: No worries, this is not be a bug but we are working on improving this feature nevertheless.
So what other factors are there included in the 'Top Rating' calculation?
IRL the ratings of players are usually given in integers (or to half-integers, e.g. 8.5). The way of finding out who the best players are is to total all their ratings and divide by the number of matches they've played - which, up 'till now, this is how I thought that the 'Top Rated' table worked - recently a change had been made which restricted the table in the later part of the season to those players who had played 60% (?) of the possible games.
I can't recall anyone clamouring for any extra info, so why the change?
In computing we have an acronym, KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Don't make this game more complicated than it needs to be...
Well I'll be interested to find out what is producing it. My Left Winger just said to me....
"Boss, I rated 10, 10, 9 and that wee nyaff in the other side got 10, 9, 9. But the League Association reports me as 9.46 and him 9.49. :("
Ofc my Striker said "Who cares, I've got 9.64 :p"
PS. If this was a task given to me and this was reported back I'd think "Oh crap, I've used the calculated match rating in the averaging instead of the match award."
But, I'll wait on further developments. ;)
EDIT: couldn't resist a fiddle over coffee to make things fit.
Player 1 - 10 9 10 = average 9.64
Player 2 - 9 9 10 = average 9.49
Player 3 - 10 10 9 = average 9.46
One solution would be that the calculated match ratings (pre-award, before rounding)
Player 1 - 9.75 9.42 9.75
Player 2 - 9.48 9.48 9.51
Player 3 - 9.51 9.51 9.36
It still makes more sense to use the rounded, awarded rating that is displayed post match so that averages would be
Player 1 9.67
Player 2 9.33
Player 3 9.67
Just to keep my left winger happy ;)
@ Buff
I'd tell him to just smarten up. He shouldn't just be content with being the same as his evil twin, but stronger. If he had a more positive attitude towards it, perhaps his ratings would be stronger :p
Edit: Just realised he actually did have 'better ratings' so I apologise to him. He has every right to feel aggrieved!
Found a 1 game guy.
http://i57.tinypic.com/35heoh2.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/ev1kj8.jpg
