On player list, I suggest to sort player quality by average rating points instead of the no. of stars, so as to accurately rank players with same no. of stars.
On player list, I suggest to sort player quality by average rating points instead of the no. of stars, so as to accurately rank players with same no. of stars.
Then some players would never be sold... they would never attract bid war... and that's what this all is about...
Sorry that I don't understand how this change will affect bid wars, except for the beginner managers who may not fully familiar with checking players' quality.
The information is always available. The change will just save a little time on individually checking players' details.
I don't get what you mean .....sort by average of their Rating? Uhm... what about players that haven't played this Season, be they bench warmers or gens?
Otherwise it does sort by points of Quality, a guy with 28 average will be below a 29 when sorted even though they have same number stars.
Expressed above is my own opinion. ☻ Your results may vary.
▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ >BvB< ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I think wht he means is by average match rating. So that players that are i.e. 29Q, is ranked further by their match rating. It is good for those chasing players with good history, but many will miss out on Norgens and very good bench-warmers from few levels up.
Matter of preference...
Go Leo L24 Farmer ---
Very Athletic L20 (Semi-Retired) --- Real Messy L16 (Retired) --- Athletic Kuching L17 --- Los Galaxy L14 28T
I seem to remeber that at one time you could also sort by defensive, attacking and fitness qualities. I always used to bid on players with a minimum of 10 quality above their star rating.
Sorting is a bit of a muddle. On mobile (Android) it seems that 'By Price' means by Offer Cost but on PC it means by Market Value - off market mobile also offers average ratings but PC not. (Unless I dreamt that.)
I'd like sorting to be consistent by MV or Offer (or selecting either), average ratings on PC app and....back on topic.....
.....I wouldn't mind sorting by this method (whatever it actually is).