Ratings vs Star Quality

[russ2000_uk]

35T teams that have 1* players who perform well play them in serious matches. My 3rd team @level 5 has a non-SA striker playing in a counterattacking team who has scored 77 career goals in 128 matches, including the Cup Winning goal.

Any favouring of low star players in the rankings imo will be relative. It will depend who they are up against. If there is a chance to be better rewarded it will be balanced by the quality gap that makes it less likely they will do enough to actually get it.

I do not believe and have not seen automatically higher ratings for low star players but I have seen very high rated 1* players, just like I've seen very high rated 7* players.

You really won't get any proper proof....better to forget proof and go with 'feel'. I might do some friendlies between my 2 levl 5 teams over next few days and compare ratings....if not I'll post some 1* player ratings after a few games.

I wouldn't suggest that there are 'favourable' ratings for low-star players, only that they need to do less to qualify for a better rating. This, in turn, makes their ratings a tad misleading.

The problem with not being able to collate any actual data and going with 'feel' is that this becomes opinion-based and, therefore, difficult to quantify. To be fair, this does seem to be the only way to draw conclusions in T11, as much of it doesn't seem to add up when analysed. And, in additional fairness, this actually does mirror real-life football. Often, nobody can explain why a player is so good one week and completely toilet the next...

I would be wary when using friendlies to try and figure out in-game idiosyncrasies...I think it's fairly well-established that the conditions for friendly games are different to those of competitive matches. I've tried to do this...for example, I played the same match twice in succession, with exactly the same condition/orders, etc for both matches and got totally different results. Again, not unlike real football, to be fair to Nordeus.

[Buffs Mad]

I wouldn't suggest that there are 'favourable' ratings for low-star players, only that they need to do less to qualify for a better rating. This, in turn, makes their ratings a tad misleading.

The problem with not being able to collate any actual data and going with 'feel' is that this becomes opinion-based and, therefore, difficult to quantify. To be fair, this does seem to be the only way to draw conclusions in T11, as much of it doesn't seem to add up when analysed. And, in additional fairness, this actually does mirror real-life football. Often, nobody can explain why a player is so good one week and completely toilet the next...

I would be wary when using friendlies to try and figure out in-game idiosyncrasies...I think it's fairly well-established that the conditions for friendly games are different to those of competitive matches. I've tried to do this...for example, I played the same match twice in succession, with exactly the same condition/orders, etc for both matches and got totally different results. Again, not unlike real football, to be fair to Nordeus.

The evidence based approach only works if there is control, large numbers and a rigorous approch. In the game and on this forum we'll get neither. 'Feel' is still based on observed data, it just recognises that its not rigorous.

I know the problems with friendlies but can only work with what I've got.

But if me posting stuff will not help them I'm happy not to bother.

[russ2000_uk]

The evidence based approach only works if there is control, large numbers and a rigorous approch. In the game and on this forum we'll get neither. 'Feel' is still based on observed data, it just recognises that its not rigorous.

I know the problems with friendlies but can only work with what I've got.

But if me posting stuff will not help them I'm happy not to bother.

Precisely my point...the variables make it next-to-impossible to actually glean an answer that we, as game-players, can use to improve our knowledge of the game, without accepting that each conclusion is going to be opinion, rather than fact.

Interestingly, this is true for almost all aspects of the game, including this one. We actually don't have the facility to prove/disprove much...the lack of control you refer to.

Nothing wrong with basing things on 'feel' at all; indeed, it's all we have to work with. But, much like a counter-formation table, which gets hundreds of replies complaining that it's wrong, or that someone lost, it's important to understand that any findings will be general and will not apply in every case.

Please post any data you get...would be interesting to see. Afraid I don't have any 1* players to do it with, but have done it with 3* players in the past and found it to be pretty random.