Have seen a few posts here about the ratings of 1* players and how they seem to perform...however, would a rating of 9 for a 1* be comparable to a 5 for a 5*?
Just wondering how it works...
Printable View
Have seen a few posts here about the ratings of 1* players and how they seem to perform...however, would a rating of 9 for a 1* be comparable to a 5 for a 5*?
Just wondering how it works...
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Never heard about this, where did you get this from? Ratings are same for everyone, no?
If ratings are purely personal then yes a 1* could get a 7 for tying his boots, 8 if its a very neat bow. The 7* player would need to beat 10 players, finish with a bicycle kick, all the while correctly explaining string theory and whistling Dixie.
I don't think so. ;) Its probably more like +marks for good things and -marks for bad things / the number of people using the Nordeus toilets at lunchtime x the number of times the Nordeus dog licks his nuts + any random number that gives a result between 0 and 10.
PS. If you amended your hypothesis to suggest that in generating ratings there might be a coefficient/multiplier applied based on quality - which means that if a 1* and 7* player did exactly the same things in the same match then the 1* might get a slightly higher rating - then there might be merit in that.
Sorry, but you don't know that.
Let's say that, for example, a player rated 100 has an in-engine points score for everything positive they do in a match, which is used to determine their rating. They have a cap, let's assume it's 100 for the sake of simplicity. Every pass they make gives them 10 points for example, a goal is 20 points, a red card -10, or whatever it might be. The points would need to increase with the level, so level 15 they get 10 points for pass, level 16 they get 11. There could be brackets that equate to ratings, for example, 91-100 is a 9, 81-90 is an 8, etc.
Let's further postulate that a player with a rating of 70 has a cap of 70. It's much easier for him to get to the bracket for a 9 rating as he scores higher points because he plays at a higher level.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, happy to have my theory refuted...:)
I don't have evidence YET. The season has just started our team played 1 match, no suitable example in there.
my players usually perform bad when i get drunk or eat too much chocolate..:| anyone else?^^
I think ratings are related to how often a player interacts with the ball, regardless of stars.