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?
I didn't get it from anywhere, to be fair. In my head, that's just how it works! :) Given that a 5* is of a higher standard than a 1*, the 1* needs to do less to qualify a rating...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras Račas
I suspect there's no actual data to prove it one way or the other.
Sorry, but that's absolutely NOT how ratings work :DQuote:
Originally Posted by russ2000_uk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras Račas
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?^^
Make sure that all players are equal with their stars (4*-5*). I usually do this just to my first squad. The ratings are just temporaryQuote:
Originally Posted by russ2000_uk
I think ratings are related to how often a player interacts with the ball, regardless of stars.
All we need is some evidence of 1* players with poor ratings...although that could merely be evidence that they were exceptionally poor in that match.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras Račas
I'm not saying this is certainly how it works, but whenever I've played 3* players, their ratings have been good, but they've actually done very little, if judging my the commentary.
Of course, there is a good argument that the ratings mean very little, anyway. I've certainly had players block 6-7 shots, score a goal and get a 5, or 'keepers who save a few 1-on-1's, corner headers, etc, who got a the same rating. I have no doubt many others have had similar experiences.
Nobody plays 1* players in serious matches, lol. I played one yesterday vs an abandoned team and ofc he got a good rating. Oh, and GK's ratings are messed up so don't mind that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gintaras Račas
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by russ2000_uk
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. :D
In this game (through many seasons of playing) I'd say that the ratings tend to outdo the *'s.
If you look at a 'troll' result, where a team loses to another that is maybe average 2*'s worse you'll see the lower level players will rate 8's and 9's, whereas the better team will only it 5's, 6's and 7's.
Saying that, over a season i'd rather have a team of 7 * players playing average than 2* players playing well! :D
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
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.
When I performed 5,6,7 and 8 levels,I had a ML/AML player who didn't grow up his rating so fast ( from 41 to 45) ,but in my classical 4-5-1, he had very good performances against appearently better quality opponents and he scored more than ST players.
Starting from level 9,of course,where I had to face 55 mean quality level MR,I had to sell him.
This means that the performance of a player depends on quality level,but also,age,correct role(native role if he has learned other roles),motivation.
Motivation is the key element: if a very good rated (and also young) player performs bad and improves worst,because he has nothing more to give for the team,I sell him without esitation.
What sort of chocolates and what do you drink.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckStar
An avg 7-8 rated 4 star player over an avg 5-6 rated scout any time. Don't mind a bad rating once in a while, but 5-6 avg will cost you matches sooner or later when 4's start coming when in bad form. That's all I can make of it myself.
The only thing I don't agree with here is Nordeus people strike me as "cat people". I doubt, very much, dog licking comes into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffs Mad
I'm not a real fan of chocolate but I have been drinking...A LOT as of late. Maybe that's why I haven't anything resembling a defense in awhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckStar
Here's the ratings for my 3rd team that has some 1 star players - 3 friendlies and 4 competitive matches
Highest rating for 1* is 8 (my team), lowest is 5 (opposition - last piccy).
http://i61.tinypic.com/dwb1ir.jpghttp://i60.tinypic.com/nfno1t.jpghttp://i57.tinypic.com/28007xh.jpg
http://i58.tinypic.com/214nmh0.jpg
http://i60.tinypic.com/30cr38l.jpghttp://i57.tinypic.com/nqra4j.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/90ugir.jpg