Ratings vs Star Quality

[russ2000_uk]

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...

[Gintaras Račas]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Never heard about this, where did you get this from? Ratings are same for everyone, no?

[russ2000_uk]

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...

I suspect there's no actual data to prove it one way or the other.

[Gintaras Račas]

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...

I suspect there's no actual data to prove it one way or the other.

Sorry, but that's absolutely NOT how ratings work

[russ2000_uk]

Sorry, but that's absolutely NOT how ratings work

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...

[Buffs Mad]

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.

[Liquid]

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.

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.

[Gintaras Račas]

I don't have evidence YET. The season has just started our team played 1 match, no suitable example in there.

[russ2000_uk]

I don't have evidence YET. The season has just started our team played 1 match, no suitable example in there.

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.

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.

[Gintaras Račas]

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.

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.