Need answers from Nordeus...

[khris]

What kind of test vs 1* teams you are talking about? I played 2 friendlies against the same 1* team, the second game with less condition. In the first game all my players had ratings over 7.5 and the score was 2 - 0. In the second game only few players had ratings over 7.0 and the score was 10 - 0. My best player of all times wasn't in those few with ratings over 7.0...

The test vs a 1* team allow you to oversize the internal programming. Since the beatability margin is set arround a 60% of distance, by testing your team vs a 1* your players will perform at the max. posible quality distance. You can know by doing this, if a player is a key player, because by the force a excellent programmed player (with dominance power (so able to take a good amount of amination slots) and contributive power (so able to be efficent) will score very likely 3+ goals per match.

You can too test the team composition, because every season have differences in how the power is spread. Time to time there is a season where 1 player scores the 70% of attempts because mostly of dominance power, is assigned to him, in other seasons, 2-3 players are alternating.

A real key player, a "well programmed one" will not have a 7 as rating vs a 1*. so in that case if you bought a player like this, you have to discard him because will be a waste to invest boosters on him, since the visual skills affect very slightly the player behaviour. It only affect the beatability margin and in this case the dominance.

You know, for example, that you can not create a "good player" intentionally. If a player is set internally to be a scorer, and have linked to him the goal animations, you can not convert him, in a assistant, by training the passing. And viceversa, an assistant will not be a scorer even with 340% shooting because of the internal roles, and we already tested this and you know perfectly about this since the V.1 Steppen, try to follow my points, please.

[Steppenwolf]

You know, for example, that you can not create a "good player" intentionally.

Every key player I had in my teams was created intentionally... These are the last four from Celtic 1888...

[khris]

Every key player I had in my teams was created intentionally... These are the last four from Celtic 1888...

Your first post is the reply to yourself-

"If the strongest player on the pitch (8-star, on fire) is under-performing 2 games in row, tell me:

1. Why I should waste money and resources to bring players to 8-star?
2. Why I should waste morale boosters to bring morale at max?"

Here there are different points to cover, the first is, that a player have to be predetermined by default to be successful.
Despite all, you can win by margin, of course. But you can differentiate a player well programmed by default from a bad programmed for the fluency that your team have when is playing.
Another point is, the beatability margin of your oppos, of course, if you push a player, he'll gain distance in the simulation, but this has nuances.
How many times we've seen upsellers with 340%s in skills complaining because their "investment" doesnt work as expected? like, finishing 340% and barely the player scores?
Too we have to consider that, by definition, as the engine only simulates the attacking playstyle, this will always link players to fill the lists and bring animations, with the corresponding variables, and these variables will create alternation when determining which player solves a match.
You can perfectly notice when you have a squad that plays fluidly or, when it seems stuck.
It is a deep science in realitym and IMO these overall rating you shared are nice, but, to understand the team situation more in detail, and the reason why the players may underperform at certain games, or why some times the score can seems stuck to 0 etc.. this is a very general analysis and will not help you. At least it didn't...