carrera22

The rating system, has almost remained unchanged since Championship Manager 1993.

But now, Sports Interactive decided, lets try and have it more realistic.. and basically i think it sucks.. I have always demanded a rating of over 7 of every player, and 7.50-8.00 on the star players.. etc.. that is how it has always been for me.

Now with the new rating system, i cant tell if a defender, or defensive midfielder is playing well anymore, obviously you can tell easily on the strikers and attacking midfielders, but generally there is given too much points for assists and goals.

Not very well written, but i just had to say it.

I dont even feel like playing anymore, its not fun seeing ratings below 7, which now is unevitable.

Yes, im whining, and no, SI aint gonna change anything.

SWaRFeGa

Well personally, I disagree with everything you've said. But either way - it's the same for everyone. You'll have to live with it.

SiDolman

There are two ways at looking at the stats.

Either you want them to completely mirror the players performances, so that you know exactly how good each player performs

Or a system based on what you might find in a newspaper which will quite often judge players based on the assists and goals

I think that the second approach is best since in reality you wouldnt know exactly how good a player is without watching their games. Altough i do think that many players of football manager do not have the time to watch all the matches and so the first option would be beneficial to some. In a perfect world si could offer both methods as an option but this would be difficult. In the meantime since they are aspiring to realism, i think the current system is suitable.

butts

All my defenders and defensive midfielders get ratings over 7 so obviously just your problem.

the pernambucano of football remainders

i sort of agree with carrera22.

in my arsenal team, hleb and fabregas will play extremely well. Great pass completion rates, they produce various assists but it seems that because they dont seem to score goals, the rating system rarely gives them above a 7 when if youw ere to loo in a sunday paper, there ratings would at least an 8 or even 9.
the old rating systems i felt were a bit to unrealistic but theyve made them over the top realistic now i feel.

SWaRFeGa

It's all relative basically. A seven is a seven. An eight is an eight. I'm sure you can work out after 5 or 6 games how good a mark is out of 10. We're not comparing stuff to the newspapers, just concentrate on what appearing on the screen.

Warrenwwr

it is clear that a 6 applies to anyone taking mart in a match.

those who affect the outcome get a rating on either side of the scale.

the way they affect the outcome, or how much they afect the match is represented by the position on the rating scale or degree on the scale (1-10)

the rating system does the job i think

Jam Man

I dont see why they should ?

A 6 is an average score, if you check the papers on a Sunday 6 is a common score, 8 and above require something special.

Previously players were over scored, its more like the real world now.

carrera22

The point is that the old rating system has been the same for over 10 years.

Also, you are right about the fact that in reality.. u cant see if a player plays well unless you watch the game. but cmon, not many FM`ers actually watch the game.

carrera22

Yeah i get that, only difference is, in the real world managers actually watch the game.. in FM, you can choose to watch the game, but its boring.