The extra decimal place for player ratings - what does it actually achieve?

[Shandiar]

I think this is a nice new addition. I'm not sure how you are finding a system that seperates players more obviously more difficult to follow.

IMO its now much easier to see who is playing better in a game simply by looking at player ratings rather than having to look at the detailed match statistics. Previously several players with a 6 could have been having very different games, now you can see the ones who are having 5.5 games and those that are having 6.4 games (both of who would previously have been showing 6)

[bigdunk]

I really don't get this attitude of 'if it's not broken, don't fix it'. It wasn't broken, but it was replaced with something better (in my opinion anyway). The old commentary-only engine wasn't broken, so should the 2d not have been introduced?

Personally I much prefer the decimal ratings. I can see why people don't like the averaged form ratings, but I was pretty much averaging them myself before anyway, so it's better for me. If you need more detail, then it's there on the player's form screen.

[thisboyshouts]

i think it stems from the player rater pages we're starting to see on the BBC & Sky football websites which allow the public to vote and then give a rating to 1 (or sometimes 2?) decimal place. This is in turn, a nod to the papers giving player ratings out of ten which they clearly picked up from the early CM games - it's a neat full circle

[gullee]

how hard would it be now to get a 10, even with 3 goals in a game and came back 9.2

I have gotten a 10. Nasri got a 10 for me when he scored 4 freekicks and provided 2 assists as Arsenal hammered Steaua 7-1.

[cliff7197]

I absolutely love the new decimal places. It's far better than last year.

Before, we had a rating system that in theory went from 1-10 but in practice nearly always only displayed a 6, 7, or 8 and I was one of the harshest critics of this so I'm glad to see it's been addressed.

Though I must say I'd probably have preferred it to be addressed by allowing people to score in the full range of 1-10 rather than just keeping it at 6-8 but adding decimal places. So it's not perfect.

[Danlfc]

totally agree with the starting post! Feel the same way actually.

Didn't read all posts but so dont know if anyone noticed it before but I think they used sligtly different colors before(fm08), so you could see in one glance if a player has a 8,9 or 10, or just a 6 or 7. Correct me if im wrong btw.

But maybe SI can add an option on preferences to show grades the old or in the new way. Guess that would be best.

[Lordy]

i love the new decimals, they're a great addition but i don't like the green boxes and i dont like the last 5 game average.

[orion318]

I really like the decimals although they are harder to take in now.

But before everyplayer would be on 6, and now i see that what is really happening is that a few are on 6.3 6.4 and there's one on 5.5 that is playing worse.

I think people's main complain is that the extra digit makes it visually heavier.

But IMO it helps a lot with appreciating the individual's performances

[thisboyshouts]

i like it, because i can comprehend basic mathematics. ftw!

[Blackcats]

i thaught i would love this idea as it is more accurate but atm i just find it annoying. Would much rather have the old systemwith whole numbers

[IzzetLeicester]

I think you will see much more varied Fans' Player of the Years now instead of it just being given to your top scorer everytime.

[kingkyle]

I don't mind the extra decimal point, like many have said, it gives you a better idea how a player has performed when you see someone on 6.9 and apposed to 6.1.

Initially i thought that the extra decimal was going to be for the actual player ratings (ie. Marking, Tackling, Speed etc), which IMO would have been much more helpfull as then you'd know how well your player is doing in training, and if he is declining in certain areas, but oh well, maybe next year.

[Danlfc]

"I think you will see much more varied Fans' Player of the Years now instead of it just being given to your top scorer everytime."

thats true!

[RT--]

i think it stems from the player rater pages we're starting to see on the BBC & Sky football websites which allow the public to vote and then give a rating to 1 (or sometimes 2?) decimal place. This is in turn, a nod to the papers giving player ratings out of ten which they clearly picked up from the early CM games - it's a neat full circle

The BBC and Sky may provide ratings to 1 or 2 decimal places, but that's because they're averaging loads of people's scores. When you go to rate a player, you do it as a whole number. It would be a silly concept to rate players to 1 decimal place.

I should clarify again - I'm not necessarily against the idea of having a rating to 1 decimal place, since its information that was presumably always available but just not displayed. I just think that somewhere (ie, the player ratings screen) we should get a rounded summary that's easy to interpret. Or have the option of switching between the two according to our preference.

Yes, I can go to a player's form tab and find out how well he's played in the last 5 games, rather than an average, but that's more unnecessary work for me. The whole point of presenting information is to provide it in a meaningful and easy to interpret way on the surface, and then have the detail available if you need it - not the other way around.

[chopper99]

I think as people get used to the game they will grow to like the new rating system. As people have said it gives you a much clearer and in-depth idea of a players performance rating.

However, the one thing I'm struggling to get used to is players with a high rating not really standing out. In FM08 the font for players who got an 8 or 9 rating were different so I could quickly scan through and see which players got a high rating and decide who to give my individual team talks to.

It's not a big issue but it would be nice if, once a player got to say 7.6, the font for their rating was slightly different. The same for when they get to 8.6 etc, and it can be used for lower ratings too, just to give you an idea at a glance how players have performed.

[RT--]

I think as people get used to the game they will grow to like the new rating system. As people have said it gives you a much clearer and in-depth idea of a players performance rating.

However, the one thing I'm struggling to get used to is players with a high rating not really standing out. In FM08 the font for players who got an 8 or 9 rating were different so I could quickly scan through and see which players got a high rating and decide who to give my individual team talks to.

It's not a big issue but it would be nice if, once a player got to say 7.6, the font for their rating was slightly different. The same for when they get to 8.6 etc, and it can be used for lower ratings too, just to give you an idea at a glance how players have performed.

Maybe some sort of conditional shading would help with the player rating (and team talk) screen, you're right. I think really, when I look at the ratings, my first instinct is just to try and determine a) who's doing okay, b) who's having a stinker/not playing well and c) who's playing well. I can then use the extra level of information to sort between them, if I want.

At the moment, I can't do that first part, I have to jump straight in and do some mental arithmetic.

This is my point. The process should always be: 1) quick glance, to get a feel for what's happening, THEN 2) use the extra information if you want to. When I produce statistical reports in my job, we typically provide charts in the main text, followed by a table of data in the appendix or something. The chart summarises the information and gives you a 'feel' for what's happening, then the table of data is available so you can check the numbers in more detail if you want to. I think the same principle should apply here.

[JonPaulWild]

I never really knew the criteria that made the difference between a 7 and 8, so damned if I know the difference between a 7 and 7.3.

[Soul_Linneus]

the opinions on this seem to be pretty divided. I know i'd miss it already if they would go back to the original single digit. I think it's the best new feature along with the 3D mode.

[esspee]

I don't mind the new ratings, gives a more precise rating on how the player because there is a difference between a player playing a 6.1 or a player a 6.9!

Gives more accuracy which will help when making tactical decisions.

Surely a 6.1 player was shown as a 6 and a 6.9 player as a 7 anyway, so you could already see the difference?

[bigdunk]

Surely a 6.1 player was shown as a 6 and a 6.9 player as a 7 anyway, so you could already see the difference?

Depends on whether they were rounding or just lopping off the decimal. Even if they are rounding though, a 6.5 and a 7.4 player would both be rated at 7.

[Socdk]

I agree that it take some getting used to but I think it's fairly good. You still have the last 5 match ratings, you just have to look at colored bars instead - something that I'll surely get acustomed to.

The extra decimal point is pretty good. Say you have two players on the pitch in FM08 with a match rating of 6. You only have one sub to use, so who do you chose? (Off course if you're like me you have seen the match on extended and knows who did better ).

Now you get a better view on who you should sub. Now one of those player can have a rating of 6.1 and the other of 6.9. Both would've been translated to 6-ratings in FM08, but now you can tell that the latter didn't have that bad of a game after all. Off with the 6.1 rated player.

[Socdk]

Depends on whether they were rounding or just lopping off the decimal. Even if they are rounding though, a 6.5 and a 7.4 player would both be rated at 7.

That's not a very good argument. As mentioned maybe they have rounded up the number -This would mean that a 6.5 rated player would get a rating of 7 and a 7.4 would get a rating of 7 as well. Both would be rated 7 and you might end up subbing a player who has done a decent job over the player who have played so-so.

[bigdunk]

That's not a very good argument. As mentioned maybe they have rounded up the number -This would mean that a 6.5 rated player would get a rating of 7 and a 7.4 would get a rating of 7 as well. Both would be rated 7 and you might end up subbing a player who has done a decent job over the player who have played so-so.

Sorry, what? Whatever rounding methods they used before, players with almost a whole point of difference in their ratings could be rated the same - therefore the new system is better.

[Socdk]

Sorry, what? Whatever rounding methods they used before, players with almost a whole point of difference in their ratings could be rated the same - therefore the new system is better.

... I'm not sure I understand... Or that you understand me? I'm groggy today so maybe my english is a bit flawed.

If they used rounding a 6.4 player would be rated 6 and a 6.5 player would be rated 7.

I agree that the new system is better. Read my posts again?

[T4RG4]

If people are making substitutions based entirely on the rating given to them by the match engine then I think the decimal approach is worthwhile. But I made substitutions based on a number of factors, their match engine rating just one of them. I prefer to glance at the numbers, I dont care if they are rounded or whether two players have a rating of '7' and I've only one sub left. If I'm going for the win at 1-1 I'll take off the DM and replace him with an attacking player.

In addition I think the decimals are ugly and further serve the database for geeks stereotype that SI seem to want to avoid (i.e. easier for newcomers, lets removed some match speed sliders).

I'm sure I'll get used to it, but at present I reckon it was unnecessary and further reinforces the wall between understanding and newcomers.

[Dean Gripton]

the extra decimal place is just marketing, anything to bump up the "feature" count, no matter how trivial.

would we of missed this if it wasn't implemented? hell no.

I'm sorry, but that is not the reasoning at all.

The idea was to give gamers more information about their player performance. We can accept debate about whether you like the decimal point and other related stats that transpire because of it, but to say that it was simply included to boost any feature count is totally incorrect.

[Jdz]

Wow.

I think the change is good, definitely agree with what most are saying, 6.1 and 6.9 are a different kettle of fish.

[RT--]

I'm sorry, but that is not the reasoning at all.

The idea was to give gamers more information about their player performance. We can accept debate about whether you like the decimal point and other related stats that transpire because of it, but to say that it was simply included to boost any feature count is totally incorrect.

Gripper:

Do you think it's possible that SI could look in to making some small amendments - such as conditional shading, or even introducing horizontal bars (see the BBC's player rating for instance) alongside the numbers - to maintain that "at a glance" feel to the ratings that was there before?

Visually splitting performances, however you do it, in to 'not playing well', 'playing okay', 'playing well' would really be helpful, I think, and would get around my main complaint with the decimal place: that it obscures that intuitive 'feel' for how well everyone's playing.

[Fredric Drum]

Except that 6.1 would be 6 and 6.9 would be 7, I assume. So they'd still be a different kettle.

[Toothless Gibbon]

but the would have been displayed as 6 and 7.. not both 6s..

Edit: what he said.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Thing is, we could just as well argue that another decimal place is needed because 7.2 could be anything from 7.14 to 7.23. It all comes down to how accurate a rating do we actually need. A scale of 100 is too much imo. It would be a much better system if everyone started out at 5 and it would rate them on the whole scale of 10. That way we would get a rating that's both accurate and easy to comprehend at a glance.

[Ov Collyer]

Gripper suggested this to me a few months ago as an idea we might want to experiment with in FM Live.

We did this, and the reaction was generally positive but also a bit mixed, as in this thread.

After a while though everyone got used to it, and I've not seen any mention of it for ages, and I've a strong feeling that if we reverted it to a single digit there would be an outcry

Sometimes change is for the good, whether it be something major like 3D, or something relatively minor like this.

I still remember getting a very passionate and long email from a chap who thought we'd completely lost the plot for introducing drop-down menus in CM3, in place of those big square boxes from CM2-era.

[Glenn Wakeford]

I have to say I find the new ratings much, much more informative.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Gripper suggested this to me a few months ago as an idea we might want to experiment with in FM Live.

We did this, and the reaction was generally positive but also mixed, as in this thread.

After a while though everyone got used to it, and I've not seen any mention of it for ages, and I've a strong feeling that if we reverted it to a single digit there would be an outcry

Possibly, but perhaps there is a change of adding this as an option? I'm particularly missing the old style form guide (last 5 matches) more and more every time I play the demo

[T4RG4]

Well, I suspect if Skorp has gotten used to the new display and finds it useful I'll have to put some more time into the demo and full-game before I really can be sure.

Ov, I bet loads of people (yes even on this forum) get tired of bleating on about stuff and wear themselves out Oh, and I bet you get some amazing emails!

[chopper99]

Gripper suggested this to me a few months ago as an idea we might want to experiment with in FM Live.

We did this, and the reaction was generally positive but also a bit mixed, as in this thread.

After a while though everyone got used to it, and I've not seen any mention of it for ages, and I've a strong feeling that if we reverted it to a single digit there would be an outcry

Sometimes change is for the good, whether it be something major like 3D, or something relatively minor like this.

I still remember getting a very passionate and long email from a chap who thought we'd completely lost the plot for introducing drop-down menus in CM3, in place of those big square boxes from CM2-era.

Totally agree, as I said I like the ratings and I'm sure most will get used to them and look back at some point and wonder how they managed without them.

However, do you have any thoughts on the issue I pointed out about different fonts for different levels of performance, similar to what's in '08 now? I just feel this would help the user scan through the players during or after a game and get a quick overview of how everyone's performing. They will then be able to look at it more in depth with the decimalised ratings.

[Hamenaglar]

Gripper suggested this to me a few months ago as an idea we might want to experiment with in FM Live.

We did this, and the reaction was generally positive but also a bit mixed, as in this thread.

After a while though everyone got used to it, and I've not seen any mention of it for ages, and I've a strong feeling that if we reverted it to a single digit there would be an outcry

Sometimes change is for the good, whether it be something major like 3D, or something relatively minor like this.

I still remember getting a very passionate and long email from a chap who thought we'd completely lost the plot for introducing drop-down menus in CM3, in place of those big square boxes from CM2-era.

I think we really just need to get used to it. I'm very uncomfortable with it at the moment, but that is because I don't know how to rate my players actually. But I suppose it will get better in the futere.

[dudester]

Gripper suggested this to me a few months ago as an idea we might want to experiment with in FM Live.

We did this, and the reaction was generally positive but also a bit mixed, as in this thread.

After a while though everyone got used to it, and I've not seen any mention of it for ages, and I've a strong feeling that if we reverted it to a single digit there would be an outcry

Sometimes change is for the good, whether it be something major like 3D, or something relatively minor like this.

I still remember getting a very passionate and long email from a chap who thought we'd completely lost the plot for introducing drop-down menus in CM3, in place of those big square boxes from CM2-era.

No Ov never go back to single digit please and I was one of those that didn't like the decimal places originally.

[jayahr]

I'm not opposed to them including that information somewhere, but I think you should keep the player ratings to whole numbers. A rating of 6, a 7, an 8, a 9 - they're all concepts I can immediately understand - I can't really look at a 6.3 or a 7.4 rating and do the same.

I can understand your feelings. The new way to display the ratings feels strange. But I think that we will get used to it just like to other changes earlier and once we are, it will be better, because indeed the difference between 6.5 and 7.4 does matter and honestly can not be guessed from the detailed stats which I guess no one actually ever looks at.

[Suttface]

I don't mind the new ratings, gives a more precise rating on how the player because there is a difference between a player playing a 6.1 or a player a 6.9!

Gives more accuracy which will help when making tactical decisions.

This is very true but it doesn't help the form stats. Like OP said form is important- it really tells you about a player's consistency. The new average rating for last 5 matches is potentially misleading.

[bigdunk]

Thing is, we could just as well argue that another decimal place is needed because 7.2 could be anything from 7.14 to 7.23. It all comes down to how accurate a rating do we actually need. A scale of 100 is too much imo. It would be a much better system if everyone started out at 5 and it would rate them on the whole scale of 10. That way we would get a rating that's both accurate and easy to comprehend at a glance.

I actually think changing the ratings to fully using 1-10 would upset far more people, me included. We are so used to seeing ratings below 6 as terrible, that if players were routinely getting 1s, 2s and 3s, there would be uproar.

[Cavenagh]

I actually think changing the ratings to fully using 1-10 would upset far more people, me included. We are so used to seeing ratings below 6 as terrible, that if players were routinely getting 1s, 2s and 3s, there would be uproar.

I can't remember which iteration it was, but as I recall one did change the average rating from 6 to 5. And indeed there was uproar and wailing and teeth were gnashed. So it was changed back for the next version.

[crafty bison]

I agree that we should go back to the old ratings. The whole point of player ratings should not be 'the match engine suggests your player is playing this well'; they should be akin to newspaper ratings, which don't feature a decimal place. I fully concur with everything the OP says.

[ndias]

I think the decimal place is a great addition. I believe that in the end it can make a big difference when you want to analyse wich area of the team you should be looking for new players. There is a great difference bettween a player having (x).6 or (x+1).4 (which in both cases would be rated x). In an extreme case, imagine that rating on a player for all season... The possibily to choose which to use would be good (if there is the possibility to select how odds are represented, this shouldn't be much more complicated), but for now I guess people can just round it and the old rating is back in their mind...

The blocks are really weird, but with time maybe they start looking familiar and we can figure what is each without much mind effort.

[jack_man]

The extra number is just annoying!!!!!!

[GJS93]

my opinion...............dont like the new one, go back to old ratings.

[BRAiNDEAD]

i dont mind the decimal places.. but I AM annoyed with the GREEN BOXES.. how am i suppose to know what is 3 what i 5 what is 7 and what is 9? yeah i can estimate but if i estimate that this green is 5 and it really is 6 it's a big difference isnt it?

[russ the womble]

I think you're all being picky

However maybe a good way to do things would be to have custom formating, so that it rounds the numbers off if you want it to. Don't know if this is something people can do with the skins etc? After all, if it's in xml format or whatever, it must be err.. 'manipulable'?

[VonBlade]

Shame that we're having replies about the decimals but not the green bars.

[Flashman]

Shame that we're having replies about the decimals but not the green bars.

To become useful the green bars need to be more distinctive from one another; one's eyes just get 'lost' when looking at a list of small, similarly sized and shaded blocks.

Potentially helpful might be to 'squeeze' the blocks together to form one continuous shape; having the vertical gaps between them makes it more difficult to judge form.

A decent idea poorly implemented.