VonBlade Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Absolutely. Just a shame that SI are skirting this issue. Perhaps nobody is complaining any more because they know SI wont change rather than they've got used to it? Just to add, I'm not constantly complaining here. I know that SI do involve the community more than some companies. But so many valid points are overlooked and chosen not to be replied to when a short explanation of why a certain decision was made would go some way to changing peoples perceptions. If there is a good reason we've got five indistinct green blocks instead of five crystal clear numbers, then tell us and we might agree. Stranger things have been known to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW. Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Before, the 6.1 would be rounded to a 6 and the 6.9 would be rounded to a 7 you complete and utter douche. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Before, the 6.1 would be rounded to a 6 and the 6.9 would be rounded to a 7 you complete and utter douche. While you make a good point your attitude negates it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reflection22 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I have to say I prefered the old 1-10 system. It was more user-friendly, I liked the quick at a glance display of a player's last 5 games. That's not to say I hate the new decimal ratings, it's just different, I guess it's just a case of getting used to it. I'd much rather see the seperate match speed and highlights speed sliders come back, that's more of an issue for me than this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdunk Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Just looking at the game now, I was wondering if the green bars thing had been done for space reasons. Obviously with the decimals, it now needs 15 characters, plus spaces, rather than the 5 it needed before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranbir Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 How easy is it to qualify a comparison between 6.4 and 6.3? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
03bault Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Having played a few games now i have become used to it. I do believe that it is silly having 6.4,6.5,6.6 etc as its too similar. I believe having 6.5,7.0,7.5 and so on would be more than sufficent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordarod Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 They remove highlight speed slider because people found it confusing then they add an extra decimal space. I prefer this if any developer can tell me the difference between 7.5 and 7.6 in practice. Ratings should only be 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 ... like 03bault said if they want to add an extra space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcoavgousti Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 i have to say i welcome the extra decimal place, it comes in use when ur playing a poor game and most of ur players are 5- rating, the extra number now means u can take of that central midfeild player whos playing at a 5.1 rather than his teamate whos playing at a 5.8. if it was just 5 u might end up taking the wrong one of. i agree with what the developers say i think in time it will be a welcome addition to the game and ull look back and think hmmm im glad they added an extra number i hope next year they add another!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 They remove highlight speed slider because people found it confusing then they add an extra decimal space. 'They' should get their stories straight before fobbing their customers off, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irchard Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I like it, and that is all that matters. I give this thread 1.3/10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranbir Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 'They' should get their stories straight before fobbing their customers off, eh? Exactly. It makes no sense to force highlights to be same speed as the match. I enjoyed setting my replays to be at slightly slower just like on TV, which I thought the 3D engine was to start helping to emulate. Also, how can 'match speed' and 'highlight speed' be confusing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
T4RG4 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I give the new ratings 4.3 whereas I would have given the old system a healthy 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Bladesman Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I vastly prefer this improved feedback system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeWee Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 I actually don't mind seeing the extra decimal in game. I've always wanted some extra fidelity in the range between 5 and 8 (I used to get 6's and 7's all over the board). I like to be able to discern in a bit more detail how well a player is doing in a match. That said, I hate the way player form is displayed in the user interface. It's just too... fiddly on the main overviews and having to jump into the detailed screens is just not practical. In short: good idea, bad UI implementation! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdunk Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The little green boxes do have tooltips, gving you the ratings if you roll your mouse over them. It's not ideal, but at least you don't have to go to another screen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clovis_kanda87 Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 mostly from the tactics driven fraternity iirc. Why does this not suprise me? But to be honest, I find the decimal point rating bit a needless addition and the green blocks form guide confusing. But after reading the comment Kriss made, it all becomes all so clear, cheers for confirming what I suspected Kriss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStoon Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 You know, I wonder if there'd be this much discussion if they'd just gone and made it a 1-100 scale instead of 1.0-10.0. If the decimal point bothers you, just ignore it, 7.5 becomes 75 and so on. Knowing the difference between a 7.4 and a 6.6 is a good thing. The difference is nearly as much as between a 6 and a 7 and that influences decisions. Previously they'd have both been 7. The game however knew more than you, as I would imagine the AI managers would have used the unrounded values in their calculations. Its only fair we have the same level of information. Agree about the boxes though.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrightinio Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Just wondering how everyone is feeling about the decimal match rating system? Personally, I'm just not enjoying it. I don't think there's enough consistency in them and players can seemingly only get an 8 or over for scoring two goals. I much preferred the old system although I completely understand that SI are just trying to add more realism into the game by making ratings more variable. I just think sometimes they can be a bit too variable and often don't make a lot of sense. The other thing is the central midfielder rating issue which is currently taking quite a bit away from my enjoyment of the game although I know it's only a minor detail. Anyway, I'd like to see it go back to a slightly simpler assessment. What do you guys think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPlanet Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=57168 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrightinio Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Sorry man, didn't realise there was another thread. My apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neji Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I've merged the threads for you. May be interesting to see how people are getting on with them now they've had time to get used to them (or not). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrightinio Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I've merged the threads for you. May be interesting to see how people are getting on with them now they've had time to get used to them (or not). Cheers bud. That's all I wanted to know, how everyone else is feeling about the match rating system now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hold on, more accurate ratings are a bad thing... ? Ok, fine, whatever. 6.5 is far more accurate than 6. It gives a better indication of how your player has done. It was mentioned near the start, that 6 is too vague. Is it a good six, almost finishing as 7, or is it a bad 6, almost falling at 5? Nobody knows. Frankly, if this was taken away, it would make substitutions much harder to make. When I'm making a sub, I check to see who is doing worse. My entire team could be up for subbing, with a vague 6, and a few 7s. But with this system, I can see who is scraping it into 6, and who is almost 8 etc. It's much easier. I wish they'd kept the last 5(7-7-6-5-8) AND the current one(6.98, 1gl). The latter is much easier at a glance, and shows who is better overall in recent games. But the 7-7-5 form shows and gives a better indication of who is the better in the long(er) run. But all this talk of green boxes... ? In all honesty, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I seem to be failing to see green boxes... Unless you mean the form bars, in which case, mines are yellow. They aren't ideal, and I do prefer the older version, but I still don't mind too much about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANDEHLSON Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hold on, more accurate ratings are a bad thing... ?Ok, fine, whatever. 6.5 is far more accurate than 6. It gives a better indication of how your player has done. I thought 6.5 was 7 :confused: I like the decimal part but tbh I still think the ratings are a bit too harsh compared to previous versions... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I thought 6.5 was 7 :confused:I like the decimal part but tbh I still think the ratings are a bit too harsh compared to previous versions... I wasn't rounding it at all, btw. I was just simply stating that If I see a 6, and then see a 6.5, I know that the 6.5 is playing better. Yes, it would be rounded up to a 7, you're correct. But I wasn't meaning that. I can understand why some people would rather not have it, and why some of us would... IMO, SI should just make it optional, to which you have... Also, would it be possible for the OP to add a poll asking if we prefer the new or old way? I just want a general indication of what most people prefer, the old or new... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Äktsjon Männ Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hold on, more accurate ratings are a bad thing... ?Ok, fine, whatever. 6.5 is far more accurate than 6. It gives a better indication of how your player has done. It was mentioned near the start, that 6 is too vague. Is it a good six, almost finishing as 7, or is it a bad 6, almost falling at 5? Nobody knows. Frankly, if this was taken away, it would make substitutions much harder to make. When I'm making a sub, I check to see who is doing worse. My entire team could be up for subbing, with a vague 6, and a few 7s. But with this system, I can see who is scraping it into 6, and who is almost 8 etc. It's much easier. Well it comes down to how much accuracy one actually needs. 6.55 is more accurate than 6.5 but would we want it to be displayed? I maintain that if the whole scale of 10 was used instead of decimals it would be enough and it would also make it easier to follow. I'd be more than happy if both systems were available as options tbh. Especially as the ratings are flawed in many ways, the accuracy kind of becomes irrelevant if my attacking midfielder continually gets ratings below 6.2, no matter what he does unless he scores or assists. The system is hardly capable of calculating the precise difference between 6.4 and 6.5 so the accuracy achieved through displaying the decimals is pretty much imaginary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD nawrat Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Well it comes down to how much accuracy one actually needs. 6.55 is more accurate than 6.5 but would we want it to be displayed? I maintain that if the whole scale of 10 was used instead of decimals it would be enough and it would also make it easier to follow.I'd be more than happy if both systems were available as options tbh. Especially as the ratings are flawed in many ways, the accuracy kind of becomes irrelevant if my attacking midfielder continually gets ratings below 6.2, no matter what he does unless he scores or assists. The system is hardly capable of calculating the precise difference between 6.4 and 6.5 so the accuracy achieved through displaying the decimals is pretty much imaginary. But the difference between 1, and .1 is so much different, that I feel without the 1, it isn't accurate enough. Do you know what I'm meaning(I don't feel like I've made that very clear...)? But I agree, it should be made optional... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smac Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'm surprised people don't like it. I love it. There's something to be learned from a series of 6.3 performances followed by a series of 6.5 performances, whereas previously the numbers seemed clunky and wouldn't reveal such subtle changes though the match stats still would. And some players can't get much out of the green bars graph? I think that is brilliant. You can assess your whole team at a glance by becoming aware of color tone, which is a nice relief from crunching numbers and appeals to the Excel-PPT-Stats-Anova-Regression nerd in me very much: Nothing prettier than a pretty graph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FM1000 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The new ratings are cofusing.I think that thath 0.5 decimal ratings woud be much better exp 6.5 or 8.5 cos when i'm playng and my player gets a rating of 6.8 i dont know if he played or ok or he was terible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT-- Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 I don't have a clue what you're talking about. I seem to be failing to see green boxes... Unless you mean the form bars, in which case, mines are yellow Difficult last 5 matches? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjerome Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 a side note: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=91970 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atonement Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 i like the dewey decimal system, but i just dont feel i can trust the ratings i watch my strikers ratings deteriate without justification, my solid central midfielder have a good game and get rated a 6.1 i think now more than ever, because of the 3D match engine, the ratings are failing to reflect actual performances which means sometimes i end up having to be critical of players even though ive just watched them play well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
katch Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The .1 rating is totally unnecessary and unrealistic. We want to feel like football managers giving their players a rating, not a computer geek looking at a set of data and number. A .5 system whereby numbers are rounded to the nearest .5 (ie 6.3=6.5 , 6.1=6) would be a good balance between intuitiveness and accuracy of data for decision making. Unless peoplea actually make substitution decisions based on whether a player is 6.2 or 6.3 / 7.4 or 7.5. Other factors such as scoreline, tactical changes comes into play when selecting substitutes. And having read the earlier posts, I find it bemusing so many people still don't get that 6.1=6 and 6.9=7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coop Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I don't like them and tend to round them up or down anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawsie Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 i like the decimal version better. I also like how it is harder to get better averages in this game, way too many players woul regularly pull out 8s,9s,10,s on the other games just by scoring twice and not doing much else. This time they have to work for it with precise passing, shots on target percentage and other such stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
katch Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 i like the decimal version better. I also like how it is harder to get better averages in this game, way too many players woul regularly pull out 8s,9s,10,s on the other games just by scoring twice and not doing much else. This time they have to work for it with precise passing, shots on target percentage and other such stuff. This is unrelated to whether it is a decimal version, but rather how ratings are computed. Assuming SI didnt change the rating calculations but only included decimals, then these players would still be getting for example 8.2, 8.8, 9.8. Get it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.