[[Suggestion] Improve transparency of star rating system]

Thanks for the good response and for the support, rristola. All very good points. I appreciate it.

Reading your post I think one 'easy' solution that jumped to mind was giving star ratings a tooltip that would say something like "Player A is rated 2.5 stars by SCOUT D among all players in our league" or "Player A is rated 5 stars by Assistant Manager among CB players in our senior squad".

 

[[Suggestion] Improve transparency of star rating system]

I think the silver/gold star system is a great way to abstract the ratings/reputation of various players and staff.

An issue that shows up for users is that star ratings change, and it is difficult to understand why that is:

- Example 1: Thread on reddit wondering why player ratings change after they are signed

- Example 2: Thread on SI Forums where a user wonders why youth intakes are always 'average', with input from SI Staff

- Example 3: Request on SI Forums for alternatives to the star system with input from SI Staff

Users intrinsically understand the meaning of a star system. Yet the examples above, as well as any other discourse on star ratings, show that user's struggle to understand why they change, what factors influence them, or how they should interpret stars in different contexts.

My understanding of the star system is that it assesses multiple factors, including the perception of the staff assessing players, to generate a single score on a scale (0-100) which is then represented as a star rating. If I have a player that is rated as 2 stars in year 1, then get a promotion, he might be rated as 0.5 stars in year 2, inspite of player and staff abilities being unchanged. This is due to the relative nature of the star system, that one year a player with a score of 53 might be 2 stars, and a score of 53 might be 0.5 stars the next year.

Suggestion: Provide transparency, or user-control, as to what '0 stars' and '5 stars' represent.

Transparency:

- I do not mean "show the entire calculation", as it isn't fun to see how the pie is made

- I do mean, if the general meaning of 0 star and/or 5 star changes, notify me as to why.

- For example for broad changes in how staff are applying the star scale, "Hey {manager}, since promotion our benchmark for a 0 star player has risen from {Guy who actively scores own goals} to {Guy who is okay, but I wouldn't put him on my bench}"

- Or for specific changes, "Hey {manager}, we just downgraded players {A}, {B}, {C} from 2 star to 1 star because you signed player {D} who made us realise that there are strikers who can use both feet"

User-control:

- The dynamic nature of the rating means that the user has to adjust to changes in the rating, which are not immediately obvious (are not announced, but rather require the user to notice that the scale has shifted)

- To counter-act this, the user could provide input to staff to say, "Hey, rate players as being 0 star if they'd be the worst in {my present league}, and 5 star if they'd be the best in {my present league}", or ,"Hey, rate players as being 0 star if they're the worst in {the world}, and 5 star if they'd be the best in {top league in my country}".

- This would enable players to control some of the variance, and adjust the scale based on their needs/aspirations, as well as feeling like they have more agency in how the ratings are being computed.

 

I think a combination of the suggestions for transparency and user-control here could go a long way to making the star rating into something that players can actively use, without necessarily giving too much transparency that players can start gaming the ratings (i.e. providing control to enable/disable particular inputs, so that they can backwards hidden attributes in game).

[Funny Screenshots Thread]

The Portuguese Marty McFly?