Toward A Uniform (Quantitative) Worldwide Rating System: A Plea To The Community

[mrliioadin]

If I have time this weekend I'll do what I did for 11 and let you test it.

Hah, well unfortunately I won't have much time starting this weekend. But, most of the teams in my database have overall values down in the 30s.

 

[bangus]

Hah, well unfortunately I won't have much time starting this weekend. But, most of the teams in my database have overall values down in the 30s.

Team overalls don't tell us much, it has much more to do with individual positional overalls. Every specific position requires a different set of min-max values, that's the key. You can lower a FW's overall rating into the 20s even while assigning him 99 in finishing and shot power, and he's still good for scoring goals at least. But the only way to create a 20-rated CB is to lower his defensive values way down, at which point he becomes entirely useless. General ballpark numbers:

Effective FWs can be 20-99.
CBs can be 40-99. Any lower than 40 and they're pylons.
GKs can be 60-99. Any lower than 60 and they can't save a beachball.

That sort of thing.

Many positional players in my db are rated 30s and 40s and that works for me. But it all depends on what you want to accomplish with this project, and your original ideas about a viable ratings system are no doubt more realistic. Few people here will play FIFA with players rated 30s and 40s, that's the reality. They want to see their favorite players and teams rated 60s to 90s.

 

[mrliioadin]

Team overalls don't tell us much, it has much more to do with individual positional overalls. Every specific position requires a different set of min-max values, that's the key. You can lower a FW's overall rating into the 20s even while assigning him 99 in finishing and shot power, and he's still good for scoring goals at least. But the only way to create a 20-rated CB is to lower his defensive values way down, at which point he becomes entirely useless. General ballpark numbers:

Effective FWs can be 20-99.
CBs can be 40-99. Any lower than 40 and they're pylons.
GKs can be 60-99. Any lower than 60 and they can't save a beachball.

That sort of thing.

Many positional players in my db are rated 30s and 40s and that works for me. But it all depends on what you want to accomplish with this project, and your original ideas about a viable ratings system are no doubt more realistic. Few people here will play FIFA with players rated 30s and 40s, that's the reality. They want to see their favorite players and teams rated 60s to 90s.

I have no illusion that everyone will adopt and apply this. I do, however, think that certain patch makers could and should at least consult it. At the very least, it's a quantitative way to address large discrepancies.

I think you're thinking that the equation is saying 'this player should be exactly this good and everyone should conform to that value.' I don't think that's the right way to do this. I think the right way to do this would be to consult this first, then apply your own tweaks according to your own specific knowledge.

So, if a patch maker puts out a patch that has EPL quality players coming from Estonia or something, you can start to adjust or suggest an adjustment.

It's not, John Blowhard IV should be a 45 and no one should think anything different. It's, John Blowhard IV is overrated according to the quantitative system. And that degree of overrating is approximately 30 points.

I think experienced people will always have their own opinions about other details. That's fine. I do urge you to try to quantify those differences, however. In that way, the quantitative system I developed gets you close, the quantitative adjustments proposed by others can then be applied for greater realism.

If you just have vague notions of rules or procedures that work for you, no one else can replicate that. It will, forever, live in your head. However, if you try to quantify those differences, others can try to apply your changes and see for themselves if your approach is one they would like to adopt.

None of that is criticism. It's an urge to try to quantify what you're saying so that the community can either decide to adopt or reject your approach or tweak.

 

[bangus]

None of that is criticism. It's an urge to try to quantify what you're saying so that the community can either decide to adopt or reject your approach or tweak.

I'm not discussing this for the purpose of convincing anyone or having people adopt my suggestions. All I'm doing is sharing what I've done every year for the past four years. When the game first comes out, I spend 15-20 minutes re-rating the players by applying my own set of global edits. After that I'm good to go for the football season; I never update my rosters or add new leagues, so I don't have to worry about continually fiddling with my db and edits.

What I'm pointing out is that there are really two ways one can go about creating a ratings system. 99% of the people here would only be interested in rating system similar to the one EA uses:
1. Most players rated 50-99.
2. The higher the overall rating, the better the player (supposedly).

The other option is to come up with a system that focuses specifically on improving the gameplay, without worrying about what overall ratings look like. Modders like regularcat, Fidel and AndreaPirlo have released gameplay mods that utilize this approach, but without any real success. People try it but don't like the lower ratings; they can't wrap their head around the concept that to improve the gameplay you have to make certain ratings concessions.

That's all I've been trying to explain, nothing more.

 

[mrliioadin]

I'm not discussing this for the purpose of convincing anyone or having people adopt my suggestions. All I'm doing is sharing what I've done every year for the past four years. When the game first comes out, I spend 15-20 minutes re-rating the players by applying my own set of global edits. After that I'm good to go for the football season; I never update my rosters or add new leagues, so I don't have to worry about continually fiddling with my db and edits.

What I'm pointing out is that there are really two ways one can go about creating a ratings system. 99% of the people here would only be interested in rating system similar to the one EA uses:
1. Most players rated 50-99.
2. The higher the overall rating, the better the player (supposedly).

The other option is to come up with a system that focuses specifically on improving the gameplay, without worrying about what overall ratings look like. Modders like regularcat, Fidel and AndreaPirlo have released gameplay mods that utilize this approach, but without any real success. People try it but don't like the lower ratings; they can't wrap their head around the concept that to improve the gameplay you have to make certain ratings concessions.

That's all I've been trying to explain, nothing more.

This thread is about creating a system. So far you've said you won't use it. When I recommend that we could incorporate your ideas into it, you reject that. I can't figure out why you are commenting here if you're not actually participating. Either be a part of it, or don't. But I can't do anything with your vague notions of what you find believable if you don't quantify them. They exist solely in your head. Even if they are brilliant, that does nothing for this project.

Decide whether you wanna participate or not. If not, stop commenting. If so, start quantifying.

 

[bangus]

Decide whether you wanna participate or not. If not, stop commenting.

What the hell man...? I have been participating. I have explained what I do. And I have offered suggestions and ideas to consider. Use them or don't use them, I don't care. This is your project, not mine, whatever system you decide to come up with is your business.

Also, this is an open forum and people are free to post as they please. If you don't want people commenting on your threads, then don't start threads, holy moly.

 

[mrliioadin]

What the hell man...? I have been participating. I have explained what I do. And I have offered suggestions and ideas to consider. Use them or don't use them, I don't care. This is your project, not mine, whatever system you decide to come up with is your business.

Also, this is an open forum and people are free to post as they please. If you don't want people commenting on your threads, then don't start threads, holy moly.

Sorry. You're right. I'm just having a bad day and was too reactive.

None of that is sarcasm.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Very interested in this project. There are some coders who know their way around the AI. Combine this quantitative universal player ratings approach with a decent improvement of the AI and you've got an epic patch. Indeed, they're probably @ the nexus of a perfect fifa...

 

[mrliioadin]

Thanks for the support Robbie. Heads up to everyone, I updated the online worksheets to reflect the changes to the system. This includes calculations for adjustments to mu based on the proportion of national team players from a domestic league.

The downloadable worksheet still uses the old version. I'll try to reupload that later.