Jump to content

Top Rated Game Worlds


Guest SM Dev (Ste)

Recommended Posts

Guest SM Dev (Ste)

As part of our ongoing development to improve the ‘Add New Club’ page we are working on a ‘Club Wizard’, and part of this has been introduced in the form of ‘Top Rated Game Worlds’.

The SMFA have rated every game world on our database out of 500 and then turned this figure into a star rating system.

The game world rating is compiled by numerous factors including how active it is, how full it is, and how long the managers have been within it to name but a few.

Over the coming weeks we will continue to work on the ‘Club Wizard’ (which I will post more details on shortly) to improve the ‘Add New Club’ page and make it easier for both new and experienced members of our community to find a club of their choice.

In the meantime we hope that with the introduction of ‘Top Rated Game Worlds’ it will enable managers to find an active game world for them to compete within.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

I'm going to have to agree with a few comments I've noticed on the blog I'm afraid :( . All this will do is ensure the fuller gameworlds become fuller (which is the only good aspect as far as I see) and the emptier gameworlds become emptier. It's bad enough seeing how empty some gameworlds are to those who compete in them, but to advertise that fact so that new managers are turned away is harsh to say the least. Could serve to empty many gameworlds. Not too sure about this improvement to be honest, but perhaps i'm reacting a bit harshly on first glance :confused::o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

It's not very accurate is it?

The only GC I'm in that isn't rated 5 out of 5 is GC 1' date=' and that's by far the best, most active and most competitive.[/quote']

Agreed.

All the new GC's are 5 stars, while GC's like 5 and 7 which are some of the best setups on the game are only 4 1/2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

Agreed.

All the new GC's are 5 stars' date=' while GC's like 5 and 7 which are some of the best setups on the game are only 4 1/2.[/quote']

Guys... Lets not draw upon the neagative... we do not know the exact facts for these and 4.5 is still pretty good.. take consideration for all the fly by night managers who see a team is available and manage it for all of 5 minutes and then give up..... Some Gold Championships would have been corrupted by these managers reducing their rating for length of service etc........

We don't know... It's an indication and a very good one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

While I like the idea behind it there are potential flaws.

The first is the ratings themselves. They are not accurate!

All the new GC's created after 21 are 5 starts whilst all the GC's created before are rated 4 and a half star. I thought it was common knowledge the old GC's were miles better! Whilst I can see why SM would rate the new setups higher (to boost there popularity), it is not accurate at all imo.

For me the only 5 stars should be left for the Game Worlds like:

- Gold 7 (Setup of the year)

- Gold 11 (3rd in Setup of the year)

- Gold 1 (Arguably the most popular GC)

- EC 1 (Needs the legend status)

- WC 2 (Same as above)

All the rest should be rated 475 and below.

Second thing I can see happening is the lower rating setups being abandoned (or the smaller teams at least). If I got came home today, after just taking a new challenge of Luton yesterday to find the setup was rated 1 star, I'd leave that setup for a higher rated setup where I could still have the same challenge. I think this might bring a dead end for some of the less popular Custom Setup's especially those with smaller teams in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

While I like the idea behind it there are potential flaws.

The first is the ratings themselves. They are not accurate!

All the new GC's created after 21 are 5 starts whilst all the GC's created before are rated 4 and a half star. I thought it was common knowledge the old GC's were miles better! Whilst I can see why SM would rate the new setups higher (to boost there popularity)' date=' it is not accurate at all imo.

For me the only 5 stars should be left for the Game Worlds like:

- Gold 7 (Setup of the year)

- Gold 11 (3rd in Setup of the year)

- Gold 1 (Arguably the most popular GC)

- EC 1 (Needs the legend status)

- WC 2 (Same as above)

All the rest should be rated 475 and below.

Second thing I can see happening is the lower rating setups being abandoned (or the smaller teams at least). If I got came home today, after just taking a new challenge of Luton yesterday to find the setup was rated 1 star, I'd leave that setup for a higher rated setup where I could still have the same challenge. I think this might bring a dead end for some of the less popular Custom Setup's especially those with smaller teams in.[/quote']

Are we agreed that there are too many setups??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

I'm going to have to agree with a few comments I've noticed on the blog I'm afraid :( . All this will do is ensure the fuller gameworlds become fuller (which is the only good aspect as far as I see) and the emptier gameworlds become emptier. It's bad enough seeing how empty some gameworlds are to those who compete in them' date=' but to advertise that fact so that new managers are turned away is harsh to say the least. Could serve to empty many gameworlds. Not too sure about this improvement to be honest, but perhaps i'm reacting a bit harshly on first glance :confused::o[/quote']

I agree with you Smartdoc. I posted on the blog that all this change has done is made me feel a little less happy about my fantastic Man City side, as they are in a 2 star league :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

Are we agreed that there are too many setups??

I see the point you're driving at, but spare a thought for some members who have spent perhaps years building up amazing squads who now perhaps are being told that they're in a two-star gameworld. You might argue that they may have only been able to do so as there is little competition which is confirmed by the rating given. But it may previously have been a 5 star gameworld. Now all that member has achieved may simply be belittled by this new system. Other managers may well leave due to the poor rating given leaving the member thinking whether it is worth the bother carrying on with their favourite team as the challenge is gone.

An extreme example perhaps but a totally viable one. It could prove to be a particularly sore and poignant time for this improvement to appear for some members with the 'SM's greatest team competition' just starting of currently. I wonder how some of the managers may feel having submitted their amazing sides only to now be told it's a one-star gameworld. Will their achievements be belittled by others: 'that team doesn't count becauses it's a one star gameworld'?

Just some things to consider :)

EDIT: James' Post whilst I was typing illustrates this exact point

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

I see the point you're driving at' date=' but spare a thought for some members who have spent perhaps years building up amazing squads who now perhaps are being told that they're in a two-star gameworld. You might argue that they may have only been able to do so as there is little competition which is confirmed by the rating given. But it may previously have been a 5 star gameworld. Now all that member has achieved may simply be belittled by this new system. Other managers may well leave due to the poor rating given leaving the member thinking whether it is worth the bother carrying on with their favourite team as the challenge is gone.

An extreme example perhaps but a totally viable one. It could prove to be a particularly sore and poignant time for this improvement to appear for some members with the 'SM's greatest team competition' just starting of currently. I wonder how some of the managers may feel having submitted their amazing sides only to now be told it's a one-star gameworld. Will their achievements be belittled by others: 'that team doesn't count becauses it's a one star gameworld'?

Just some things to consider :)[/quote']

Your first example is me! :D Im coming to the end of season one with my Man City, having reached a final (still to play it), semi-final, and still top of the league. I thought I was doing amazing so started writing a success story It was then when I realised that the setup is nearly empty. 23/80 (thats 28.75%) full. Thats awful. Im not gonna go quit my club as its one of my favourite clubs (as I have lots of money so i can sign people like Kaka) but the setup participation is probably gonna go down cos of this. I feel sorry for SM, theyve brought in a new feature and all they've received is bad feedback. I also feel sorry for james oliver who bought the setup Im in. He's still there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

My first thoughts are that this will empty worlds is true. What they should be doing is filling the vacant/less populated worlds not advertising them as unpopular like above posters have said. These are the worlds where you can actually sign players instead of playing against 60+ squads.

Why would that be more fun? When every team is well established?

I rejoined again after a year because last time i couldnt find player who would be able to compete with my world rivals, and every riser was snapped up within hours.

If i have to play 3-5-2 against unmanaged teams every week i might as well go back to XPertEleven or just play FM and save my internet fee.

This seems like something that didnt need to be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

Seeing as I have never heard anyone request such a feature, and have never seen it on the Best Suggestions page, I was curious as to the motivation behind such a feature being added when I first saw all these stars on My Home and then clicked on the Game News article to read more.

My next step was to look at the Best Gameworlds and the penny dropped pretty quickly at this point when I saw that Gold Championship 1-53 occupied the top 53 places. What an uninspiring and rather shameful way of trying to convince more people to join Gold Championships. More importantly, what a bad reflection on whatever system is judging the gameworlds.

Presumably if it is a GC it automatically gets a whole heap of 'points' in SM's system. At the moment we have been told that Gameworlds are scored on "numerous factors including how active it is, how full it is, and how long the managers have been within it to name but a few". Considering that Gold Championships can handle a far greater number of people this is always going to give them a massive advantage - even based on the very brief criteria - so this surely needs tweaking as it seems that 'how full it is' is judging how many managers rather than what percentage full a setup is. Not sure how activity is calculated but again I would imagine this is multiplied by large numbers of managers when it would be better off averaged. If my guess is wrong then presumably GCs get points merely by virtue of being a GC.

A Top Rated Game World list is going to obviously cause people to migrate to the top ones over time. Especially those joining. As has been mentioned, this is going to really hit a lot of gameworlds that are deemed 'bad' by the terrible system judging them. MUCH more detail is needed about how EXACTLY these setups are being judged if people are going to respect it at all.

This is the second feature since the New Year, the first being the Calendar, that just seems devoid of ingenuity, independent of any feedback from the community, utterly pointless, and overall a rather unfinished article. I would have thought if there is some real need to rate gameworlds - perhaps the average newcomer has difficulty deciding where to go initially (though my knowledge is they head for their team or a big club) - then the only decent way of rating it is to seek feedback from the people within the gameworlds. I can't imagine a 'rate my gameworld' option would be difficult which allowed people to rate their experience. Obviously everyone would tick 5 star initially so this would need to be modified so this had less impact on a world's score than an older one, and an individuals selected rating about there setup could be modified any time by that individual (or even just expire periodically giving them the option to choose again based on their feeling at that time).

If people want to repopulate setups and provide new challenges to people have a Rate my Squad/Team feature like on the forum and provide a link to that clubs setup offering people the challenge of taking on such a team. Or similarly with the Best Managers list. I am sure there are loads more of related ideas that are better than this as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

Seeing as I have never heard anyone request such a feature' date=' and have never seen it on the Best Suggestions page, I was curious as to the motivation behind such a feature being added when I first saw all these stars on My Home and then clicked on the Game News article to read more.

My next step was to look at the Best Gameworlds and the penny dropped pretty quickly at this point when I saw that Gold Championship 1-53 occupied the top 53 places. What an uninspiring and rather shameful way of trying to convince more people to join Gold Championships. More importantly, what a bad reflection on whatever system is judging the gameworlds.

Presumably if it is a GC it automatically gets a whole heap of 'points' in SM's system. At the moment we have been told that Gameworlds are scored on "numerous factors including how active it is, how full it is, and how long the managers have been within it to name but a few". Considering that Gold Championships can handle a far greater number of people this is always going to give them a massive advantage - even based on the very brief criteria - so this surely needs tweaking as it seems that 'how full it is' is judging how many managers rather than what percentage full a setup is. Not sure how activity is calculated but again I would imagine this is multiplied by large numbers of managers when it would be better off averaged. If my guess is wrong then presumably GCs get points merely by virtue of being a GC.

A Top Rated Game World list is going to obviously cause people to migrate to the top ones over time. Especially those joining. As has been mentioned, this is going to really hit a lot of gameworlds that are deemed 'bad' by the terrible system judging them. MUCH more detail is needed about how EXACTLY these setups are being judged if people are going to respect it at all.

[b']This is the second feature since the New Year, the first being the Calendar, that just seems devoid of ingenuity, independent of any feedback from the community, utterly pointless, and overall a rather unfinished article.[/b] I would have thought if there is some real need to rate gameworlds - perhaps the average newcomer has difficulty deciding where to go initially (though my knowledge is they head for their team or a big club) - then the only decent way of rating it is to seek feedback from the people within the gameworlds. I can't imagine a 'rate my gameworld' option would be difficult which allowed people to rate their experience. Obviously everyone would tick 5 star initially so this would need to be modified so this had less impact on a world's score than an older one, and an individuals selected rating about there setup could be modified any time by that individual (or even just expire periodically giving them the option to choose again based on their feeling at that time).

If people want to repopulate setups and provide new challenges to people have a Rate my Squad/Team feature like on the forum and provide a link to that clubs setup offering people the challenge of taking on such a team. Or similarly with the Best Managers list. I am sure there are loads more of related ideas that are better than this as well.

I agree with you entirely except for the bold sentence. Ive found the calendar very useful, as I can now remember when cup games are, plus for a MotM competition, I can now find out which turns are in which month. The majority of the poor feedback was due to accessibility problems. Im still getting used to it, but after a while, it'll become as instinctive as clicking Schedule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

i thought this was good update untill 5 minitues ago.

i have a world class roma team in a competitive setup and it only rated 1 and half :(

Wow didnt think they could be that bad. My lowest is 2, and Im virtually on my own in it. There is a guy who's using two accounts who Im reporting, so it might be 1 and a half by tomorrow ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest drseanfitz

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

maybe they could use this and introduce another feature to try and liven up some of the lower rated leagues, what if they gave everyone x amount of xtra clubs(maybe 1 for non gold and 3 for gold) which can only be used to take on a team in set ups below a certain rating. this can then help get some action going in some setups. I know i would happily take up some clubs in lower rated setups if i had the spaces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the idea as a whole, I have to say that in its current form, I do not think the system achieves anything it has set out to do.

For example, a couple of hours ago, I was impressed to see WC 104 relatively highly rated on page 1 of the 'top rated' list. Since then, over 10 managers have joined the setup (of which I have nothing against of course, all for in fact), but in turn, this has had the effect of driving down the rating of the league, so much so that it now occupies the lower half of list 3. Therefore, all the good things that gave the setup it's high rating before are lost straight away as new people join.

A more viable method in my opinion would be to take a 'snapshot' rating of every league, and update this say at the beginning of each month with a star rating. That way, the volatility of the rating system would be removed, and the highly rated setups could at least retain this honour for longer than a couple of hours!

But that being said, I am still unconvinced that it is a very good idea in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Top Rated Game Worlds

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the idea as a whole' date=' I have to say that in its current form, I do not think the system achieves anything it has set out to do.

For example, a couple of hours ago, I was impressed to see WC 104 relatively highly rated on page 1 of the 'top rated' list. Since then, over 10 managers have joined the setup (of which I have nothing against of course, all for in fact), but in turn, this has had the effect of driving down the rating of the league, so much so that it now occupies the lower half of list 3. Therefore, all the good things that gave the setup it's high rating before are lost straight away as new people join.

A more viable method in my opinion would be to take a 'snapshot' rating of every league, and update this say at the beginning of each month with a star rating. That way, the volatility of the rating system would be removed, and the highly rated setups could at least retain this honour for longer than a couple of hours!

But that being said, I am still unconvinced that it is a very good idea in the first place.[/quote']

Very good. How long you been on the forum? Cos that was a good piece you wrote there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...