Jump to content

Player Ratings Schedule


Stuart H

Player Ratings Schedule  

1 member has voted

  1. 1.

    • I think it's a good idea.
    • I prefer the current schedule (2 reviews a season).
    • I'm indifferent to the change.


Recommended Posts

899465.jpg

This should really be in the other development section as it's being introduced but we'll have it here until someone sees fit to move it *hint hint*

Dermo and I have been having a little discussion about the above change and thought it appropriate to include the rest of the forum to our debate. Do people think it's a good or bad idea? What are the benefits that come from the change and do they outweigh any cons?

Your opinions are valued and I'll C&P my thoughts from my PMs in a moment or 2 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

I think it's generally a good thing, players will have more appropriate ratings sooner and those players generally considered to be on the 'ladder' to a higher rating will get there sooner, i.e. Muller 85->88->91.

If the ratings occur more often the rises should be less extreme also, which could potentially cause less debate (Fabio Coentrao springs to mind) I could be optimistic here though :P

The only thing which will be effected adversely (for want of a better word) for some (myself included, not saying this is a draw back however) Is the high risers. Their rises will also be less extreme which will mean making money is harder from these leagues' changes. Whilst transfer bans are going to become more of a consideration and managers will have harder decisions regarding whether to sell or keep, as the sell/ re-sign option before another change may not be possible always.

Again I want to reiterate this may make SM more of a challenge however and is not necessarily a bad thing at all. I'm in favour of more reviews!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

If they had additional personnel to do reviews, sure. But with the current staff an additional review of the big leagues would mean that all the other leagues would suffer. Right now some leagues have dropped out of the schedule almost altogether and some are only being reviewed once a year. A third review for the big leagues could mean that more small leagues drop out of the schedule for good and i don't want that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

The more often the ratings changes happen, the better. I really think it is that simple. When ratings reflect their real-life status, it makes the game a lot more enjoyable and realistic.

Of course the smaller leagues might suffer, but the bigger clubs should get special treatment anyways. EPL, Serie A, La Liga etc. etc. should be rated more often than the Meistriliiga or the Vysshaya Liga. It only makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

If they had additional personnel to do reviews' date=' sure. But with the current staff an additional review of the big leagues would mean that all the other leagues would suffer. Right now some leagues have dropped out of the schedule almost altogether and some are only being reviewed once a year. A third review for the big leagues could mean that more small leagues drop out of the schedule for good and i don't want that.[/quote']

I'm in agreement here. Unless SM can guarantee to review all their other leagues at least once a season in addition to these then that's fine. I seriously doubt it though given that several leagues haven't been reviewed in over a year. I can see how this panders to the usual SM player who wants his favourite players and the guys he watches regularly. However, if SM doing this alienates those who care most about SM, scout and watch smaller leagues then is it the right decision?

I also get the feeling the the big leagues will be rated more on current form. They have to be for the increased number of reviews to be worthwhile as rating every 4 months and harking back to form 2 years ago would be ridiculous. If this is true then the capacity to make money from out of form players is huge. Sell Rooney as a 96 and buy back as a 95 nets you a decent sum (£7m ish?). Do this for all the out of form top players in your squad and you're making a mint. If people don't think this will be the case then I ask you what the justification in having another rating review is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

I'm in agreement here. Unless SM can guarantee to review all their other leagues at least once a season in addition to these then that's fine. I seriously doubt it though given that several leagues haven't been reviewed in over a year. I can see how this panders to the usual SM player who wants his favourite players and the guys he watches regularly. However' date=' if SM doing this alienates those who care most about SM, scout and watch smaller leagues then is it the right decision?

I also get the feeling the the big leagues will be rated more on current form. They have to be for the increased number of reviews to be worthwhile as rating every 4 months and harking back to form 2 years ago would be ridiculous. If this is true then the capacity to make money from out of form players is huge. Sell Rooney as a 96 and buy back as a 95 nets you a decent sum (£7m ish?). Do this for all the out of form top players in your squad and you're making a mint. If people don't think this will be the case then I ask you what the justification in having another rating review is?[/quote']

Well first off I'd question the sanity of anyone selling the likes of Rooney and re-signing him in the hope of a few extra mil, the risk is not worth the reward (even if we use less reputable players as an example the point remains) I don't see SM fluctuating the ratings of players the way you suggest either, if in fact you are saying what I think, i.e. 96->95->96 more readily? This is counter-productive and just makes more work for the reviewers. SM ratings have been built on avoiding knee-jerk reactions so I don't see a total shift in philosophy.

I infact see the more reviews giving scope for smaller rises but getting the likes of Muller to his deserved rating sooner if it's deserved, I mean he's been rated 88 for 6 months which is too long as everyone would agree, he's better than that. If he's off form for 3 or 4 months though I don't think a drop will be in store. SM has always been reluctant to drop recent risers and rise recent droppers, unless really deserved. Changes have to be earnt over a reasonable period (I might be being optimistic but I certainly hope this won't change).

I wonder if your fears come having seen some of the recent risers? I would say don't necessarily believe that SM are being generous, with the 'back-up' of sooner reviews to rectify any mistakes they've made in rising players (this would be a poor addition to the ethos of rating reviews) I feel these ratings can be explained quite simply: The World Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

Well first off I'd question the sanity of anyone selling the likes of Rooney and re-signing him in the hope of a few extra mil' date=' the risk is not worth the reward (even if we use less reputable players as an example the point remains) I don't see SM fluctuating the ratings of players the way you suggest either, if in fact you are saying what I think, i.e. 96->95->96 more readily? This is counter-productive and just makes more work for the reviewers. SM ratings have been built on avoiding knee-jerk reactions so I don't see a total shift in philosophy.[/quote']

In a less competitive set-up I wouldn't consider it a risk at all. Many many set-ups are completely dead and the extra revenue generated would serve to deaden them even more. If SM don't fluctuate more according to form then what's the point in rating them more often?

I infact see the more reviews giving scope for smaller rises but getting the likes of Muller to his deserved rating sooner if it's deserved, I mean he's been rated 88 for 6 months which is too long as everyone would agree, he's better than that. If he's off form for 3 or 4 months though I don't think a drop will be in store. SM has always been reluctant to drop recent risers and rise recent droppers, unless really deserved. Changes have to be earnt over a reasonable period (I might be being optimistic but I certainly hope this won't change).

I can see where you're coming from here. I agree that it'd be nice to rise constant performers with initial low ratings to their 'proper' ratings a little faster. Is it right that this comes at the cost of a lesser league going over a season without a review? Not a chance IMO. There's no real problem with the previous schedule; certainly no-one had a problem with it until this was announced. It was just generally accepted that players would get the ratings they deserved in due course.

I wonder if your fears come having seen some of the recent risers? I would say don't necessarily believe that SM are being generous, with the 'back-up' of sooner reviews to rectify any mistakes they've made in rising players (this would be a poor addition to the ethos of rating reviews) I feel these ratings can be explained quite simply: The World Cup.

I felt like this before I took note of the recent changes really. But sure, it would be very easy for SM to put Bale up to 91, please most of the community, and then drop him in March after it becomes evident that he was just in an exceptional purple patch. I hope it doesn't happen as the current review system seems most sensible but, I repeat, what's the point in more reviews if you aren't going to take more notice of form?

Agreed on the World Cup though. Bar Ayew, SM have been extremely generous to those who played well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say too generous. I prefer players to take the slow and steady route to the high ratings.

EDIT:

Serie A' date=' Premier, La Liga, Bundesliga, Eredivisie, Portugal and French Ligue 3 times.

Smaller leagues: 2 times.[/quote']

With SM having failed to review some leagues since 2009 I don't think that's viable at all unless they're having a big reshuffle at SM HQ :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

In a less competitive set-up I wouldn't consider it a risk at all. Many many set-ups are completely dead and the extra revenue generated would serve to deaden them even more. If SM don't fluctuate more according to form then what's the point in rating them more often?

Ok well if someone can get away with that then good luck to them' date=' if there's no competition for a player like Rooney I would suggest the set-up is beyond resurrection anyway, a few extra mil for the managed clubs isn't even going to put another nail in its coffin as I'd suggest it's already buried. I say that just entertaining your notion, as I stated before I don't see fluctuations occurring as you suggest so this won't be an issue in my mind.

I don't quite understand why the more reviews means ratings will fluctuate more, the point of the more reviews as I see it is that players have more accurate ratings sooner. The current process will just be quickened and less extreme. The current system works so well because ratings don't go up and down. Do you really see SM changing to this style?

I'll try and illustrate my point for anyone unsure of how I see this effecting changes: Victor Ruiz went from 75->84 in six months or however long he was on the database. If Spain is reviewed twice in that six month period I could see something along these lines happening to his rating 75->82->85/86. So it's slightly more gradual and a more deserving/ 'exact' rating as a result occurs six month later rather than the year it might take Victor Ruiz to get to 86/87! I could be totally off the mark with this and be proved wrong but this is how I see it/ hope what happens! I do not see changes like: Muller 88->91->90 accomodated by more reviews.[/color']

I can see where you're coming from here. I agree that it'd be nice to rise constant performers with initial low ratings to their 'proper' ratings a little faster. Is it right that this comes at the cost of a lesser league going over a season without a review? Not a chance IMO. There's no real problem with the previous schedule; certainly no-one had a problem with it until this was announced. It was just generally accepted that players would get the ratings they deserved in due course.

Well as said earlier in the thread surely the more often the leagues are reviewed the better? If changes are done more often you'd expect less changes when they come around, more accurate ratings has to be the aim with this system surely? (The current changes need to be discarded however as it has been 6 months since these leagues were reviewed which is why there are plenty of changes)

I understand what you're saying about the lesser leagues and hope they aren't impacted upon either. This point I made about less changes the more often a league is reviewed should mean SMs workload isn't as overwhelming when these leagues come to be reviewed however, well in theory anyway. We'll have to see how it pans out. I think this could be the biggest disadvantage of the new system, so agree with you here.

I think the current rating system is far from ideal and are you sure you've not heard anyone unhappy about it? From my limited experience on the forum I've heard plenty of dissatisfaction with it. Players remain on stagnant ratings for too long. When this is coupled with player concerns, Busquets could get to a level 2 in a six month period for not getting games (or even level 3->5 and request a transfer) when he would be a sure starter at his more deserving/ accurate rating of 92/93. SM has a responsibility in keeping ratings up to date to avoid these kind of issues.

I felt like this before I took note of the recent changes really. But sure, it would be very easy for SM to put Bale up to 91, please most of the community, and then drop him in March after it becomes evident that he was just in an exceptional purple patch. I hope it doesn't happen as the current review system seems most sensible but, I repeat, what's the point in more reviews if you aren't going to take more notice of form?

Agreed on the World Cup though. Bar Ayew, SM have been extremely generous to those who played well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say too generous. I prefer players to take the slow and steady route to the high ratings.

I think the World Cup changes have been very generous too but it is only once every four years so can accept it to a point (although reluctantly) I think on the whole more changes will be for the good of SM but time will only tell and my positive outlook may change but I certainly do not believe more reviews should be a bad thing (IF DONE CORRECTLY)

With SM having failed to review some leagues since 2009 I don't think that's viable at all unless they're having a big reshuffle at SM HQ :o

Who know's what's happening with the structure to allow the changes to the schedule? I would assume some changes have to occur to allow for these developments however

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

In a less competitive set-up I wouldn't consider it a risk at all. Many many set-ups are completely dead and the extra revenue generated would serve to deaden them even more. If SM don't fluctuate more according to form then what's the point in rating them more often?

You really should not be in a setup where there is no competition to buy players. The rating changes won't matter here. The point of getting rated more often' date=' is not for the higher rated players, who will just stay, but for the players that you buy at 75 and are not hyped up like Gotze and get given gigantic first rises, but those who I buy who are less known, and get a paltry rise of 2. Those players I want to keep, if I can monitor their form, and I know that they will get reviewed in 4 months.[/b']

I can see where you're coming from here. I agree that it'd be nice to rise constant performers with initial low ratings to their 'proper' ratings a little faster. Is it right that this comes at the cost of a lesser league going over a season without a review? Not a chance IMO. There's no real problem with the previous schedule; certainly no-one had a problem with it until this was announced. It was just generally accepted that players would get the ratings they deserved in due course.

The previous ratings were poor. And I hate how they have skipped over a lot of countries in Europe, SA and even some decent Asian and African countries where there are some good players due a ratings increase. They keep adding players from these parts to the database, why include them. There are at least 50% too many players out there. Some have long retired or left the game, moved down to obscure team etc. And the same with teams, far too many that don't really need to be. You can get players to their proper rating and be able to review the minor leagues as well. It's just that SM would take a week to review Slovakia or whoever., instead of 2 days. It can easily be done, but I do not know how SM operate, but if it's like a typical day at the office, than not a whole lot gets done in the day.

I would love to know who and how these leagues get reviewed. I'm sure for them it's like getting to review a great video game like Fallout New Vegas, or getting to review some lesser known game that probably wouldn't be any good. They want to review the Fallout's more often. As would I. :)

I felt like this before I took note of the recent changes really. But sure, it would be very easy for SM to put Bale up to 91, please most of the community, and then drop him in March after it becomes evident that he was just in an exceptional purple patch. I hope it doesn't happen as the current review system seems most sensible but, I repeat, what's the point in more reviews if you aren't going to take more notice of form?

With more reviews, Bale would be an 89 player now, looking to step up to 90. I hate joining the fun forumer packed setup, and lose out to teams who get the jump in on all the big risers in the game. Those rise's don't have to be so massive if it's done in stages. Although, I much prefer those big risers from the lesser countries, as they have not been talked up about. That's the problem, too much talk from robots it seems on the forums here. How is Muller doing, how is Gotze doing, how much will they rise, blah blah. No talk about the +4 for Clemens, or the +2 for Cisse. For them it's, who? Those people don't need more reviews, all they will want is more risers, and more risers, and they will ask the same inane questions that everyone is asking about the popular players. They all play in mostly dead setups.

For me, I want to keep most players and monitor them, you know which setup I am talking about Stuart. I remember when Reus was 80, and SM skipped over him. I was furious and was looking to sell him. It was a really long wait for his rise to 86, which should not have happened in one go of +6. He should have been 83 rising to 86. I joined the foxhunters before he was to be reviewed, and there was a scramble to sign him I think.

In between SM (hopefully stepping it up a gear with these ratings, and leave the liquid lunches for the weekend) doing a few major leagues 3 times a year, and Holland and Portugal, Argentina and Brazil, there is more than enough ample time to look through China and the Middle East, Bolivia and Slovenia etc. Just spend a day or two, it doesn't have to be done with the same great deal of attention and perfection that is spent on England.

Agreed on the World Cup though. Bar Ayew, SM have been extremely generous to those who played well. In fact, I'd go so far as to say too generous. I prefer players to take the slow and steady route to the high ratings.

Yes, and it seem that the WC is but a distant memory. Slow and steady wins the race. Slow and steady requires a little extra reviewing in the year. Also, it doesn't have to be 3 times in 12 months, it could be an overlapping year, 3 in 15 months. But it would make sense to review the major leagues after they finish, sometime after a new season starts, and maybe again after a Xmas break, or in England, the time to tell who will win the league.

EDIT:

With SM having failed to review some leagues since 2009 I don't think that's viable at all unless they're having a big reshuffle at SM HQ :o

As I've said, there are places where you go to work and people sit on their bottoms with their feet on the desk, and their are places where you are threatened with actual bodily harm if you don't get all this work done today. It only has to be somewhere in the middle for things to work.

Don't know if you read this or missed it, but I'll put it up again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

SM to Review "Major" Leagues 3 Times a Season

http://blog.soccermanager.com/players/player-ratings/player-ratings-schedule-2.html

I'm quite suprised a thread hasn't been started on this topic so thought I would make the first one.:D

Anyway, if anyone doesn't know, SM have now confirmed that they will now be reviewing the 5 "major" leagues (the Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Primera Division, the Premier League and Serie A) three times a season instead of the traditional 2.

Now, for me, three times a season seems a bit too much considering how SM seemingly can't review all the "lesser" leagues because they don't have enough time. I think twice a season reviews of the leagues mentioned above would be perfectly adequate plus it would mean SM could then be able to review more of the "lesser" leagues such as Bosnia, Bulgaria etc.

I just wanted to hear forumers thoughts on the change and whether or not they think it will benefit the game.:)

* I don't know if this is the right place for this thread so, if it is not, could a Mod please move it to ther correct area. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM to Review "Major" Leagues 3 Times a Season

I think this is a poor move by SM. It shows greater bias towards the bigger leagues which, I can understand, but I've been waiting for the Belgian league to get reviewed for quite some time as a lot of my team in GC 7 are based in Belgium in real life (Proto, Verbauwhede, Suler, Wils, Odoi, De Bock, El Ghanassy, Thijs, Overmeiere, Carcela-Gonzalez, Van Acker, Francois, Buffel, De Pauw, Vossen, Ogunjimi, Cyriac) and I'd think on average they are somewhat 2 ratings below what they should be based on their overall form this season and it's a little unfair because they won't rise which means my rivals (who are the likes of Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV, AZ and Twente who have better players anyway) get an even bigger advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: SM to Review "Major" Leagues 3 Times a Season

I prefer it at 2, now you will have players going up and down too quickly for a bit of good form or a dip in form. Should be done in the middle of season, and then when the season has been completed.

The prem was rated at game-week 14. Then again at around game-week 26, then 38. Just seems a bit pointless. I think it will be more inacurate now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Respuesta: Re: Player Ratings Schedule

With SM having failed to review some leagues since 2009 I don't think that's viable at all unless they're having a big reshuffle at SM HQ :o

Totally agree.

SM needs to keep a constant rate of reviewing South American, Asian and Eastern Europe leagues. Otherwise, people will just buy players from the top 5 leagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

365 days in a year. 260.7 days are reviewing days. Out of that, we trim off about 10% for holidays leaving 235 days for reviews.

235 days out of the year is a lot of time to review leagues. It seems to take SM, 3 days to do one top flight division. So, 15 days to do all 5 once, 45 to do them 3 times. 235-45 leaves 190 days to cover other leagues.

Some, like Brazil and Argentina, are very popular for people to buy from as these countries churn out so many new players. Lets give them 3 reviews. 6 days by 3 times. So, 190-18 is 172.

Some, like Russia and Portugal, Holland and Denmark will get done twice a year. I would say there are about 12-16 major leagues worth reviewing often enough as they are quite strong. Twice a year for them. 16 by 3 is 48 by 2 is 96.

172 - 96 is 76. 76 days to cover leagues once a year. And, trust me, it should not take 3 days to review Cyprus or Bolivia. Any one person who likes to do ratings here, would do it in half a day. And I don't think SM would do the same good job as they would with a major league. They leave players from these leagues on the database who have long since finished playing football. But, if they did need 3 days, that would be 25 different countries that could be done. I know there would be more, but I have seen them rating individual players from small countries, so I don't think they could be bothered to spend time analysing everyone from these leagues as nobody, and that means 99.9999 percent of people, look at these leagues.

3 days to review bigger leagues is plenty of time. It could be done in 2 days I am sure of it. There is more than enough time to get around to all the different countries and please everyone at the same time. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Player Ratings Schedule

365 days in a year. 260.7 days are reviewing days. Out of that' date=' we trim off about 10% for holidays leaving 235 days for reviews.

235 days out of the year is a lot of time to review leagues. It seems to take SM, 3 days to do one top flight division. So, 15 days to do all 5 once, 45 to do them 3 times. 235-45 leaves 190 days to cover other leagues.

Some, like Brazil and Argentina, are very popular for people to buy from as these countries churn out so many new players. Lets give them 3 reviews. 6 days by 3 times. So, 190-18 is 172.

Some, like Russia and Portugal, Holland and Denmark will get done twice a year. I would say there are about 12-16 major leagues worth reviewing often enough as they are quite strong. Twice a year for them. 16 by 3 is 48 by 2 is 96.

172 - 96 is 76. 76 days to cover leagues once a year. And, trust me, it should not take 3 days to review Cyprus or Bolivia. Any one person who likes to do ratings here, would do it in half a day. And I don't think SM would do the same good job as they would with a major league. They leave players from these leagues on the database who have long since finished playing football. But, if they did need 3 days, that would be 25 different countries that could be done. I know there would be more, but I have seen them rating individual players from small countries, so I don't think they could be bothered to spend time analysing everyone from these leagues as nobody, and that means 99.9999 percent of people, look at these leagues.

3 days to review bigger leagues is plenty of time. It could be done in 2 days I am sure of it. There is more than enough time to get around to all the different countries and please everyone at the same time. :)[/quote']

I wish this would be the case. However, if we look over 2010 there are several leagues which haven't been reviewed at all, let alone twice. If SM can rate leagues constantly throughout the year then more ratings for the top leagues is fine. However, if they cover the same number of leagues as they do currently then I'd much rather they rate every league at least once a year rather than rating the big leagues more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...