Jump to content
IGNORED

Fifa 20


James54De

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Flint says No said:

I’m still not convinced they are confirmed. There’s no way they would keep them all the same.

There is when they don't have a dedicated editor anymore and when they did, EA questioned that editor for changing "too many" stats at once to try and bring a player up to a more realistic rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nathandao said:

According to the EA sports website, only the icons and top 100 have been confirmed

I think those ratings are according to the Beta and those ratings are not normally confirmed. 

56 minutes ago, TBW said:

There is when they don't have a dedicated editor anymore and when they did, EA questioned that editor for changing "too many" stats at once to try and bring a player up to a more realistic rating.

If these are the real ratings then EA have done no research whatsoever 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Flint says No said:

If these are the real ratings then EA have done no research whatsoever 

Because they don't pay Editors enough, Editors are responsible for the research - Main reason why I stepped back.

They have no reason to bother getting lower-demand leagues correct. If nobody is going to want them in Ultimate Team anyway, what's the point for EA to pay someone for it's accuracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TBW said:

There's no "overall" in FM so much less obvious to outright criticise without looking into the specific stats.

An awful lot more stats for people to question though.

Wouldn't be too hard to create an "overall" rating either.

An average of all ratings x5 to make it out of 100.

Or swap so the stats are ranked out of 100 instead of 20 (if you can still do that) and take an average that way.

(Assuming the Fifa ones are out of 100)

Or have a look in the editor and see what the players Ability and potential ability is. Then half, as FMs goes up to 200 I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

An awful lot more stats for people to question though.

Wouldn't be too hard to create an "overall" rating either.

An average of all ratings x5 to make it out of 100.

Or swap so the stats are ranked out of 100 instead of 20 (if you can still do that) and take an average that way.

(Assuming the Fifa ones are out of 100)

Or have a look in the editor and see what the players Ability and potential ability is. Then half, as FMs goes up to 200 I believe.

That would be unfairly skewed though, just multiplying everything. If you multiplied everything for a goalkeeper his rating overall would be super-low because of outfield stats. Same for a centre-back, his rating would drop based on shooting, dribbling stats etc.

You need to be much more specific to what a player uses in their position and other possible positions they might play. In FIFA for example, the overall rating you see if the player's rating for the primary position they're listed at. Not other positions.

So Tommy Rowe right now is listed as a CM but his rating would be much different playing him at LB as we've been doing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TBW said:

That would be unfairly skewed though, just multiplying everything. If you multiplied everything for a goalkeeper his rating overall would be super-low because of outfield stats. Same for a centre-back, his rating would drop based on shooting, dribbling stats etc.

You need to be much more specific to what a player uses in their position and other possible positions they might play. In FIFA for example, the overall rating you see if the player's rating for the primary position they're listed at. Not other positions.

So Tommy Rowe right now is listed as a CM but his rating would be much different playing him at LB as we've been doing.

 

I was listing a very basic example off the top of my head.

Of course doing it properly you'd take into account what stats are most relevant for the players position, perhaps just the ones highlighted when you select a role for them.

It was literally a handful of different ideas that took 30 seconds to come up with.

I didn't even mention removing the "goalkeeping ability" stat for outfield players....

Goalkeepers have different stats to go by on FM to outfield players anyway, so they wouldn't be particularly skewed against.

 

The point was it wouldn't be particularly difficult to create a formula.

Test said formula against some players on games like FIFA and PES who have accurate ratings- control players as it were and adjust where necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

I was listing a very basic example off the top of my head.

Of course doing it properly you'd take into account what stats are most relevant for the players position, perhaps just the ones highlighted when you select a role for them.

It was literally a handful of different ideas that took 30 seconds to come up with.

I didn't even mention removing the "goalkeeping ability" stat for outfield players....

Goalkeepers have different stats to go by on FM to outfield players anyway, so they wouldn't be particularly skewed against.

 

The point was it wouldn't be particularly difficult to create a formula.

Test said formula against some players on games like FIFA and PES who have accurate ratings- control players as it were and adjust where necessary.

And my point was that nobody is going to be spending their time composing an algorithm that would skew stats for all positions and their variant play-types for that position.

It's far too much information to be dealing with just so you can compare players to one another and criticise the ratings online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TBW said:

And my point was that nobody is going to be spending their time composing an algorithm that would skew stats for all positions and their variant play-types for that position.

It's far too much information to be dealing with just so you can compare players to one another and criticise the ratings online.

I don't recall asking for it at any point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Oh, so you were having a private conversation?

Didn't realise OTIB was set up just for you. Thought it was a discussion board where anyone could have a say.

Which I did.

"I don't recall asking for it at any point..."

Looks like you're assuming everything is directed at yourself with that post.

So... I didn't realise OTIB was set up just for YOU either.

Calm your shit, when I said "you" I didn't mean the world revolves around you and everything I wrote is specifically for you only. ****. Go get some sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TBW said:

"I don't recall asking for it at any point..."

Looks like you're assuming everything is directed at yourself with that post.

So... I didn't realise OTIB was set up just for YOU either.

Calm your shit, when I said "you" I didn't mean the world revolves around you and everything I wrote is specifically for you only. ****. Go get some sleep.

When someone says "you" interpreting that "you" to mean "you"isn't much of a stretch weirdly.

Maybe take some of your own advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...