| giax00 |  |
 |
Rating is an index (the consequence of other values, like all the other browser games) or a value itself? because in the Help/Faq (section:training) it's written: "By playing games, the player only increases his overall rating. Overall rating is improved only by playing games (friendly games included)."
It's not clear why an index should rise by playing games... |
|
|
| PStimpel | |
|
giax00 wrote:
Rating is an index (the consequence of other values, like all the other browser games) or a value itself? because in the Help/Faq (section:training) it's written: "By playing games, the player only increases his overall rating. Overall rating is improved only by playing games (friendly games included)."
It's not clear why an index should rise by playing games... |
Based on knowledge from GI, it will be similar here
There are two different ratings...
the rating you see on players is more a value, it grows by playing games, and is capped by talent - called player rating. The other rating is per match and you see it only after games inside the stats, this is more a index made by other values - called inGame rating. This second one is splitted into rating before game and rating after game and the stamina loss on games is in there... |
|
|
| giax00 | |
|
mmmm ok, it's really interesting, i never play something like this...
if rating is a value, how much is it important (i'm talking about the player rating, the only one i can see so far, if i catch what you've said)? i mean, a player with good skills but low rating, is a bad player? and another one, with low skills, but a good rating, should i make him play? |
|
|
| PStimpel | |
|
giax00 wrote:
mmmm ok, it's really interesting, i never play something like this...
if rating is a value, how much is it important (i'm talking about the player rating, the only one i can see so far, if i catch what you've said)? i mean, a player with good skills but low rating, is a bad player? and another one, with low skills, but a good rating, should i make him play? |
For the player rating: a player with good skills and a bad rating istnt a bad player, a player with good rating and bad skills is much worse. |
|
|
| Alen 10 | |
|
| Are who have player +6 in one skille i have players just with 5skill |
|
|
| UKG66 | |
|
PStimpel wrote:
giax00 wrote:
mmmm ok, it's really interesting, i never play something like this...
if rating is a value, how much is it important (i'm talking about the player rating, the only one i can see so far, if i catch what you've said)? i mean, a player with good skills but low rating, is a bad player? and another one, with low skills, but a good rating, should i make him play? |
For the player rating: a player with good skills and a bad rating istnt a bad player, a player with good rating and bad skills is much worse. |
Does this "rating" play any role in the course of a match? Or it's just a thing that gives you a "sort of" idea of approximately how good the player is? |
|
|
| PStimpel | |
|
UKG66 wrote:
PStimpel wrote:
giax00 wrote:
mmmm ok, it's really interesting, i never play something like this...
if rating is a value, how much is it important (i'm talking about the player rating, the only one i can see so far, if i catch what you've said)? i mean, a player with good skills but low rating, is a bad player? and another one, with low skills, but a good rating, should i make him play? |
For the player rating: a player with good skills and a bad rating istnt a bad player, a player with good rating and bad skills is much worse. |
Does this "rating" play any role in the course of a match? Or it's just a thing that gives you a "sort of" idea of approximately how good the player is? |
Based on knowledge from the other game: Rating is important, but not the matchwinner. We saw a lot of games where the lower rated team won...
The mix of rating, skills, tactics and formation win a game... |
|
|
| UKG66 | |
|
PStimpel wrote:
UKG66 wrote:
PStimpel wrote:
giax00 wrote:
mmmm ok, it's really interesting, i never play something like this...
if rating is a value, how much is it important (i'm talking about the player rating, the only one i can see so far, if i catch what you've said)? i mean, a player with good skills but low rating, is a bad player? and another one, with low skills, but a good rating, should i make him play? |
For the player rating: a player with good skills and a bad rating istnt a bad player, a player with good rating and bad skills is much worse. |
Does this "rating" play any role in the course of a match? Or it's just a thing that gives you a "sort of" idea of approximately how good the player is? |
Based on knowledge from the other game: Rating is important, but not the matchwinner. We saw a lot of games where the lower rated team won...
The mix of rating, skills, tactics and formation win a game... |
Sorry, don't mean to be a pain in the a***, but I still don't understand what "rating" is... Is it just a number that serves no other purpose than to give some idea about the player's skill level (and therefore completely useless and I could forget about it entirely), or does it give a hint about some hidden "x-factor" (so we should take it into consideration, when assessing a player)?
How can you mix "rating" into whatever mix to win a game? Skills, tactics and formation all agreed. |
|
|
| UKG66 | |
|
AncientGreco wrote:
In GI Admins stated that Rating works for the player as an additional skill. Since Rating is gained by playing games, it is more like an experience level.
I would compare it like this:
Rating = Basic experience, easy to gain
Experience = Veteran experience because harder to collect |
Thank you - in this way I think I can grasp the concept behind this abstract thing, you've been a great help. Thanks again! |
|
|
| Rector | |
|
What means if he have 0,5 stars, 1 star or 1,5 stars? It's the overall rating or the position rating? I have players which after my evaluation they are not as good as the rating looks.
i hope you are understanding. |
|
|
|
