I've read that the optimal match rating for growth is not too low, not too high. So ~6.7-6.9 supposedly.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA View only = 16 CA Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA 21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference. Expand
Exactly what I presumed. I remember EBFM testing win rate and seeing it had no difference. But I didn't remember the morale.
Either way, I think what is happening is someone along the chain of information confused "match experience" which is the term used by EBFM for matches played in a season, to Match Rating. I'm just not sure where people are getting ideal ratings from.
Am I missing something, or is this the usual collective selection bias coupled with anecdotal evidence?
I've read that the optimal match rating for growth is not too low, not too high. So ~6.7-6.9 supposedly.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA
Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA
Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA
Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA
View only = 16 CA
Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA
All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference
Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference
Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA
21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA
Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA
Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA
Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA
Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference
Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Exactly what I presumed. I remember EBFM testing win rate and seeing it had no difference. But I didn't remember the morale.
Either way, I think what is happening is someone along the chain of information confused "match experience" which is the term used by EBFM for matches played in a season, to Match Rating. I'm just not sure where people are getting ideal ratings from.