1-100 scale for overall and potential ratings
I'm wondering why there isn't an option to have a 1-100 scale for this?
|
There is. I believe in game options.
|
Quote:
|
I don't know the answer as to why it's done as 1-80, but while I didn't care for it at first, it's grown on me. The game has other numeric scales (e.g., some skills are 1-125, which can then be capped or uncapped for display, and some are 1-250 in the hidden player screens covering contact, speed, fastballs, etc.)
Having none of them as 1-100 is good I think because it helps me avoid the obvious tendency to correlate the 1-100 scaled numbers as percentages, proportions or percentiles. That would be really helpful if the numbers are effectively data points on a bell-curve (as they appear to be.) |
Global settings, player ratings allows change to 1-100
|
Quote:
|
overall and potential ratings can’t be used as a 1-100 scale as far as I can see.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
See Global Settings... to open the choice window, click on the arrow to the right of the 20-80 current ratings scale... and get a drop down menu. |
that's a new option for XX.
|
It's not giving me the option. All i see is "None displayed, Stars, Values 20 to 80 and Values 20 to 80 (Increments of 5)
|
Overall and potential are only none, 20-80, or stars (except in PT obviously the default is it's won rating scale). The component ratings (ie. Stuff or defence or power) have other scales possible.
|
BTW if anyone is confused i'm not talking about trying to get a 1-100 ratings scale for batting and pitching ratings but the Overall and Potential ratings. It currently only goes 20 to 80. If it's a new feature for XX it's not giving me the option to change it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Also MLB uses the 20-80 scale to rate players so it makes sense OOTP would use this as well
|
Quote:
98 players at 68+ (blue) 419 players at 53-67 (green) 846 at 43-52 (gold?) 1,559 at 33-42 (orange?) 1,281 at 21-32 (red) 2,000 at 1-20 (red) This appears to me to be a rough approximation of a one-sided distribution with a mean of zero and a std dev of ~32. 1-20 is 41.3% of my players which correlates to the 40% that would included up to .55 sigma on a 1-sided normalized curve (20/32 = .63; compare to .55) 1-32 is 67.8% which correlates to the 68% that would be up to 1 sigma (32/32 = 1.00 compares to 1.0) 1-42 is 82.5% which correlates to the 80% that would be up to 1.3 sigma (42/32 = 1.31 compares to 1.3) 1-52 is 91.3% which correlates to the 91% that would be up to 1.7 sigma (52/32 = 1.63 compares to 1.7) 1-67 is 98.0% which correlates to the 95.4% that would be up to 2.0 sigma (67/32 = 2.09 compares to 2.0) 1-80 includes outliers that are capped at 80 for display, but are actually rated over 80, so it includes sigma 3. Moreover, if my assumptions are correct, it might not be entirely coincidental that 1 sigma is where red ends and 2 sigma is where blue begins. I have not done these kinds of stats in forever, so I'm far from certain, but it appears that way to me. Thoughts? |
the 20-80 definately grew on me as I was used to the EA style ratings at one time. However, with PT using 1-100 for overall one would think they would transfer that over to this eventually as another option.
|
Quote:
I used to hate this scale now I love it. Go figure. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments