Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUColonel
I am curious what overall ratings scale people are using in this version? I haven't been very happy with how they have been displayed in this version, as it's basically impossible to use them in summarizing what level a player may be best placed without the use of relative ratings.
I always liked the 20-80 scale with increments of 5...but I now Find it useless without the relative ratings turned on. The stars might be very slightly better...but not much.
Obviously I get the feeling a lot of people just turn them off all together and only use components ratings, or maybe with components and just the overall potential rating turned on.
Any thoughts?
|
I used 20-80 increments of 5 ever since they added it. This year, I've gone back to stars for a few reasons.
First, there is only 10 different rating levels with stars, 20-80 has 13. I would love a 2-8 scale as that would only have 7 different levels. I like fewer rating levels for two reasons. One, too many levels clog up the development reports. I dont care that player A has improved from 40 to 45 when nothing else has changed. Two, I like more uncertainty in the ratings.
Another reason for going back to stars is that I don't like how the overall columns do not shrink. They stay the same width as they do for the stars. It's a minor cosmetic thing, but it annoys me.
Last reason, I think the star changes are easier to follow in the development reports for some reason. It'll say something like "changed from 1.5 to 2.5 stars", but the 20-80 is like "30/80 to 35/80". The "80" makes it harder to quickly see what's changing