Why the different ratings? - Page 2

PSUColonel · 12-21-2013, 11:25 PM

LOL...well OOTP is that type of game. I would be in favor of having one overall rating based on a true 20-80 scale. No 48's or 63's...every overall score would be in increments of 5...just as actual scouts do. So a player could have an overall rating of 20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55...etc

smythejd · 12-21-2013, 11:52 PM

I have been reading the links which Colonel posted (thanks)… I have a good idea about ratings…

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

His ratings have not changed at all, just his rank or value relative to the catcher position. To equate stars as ratings seems misleading unless I'm missing something else.

His ratings, that is, his ability, is unchanged between April and July. I just don't see the problem.

Here is the problem (as I see it). When my scout rates a player, that player has earned a star rating. It should not matter what page I am looking at.

RchW · 12-22-2013, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smythejd

I have been reading the links which Colonel posted (thanks)… I have a good idea about ratings…

Here is the problem (as I see it). When my scout rates a player, that player has earned a star rating. It should not matter what page I am looking at.

No the stars are an expression of relative value. They are not earned and are not assigned.

RchW · 12-22-2013, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

LOL...well OOTP is that type of game. I would be in favor of having one overall rating based on a true 20-80 scale. No 48's or 63's...every overall score would be in increments of 5...just as actual scouts do. So a player could have an overall rating of 20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55...etc

Right but that wouldn't change the fact that if all the 80's, and there shouldn't be many of them, got injured then the 75's would become 80's

Lukas Berger · 12-22-2013, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smythejd

I have been reading the links which Colonel posted (thanks)… I have a good idea about ratings…

Here is the problem (as I see it). When my scout rates a player, that player has earned a star rating. It should not matter what page I am looking at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

No the stars are an expression of relative value. They are not earned and are not assigned.

Another thing the stars really aren't is ratings. I guess they are technically ratings, but they aren't ratings in the same way as the individual ratings for contact, power, stuff etc.

I think that's part of the problem here. If you think of the stars as being just another rating, like all the other ratings, it will confuse you.

Rch is exactly right, they are in no way earned. The star values are relative, not absolute like the other ratings are. They're simply a tool to show a (very) rough estimate of a players relative value compared to the rest of the league, thus they change frequently as the talent in the league changes, the player's ratings change, or you run a re-scout.

PSUColonel · 12-22-2013, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Another thing the stars really aren't is ratings. I guess they are technically ratings, but they aren't ratings in the same way as the individual ratings for contact, power, stuff etc.

I think that's part of the problem here. If you think of the stars as being just another rating, like all the other ratings, it will confuse you.

Rch is exactly right, they are in no way earned. The star values are relative, not absolute like the other ratings are. They're simply a tool to show a (very) rough estimate of a players relative value compared to the rest of the league, thus they change frequently as the talent in the league changes, the player's ratings change, or you run a re-scout.

Fair enough, but that's not how the AI sees things. It's the profile ratings that are being used to determine the worth of a player...regardless how I seem to set up the AI evaluation parameters.

Snarf054 · 12-22-2013, 11:26 AM

I just ignore the profile page ratings and look at the real numbers there. I only use ratings from the scout report page. They seem to be much more stable and as my scout is, I would assume, much better than the leagues (my assumption is the league scout is average across the board) I often times find players that the rest of the league are vastly over or under rating.

RchW · 12-22-2013, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Fair enough, but that's not how the AI sees things. It's the profile ratings that are being used to determine the worth of a player...regardless how I seem to set up the AI evaluation parameters.

OK you're confusing me so be patient and work through this slowly. You seem to have switched from a scouting issue to an AI evaluation issue that is nothing to do with scouting. Correct me if this is wrong.

Also confusing to me is this reference to "profile" ratings being different. The player referenced in the OP showed no change in ratings over 3 months, two scouting reports and two views (profile and scouting). What exactly is the issue with this player?

Lukas Berger · 12-22-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Fair enough, but that's not how the AI sees things. It's the profile ratings that are being used to determine the worth of a player...regardless how I seem to set up the AI evaluation parameters.

As for the overall ratings, depending on the settings you use, they may in fact be calculated based on the overall ai type evaluation, not just on the component ratings.

When you change the ai evaluation parameters it actually changes the way the ai calculates the ratings so long as you have the "Overall rating based on ai evaluation, not pure ratings' box checked.

When that box is checked the game includes stats and ratings in the calculation of the overall ratings, in the same proportion you have selected under the 'ai options' settings. You need to have that box checked though, if you want the ai evaluation to show up in the overall ratings.

Lukas Berger · 12-22-2013, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Fair enough, but that's not how the AI sees things. It's the profile ratings that are being used to determine the worth of a player...regardless how I seem to set up the AI evaluation parameters.

The more I checked this out the more I have no idea why you would think that's true.

The ai definitely does not only use the profile ratings to determine a players worth, unless you setup the ai options to only give weight to the ratings.

You'll have to explain more if you want me to understand, otherwise I think you've lost me here

RchW · 12-24-2013, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukasberger

The more I checked this out the more I have no idea why you would think that's true.

The ai definitely does not only use the profile ratings to determine a players worth, unless you setup the ai options to only give weight to the ratings.

You'll have to explain more if you want me to understand, otherwise I think you've lost me here

To me it is another smoke and mirror complaint with no substantive documentation. Please note I'm not dismissing it, but if you can't make me understand it easily then my inclination is to dismiss it.

I refer to "it" because the problem is not clearly defined.

The Wolf · 12-25-2013, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

To me it is another smoke and mirror complaint with no substantive documentation. Please note I'm not dismissing it, but if you can't make me understand it easily then my inclination is to dismiss it.

I refer to "it" because the problem is not clearly defined.

I agree with Rich.

Déjà Bru · 12-25-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

Because, as endgame pointed out, the "latest" scouting report on that screen was from April, while your game was in July. Therefore, the star ratings you're seeing on the profile page are up to date, while the ones on the reports screen are from the date that scouting report was created (April 25). Your re-scout "fixed" the problem because it updated the report to the current date.

I think we got a bit off the track in this thread. Going back to OP's question, this post from Fyrestorm3 hits the problem right on the head.

The answer is simple, regardless of how you feel about the ratings/stars themselves. The date on the profile should always be TODAY'S DATE if, as Fyrestorm3 asserts, the star ratings on the profile are up to date. Instead, it is a design flaw that the date defaults back to the last scouting report even though the stars portion of it has changed in the meantime. As the Colonel has pointed out, we live with it.

It should be changed in the future, though, because it is confusing and misleading. Look for this same issue to periodically resurface until then.

12-21-2013, 11:25 PM	#21
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,143	LOL...well OOTP is that type of game. I would be in favor of having one overall rating based on a true 20-80 scale. No 48's or 63's...every overall score would be in increments of 5...just as actual scouts do. So a player could have an overall rating of 20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55...etc

12-22-2013, 11:26 AM	#27
Snarf054 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 127	I just ignore the profile page ratings and look at the real numbers there. I only use ratings from the scout report page. They seem to be much more stable and as my scout is, I would assume, much better than the leagues (my assumption is the league scout is average across the board) I often times find players that the rest of the league are vastly over or under rating.