20-80 ... default rating scale in OOTP 17

[jpeters1734]

Yes finally!!! Now all that's left is removing the "32" type ratings. They should all go in increments of 5

[r0nster]

Personaly I like to use the 1-100 scale that says more to me.

[pgjocki]

I'm a 2-8 guy because I like having a "fog of war" element

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

Yes finally!!! Now all that's left is removing the "32" type ratings. They should all go in increments of 5

They already go in increments of 5, except OVR/POT.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

A little heads-up, the 20-80 rating scale is now the default in OOTP 17 for player current & talent ratings. Stars will remain the default for player overall & potential.

Cool?

Interesting that you called the "potential" rating the talent rating. That pretty much confirms my theory that Talent Change Randomness only changes the "talent" rating.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Interesting that you called the "potential" rating the talent rating. That pretty much confirms my theory that Talent Change Randomness only changes the "talent" rating.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty much understood. Maybe not though...

[polydamas]

It's what the scouts use, so it makes sense that we use it as well. I've never played a game without it.

[itshim99]

Will the overall ratings be fixed this year? Usually the star ratings and the 20/80 overall ratings are not the most accurate. I know Ryan Howard is a shell of himself but I don't think he is 25 overall player. I could be wrong.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

IIRC the real life version only goes up in intervals of 5 too, whereas the OOTP version goes up in 1s the same as all the other scales.

The 20-80 scale in OOTP has always been presented in increments of 5 for me. Though I'm referring to batting/pitching ratings, not overall ratings (which I haven't tried in that scale).

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Agreed.. here's to the 1-10 scale!

Football uses it to grade draft prospects, except it uses multiples of ten for each variance, so you could have a player graded as 6.3 for example.

[PSUColonel]

I wish instead of the way the current overall 20-80 is done, it would be presented in increments of five (as is how real scouts grade overall)

[RchW]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Interesting that you called the "potential" rating the talent rating. That pretty much confirms my theory that Talent Change Randomness only changes the "talent" rating.

I've always thought this.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by itshim99

Will the overall ratings be fixed this year? Usually the star ratings and the 20/80 overall ratings are not the most accurate. I know Ryan Howard is a shell of himself but I don't think he is 25 overall player. I could be wrong.

This is because you use non-relative ratings. If you use the relative ratings checkbox, this will be fixed.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by RchW

I've always thought this.

Me too, but there were debates.

[lionbacker]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

This is because you use non-relative ratings. If you use the relative ratings checkbox, this will be fixed.

Does anyone know if we should also check ratings based on all players and not just positions? If our goal is to get the ratings as close as possible to the real life ones?

[jasonzimmie]

can I ask exatcly how the 20/80 scale works, is the higher the number the better and why do scouts use 20/80 and not say 1/100

[tward13]

Originally Posted by jasonzimmie

can I ask exatcly how the 20/80 scale works, is the higher the number the better and why do scouts use 20/80 and not say 1/100

Somewhere on this thread is a link to an article that explains it all

[Birdland24]

Originally Posted by jasonzimmie

can I ask exatcly how the 20/80 scale works, is the higher the number the better and why do scouts use 20/80 and not say 1/100

If you google it you can find a better way of understanding how and why they do their ratings that way.

[dave1927p]

Originally Posted by ttaka808

Personally, I use 20-80 scales, but if OOTP is trying to appeal to casual gamers, it would probably make more sense to use a 1-10 or 1-20 scale that's easier to learn for new players.

I would think casual gamerd would prefer an overall of 1-99. That way it's consistent to other sport games like the show and EA. that's probably what I would of liked 8 years ago but I gre w quite accustomed to the 20-80 quickly.

[Dodgerblue]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

You can fix this if you enable the relative rating feature and display ratings relative to MLB. Then you have the same standard deviations...

Thats great. And what about the overall ranking? Is a 60 overall in OOTP expected to have around 3 WAR? Is a 45 a Utility player?