Overall Rating scale too small?

JeffR · 02-12-2004, 07:55 PM

I'm starting to think that the 1-15 scale for fighters' overall ratings is a little too limited. Right now, semi-reputable fighters like Gunnar Barlund and Larry Frazier get lumped in with no-hopers like Mel Turnbow and freakshows like Butterbean.

If it was 1-30, with the all-time greats still staying at the very top end of the scale, that'd open up some room for more precision in the middle and at the lower end. There'd probably be some minor adjustments needed to the ratings system (in addition to reworking the auto-calculate formulas for the OR), but I think it'd be worth it.

I suspect this'll be important as the role-playing game is developed - in the early part of a fighter's career, he'll probably be fighting a slowly-improving caliber of opponent. But if the ratings remaing 1-15, all of those early opponents will be 1's, even though there'll be a big difference in skilll between the warm bodies he beats in his first couple of fights and the trialhorses he's facing after a dozen or so bouts. In the real world, a 10-0 fighter who's only beaten guys with 0-10 records won't get much notice, but one who's 10-0 and is beating people with (legitimate) winning records will. I don't think that'll be reflected if the 1-15 scale stays in place.

PittPanther · 02-12-2004, 08:59 PM

Food for thought, that is for certain.

jabbo · 02-12-2004, 09:49 PM

The Trunzos obviously did not anticipate, when they first deisgned the game, the adding on of opponents below their "1" rated fighters. Hell, I believe that 50s-60s-era heavyweight Joe Bygraves, a "1," was the UK champ at one point.

Maybe Butterbean should be an 0.1!

Bob

mking55 · 02-12-2004, 10:16 PM

Jeff, I would tend to agree with you. Too many fighters of differing abilities seem to share the same overall ratings.

I understand better now that overall rating is not that important, but I would like to see it have more meaning even as a guideline.

The rating line is a tough one to walk.

wildhawke11 · 02-12-2004, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jabbo
The Trunzos obviously did not anticipate, when they first deisgned the game, the adding on of opponents below their "1" rated fighters. Hell, I believe that 50s-60s-era heavyweight Joe Bygraves, a "1," was the UK champ at one point.

Bob

I think Bob is pretty near the mark with his comments.

The Role Play game will be i feel a lot different.

Joe Bygraves wow i name i had long forgot

British and Empire Champion from the dark ages without looking it up i cant remember to much about him at the moment LOL

swampdragon · 02-12-2004, 11:18 PM

I think Jeff is right. If you were designing the game from scratch, you'd definitely want a larger range for most of the ratings as well as the overall rating. I know the people designing period universes tend to raise many of the fighters by 2-3 points to make room at the bottom.

GDE · 02-13-2004, 12:12 AM

What you have to understand is that there really are several places between and 8 and a 9. If the calculation rounds up, then 8.5-9.49 all would get a 9 rating.

Just because you expand the scale to 1-30 doesn't really improve the ratings any, it just gives you different rounding points. An 8.5 is a low 17 where the 9.49 is a high 19. Really no difference except for the numbers.

JeffR · 02-13-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GDE
Just because you expand the scale to 1-30 doesn't really improve the ratings any, it just gives you different rounding points. An 8.5 is a low 17 where the 9.49 is a high 19. Really no difference except for the numbers.

Well, that's kind of the point. With 1-15, those guys get the same rating. With 1-30, you can see that the second guy is better.

02-12-2004, 07:55 PM	#1
JeffR FHM Producer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Kelowna, BC Posts: 17,427	Overall Rating scale too small? I'm starting to think that the 1-15 scale for fighters' overall ratings is a little too limited. Right now, semi-reputable fighters like Gunnar Barlund and Larry Frazier get lumped in with no-hopers like Mel Turnbow and freakshows like Butterbean. If it was 1-30, with the all-time greats still staying at the very top end of the scale, that'd open up some room for more precision in the middle and at the lower end. There'd probably be some minor adjustments needed to the ratings system (in addition to reworking the auto-calculate formulas for the OR), but I think it'd be worth it. I suspect this'll be important as the role-playing game is developed - in the early part of a fighter's career, he'll probably be fighting a slowly-improving caliber of opponent. But if the ratings remaing 1-15, all of those early opponents will be 1's, even though there'll be a big difference in skilll between the warm bodies he beats in his first couple of fights and the trialhorses he's facing after a dozen or so bouts. In the real world, a 10-0 fighter who's only beaten guys with 0-10 records won't get much notice, but one who's 10-0 and is beating people with (legitimate) winning records will. I don't think that'll be reflected if the 1-15 scale stays in place.

02-12-2004, 08:59 PM	#2
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,235	Food for thought, that is for certain. __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

02-12-2004, 09:49 PM	#3
jabbo Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 73	The Trunzos obviously did not anticipate, when they first deisgned the game, the adding on of opponents below their "1" rated fighters. Hell, I believe that 50s-60s-era heavyweight Joe Bygraves, a "1," was the UK champ at one point. Maybe Butterbean should be an 0.1! Bob

02-12-2004, 10:16 PM	#4
mking55 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Boading, China Posts: 1,249	Jeff, I would tend to agree with you. Too many fighters of differing abilities seem to share the same overall ratings. I understand better now that overall rating is not that important, but I would like to see it have more meaning even as a guideline. The rating line is a tough one to walk.

02-12-2004, 11:18 PM	#6
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,509	I think Jeff is right. If you were designing the game from scratch, you'd definitely want a larger range for most of the ratings as well as the overall rating. I know the people designing period universes tend to raise many of the fighters by 2-3 points to make room at the bottom.

02-13-2004, 12:12 AM	#7
GDE Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Nancy,KY Posts: 193	What you have to understand is that there really are several places between and 8 and a 9. If the calculation rounds up, then 8.5-9.49 all would get a 9 rating. Just because you expand the scale to 1-30 doesn't really improve the ratings any, it just gives you different rounding points. An 8.5 is a low 17 where the 9.49 is a high 19. Really no difference except for the numbers.