What ratings scale is most popular?

[Crimguy]

I figure everyone has some reason for using 1-20, 20-80 or 1-100.

1-100 is the most intuitive. What's the most popular out there? Why 20-80? I figure it's a remnant of an older version . . .

[galaril]

Originally Posted by Crimguy

I figure everyone has some reason for using 1-20, 20-80 or 1-100.

1-100 is the most intuitive. What's the most popular out there? Why 20-80? I figure it's a remnant of an older version . . .

20-80 is what MLB scouts use for their actual rating players in the MLB and Minor leagues.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by galaril

20-80 is what MLB scouts use for their actual rating players in the MLB and Minor leagues.

Right. Mostly broken down by tens (so the 2-8 would probably be more representative), but some ratings, like pitching velocity, go by fives. I use the 1-100 in one universe and 2-8 in another.

Some people like the 2-8 and 1-5 because they create more uncertainty in scouting or comparing. And with the five color system for the rating numbers they break generally into 'average', 'plus', 'superstar', 'journeyman', 'career minor leaguer', which is probably how most of us think.

[SSG Troyer]

I use 2-8, for the reasons already given. It's what the real scouts use, and it's more imprecise than any other option save 1-5.

I strongly considered using 1-5 for potentials, since that would correspond to earlier versions of OOTP's text-ratings of potential, but in the end went with 2-8 for consistancy's sake.

[sporr]

I use 1-10, mostly because it's the most similar to older versions of the game.

[Honolulu Blue]

Originally Posted by sporr

I use 1-10, mostly because it's the most similar to older versions of the game.

That's part of the reason I favor the same.

The other part is that I believe that the difference in gradients should be (in general) meaningful. The difference between "5" and "6" in any rating seems to be meaningful as it plays out in the game. The difference between "50" and "51" probably isn't, and there might be a tendency by myself as a GM/manager to make more of that difference than there really is.

I never paid much attention to scouts, so 2-8 and 20-80 are both out as being non-intuitive.

[tcblcommish]

I like using the 1-100 scale. It works best for me

[RchW]

I prefer 1-100 (I also show ratings +100). From my pov as a GM I know my players inside out, so I want the detail that 1-100 gives. A nice feature for 2008 would be to have different rating scales within a league or leagues. So, for example in interleague play you may only see 1-10 for the opposing team. Maybe in the low minors it would be 1-5.


Edit

I played my 6.5 solo leagues without ratings (talent only). Very challenging. Can that be done in 2007?

[Crimguy]

Maybe I should have had a poll ;-D

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

That's part of the reason I favor the same.

The other part is that I believe that the difference in gradients should be (in general) meaningful. The difference between "5" and "6" in any rating seems to be meaningful as it plays out in the game. The difference between "50" and "51" probably isn't, and there might be a tendency by myself as a GM/manager to make more of that difference than there really is.

I never paid much attention to scouts, so 2-8 and 20-80 are both out as being non-intuitive.

I 100% agree with everything said here.

[Beach23BoyP]

2 to 8 for me.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by sporr

I use 1-10, mostly because it's the most similar to older versions of the game.

"

[Muppetus Galacticus]

2 to 8 for me

[robster1225]

I use 20-80 in this version, because it is really only a 13 point scale. But, I have considered dropping it to 2-8.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by sporr

I use 1-10, mostly because it's the most similar to older versions of the game.

same here

[Theonlystd]

1-20 for Potential

1 to 100 for Rating

[red95vette]

I don't own the game but whilst playing the demo, I found 1-20 to be a good balance for me.

Lots of sports games like to use a 100 pt scale, but face it, it's nearly impossible to evaluate someone to that level of granularity in real life. In fact, the more I think about it, 1-20 is probably too precise as well. 1-10 or 2-8 is probably the most realistic.

EDIT: Here's a question though. Does the scale chosen have any effect on gameplay. For example, if I have a moderately good scout who might nail pitcher ratings to within +/- 8 points on a 100-pt scale, will he be +/- 1 (.8) on a 10 pt scale?

[STEELCITY637]

2-8 for prospects 1-10 for fielding and speed and NONE for batting and pitching ratings

But I still wish I could see endurance of a pitcher when pitching is turned off.

[yabanci]

2-8, no stars.

[The Wolf]

1 to 10, and this should have been a poll.