|
||||
|
|
OOTP 20 - General Discussions Everything about the newest version of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB.com and the MLBPA. |
|
Thread Tools |
06-28-2019, 10:32 PM | #1 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 905
|
1-100 scale for overall and potential ratings
I'm wondering why there isn't an option to have a 1-100 scale for this?
|
06-29-2019, 09:38 AM | #2 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, Ont. Canada
Posts: 1,105
|
There is. I believe in game options.
|
06-29-2019, 01:07 PM | #3 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 905
|
|
06-29-2019, 01:27 PM | #4 |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 346
|
I don't know the answer as to why it's done as 1-80, but while I didn't care for it at first, it's grown on me. The game has other numeric scales (e.g., some skills are 1-125, which can then be capped or uncapped for display, and some are 1-250 in the hidden player screens covering contact, speed, fastballs, etc.)
Having none of them as 1-100 is good I think because it helps me avoid the obvious tendency to correlate the 1-100 scaled numbers as percentages, proportions or percentiles. That would be really helpful if the numbers are effectively data points on a bell-curve (as they appear to be.) Last edited by Drstrangelove; 06-29-2019 at 01:38 PM. |
06-29-2019, 01:42 PM | #5 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 831
|
Global settings, player ratings allows change to 1-100
|
06-29-2019, 01:54 PM | #6 |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 346
|
|
06-29-2019, 03:21 PM | #7 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 905
|
overall and potential ratings can’t be used as a 1-100 scale as far as I can see.
|
06-30-2019, 09:46 PM | #8 | |
Hall Of Famer
|
Quote:
See Global Settings... to open the choice window, click on the arrow to the right of the 20-80 current ratings scale... and get a drop down menu. Last edited by Eugene Church; 06-30-2019 at 09:49 PM. |
|
06-30-2019, 09:59 PM | #9 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,167
|
that's a new option for XX.
|
06-30-2019, 11:13 PM | #10 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 905
|
It's not giving me the option. All i see is "None displayed, Stars, Values 20 to 80 and Values 20 to 80 (Increments of 5)
|
06-30-2019, 11:19 PM | #11 |
OOTP Developer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 14,117
|
Overall and potential are only none, 20-80, or stars (except in PT obviously the default is it's won rating scale). The component ratings (ie. Stuff or defence or power) have other scales possible.
|
06-30-2019, 11:20 PM | #12 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 905
|
BTW if anyone is confused i'm not talking about trying to get a 1-100 ratings scale for batting and pitching ratings but the Overall and Potential ratings. It currently only goes 20 to 80. If it's a new feature for XX it's not giving me the option to change it.
|
06-30-2019, 11:21 PM | #13 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 905
|
This is what i thought. I'm not sure if everyone else was getting confused as to what I want talking about.
|
07-02-2019, 05:31 PM | #14 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,685
|
Quote:
|
|
07-05-2019, 09:35 AM | #15 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 2,244
|
Also MLB uses the 20-80 scale to rate players so it makes sense OOTP would use this as well
|
07-06-2019, 03:07 PM | #16 | |
Major Leagues
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 346
|
Quote:
98 players at 68+ (blue) 419 players at 53-67 (green) 846 at 43-52 (gold?) 1,559 at 33-42 (orange?) 1,281 at 21-32 (red) 2,000 at 1-20 (red) This appears to me to be a rough approximation of a one-sided distribution with a mean of zero and a std dev of ~32. 1-20 is 41.3% of my players which correlates to the 40% that would included up to .55 sigma on a 1-sided normalized curve (20/32 = .63; compare to .55) 1-32 is 67.8% which correlates to the 68% that would be up to 1 sigma (32/32 = 1.00 compares to 1.0) 1-42 is 82.5% which correlates to the 80% that would be up to 1.3 sigma (42/32 = 1.31 compares to 1.3) 1-52 is 91.3% which correlates to the 91% that would be up to 1.7 sigma (52/32 = 1.63 compares to 1.7) 1-67 is 98.0% which correlates to the 95.4% that would be up to 2.0 sigma (67/32 = 2.09 compares to 2.0) 1-80 includes outliers that are capped at 80 for display, but are actually rated over 80, so it includes sigma 3. Moreover, if my assumptions are correct, it might not be entirely coincidental that 1 sigma is where red ends and 2 sigma is where blue begins. I have not done these kinds of stats in forever, so I'm far from certain, but it appears that way to me. Thoughts? Last edited by Drstrangelove; 07-06-2019 at 03:48 PM. |
|
07-07-2019, 04:18 PM | #17 |
FHM Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brantford, ON
Posts: 2,888
|
the 20-80 definately grew on me as I was used to the EA style ratings at one time. However, with PT using 1-100 for overall one would think they would transfer that over to this eventually as another option.
__________________
IN 1964 THE LEAFS WON THE STANLEY CUP :: IT'S ALSO THE YEAR THE CANADIAN FLAG WAS DESIGNED...coincidence? |
07-08-2019, 11:25 AM | #18 | |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fresno, CA by way of Texas
Posts: 1,754
|
Quote:
I used to hate this scale now I love it. Go figure. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|