When Were We Going To Be Told Rating Increases Cap at 8 Points?

[Willie M]

Were we ever going to be let known that you are capping rating increases? These things need to be made known for the people who spend $100's and $1000's of dollars on this mode since they were promised full rating fluctuation.

[eldur00]

Well, that's an assumption on your part.

It could very well be that there is a soft cap per week to avoid drastic rating changes from one week to another. Over time, it would give the goal of full rating fluctuation, but doing it incrementally would avoid having someone jumping 15 points in one week due to small sample size.

I also might be wrong though - just throwing out there that there may be more than one explanation to what you're seeing.

[Willie M]

Originally Posted by eldur00

Well, that's an assumption on your part.

It could very well be that there is a soft cap per week to avoid drastic rating changes from one week to another. Over time, it would give the goal of full rating fluctuation, but doing it incrementally would avoid having someone jumping 15 points in one week due to small sample size.

I also might be wrong though - just throwing out there that there may be more than one explanation to what you're seeing.

A soft cap would involve manually having a hard stop in your formula.

If you take any type of formula, a 50 or 60 rated player should have been higher than +8 if an 89 player is +8. There's much larger room for growth in any data set for the lower numbers.

It's obvious there is a hard cap set into the formula, which is wrong in the sense that we were not made aware. They have the right to cap numbers but it should be made public knowledge.

[dkgo]

I havent looked that much at it but to use a phrase I hate, this is pretty big if true.

Explains why my bellinger and contreras investments stopped moving up weeks ago despite continuing their same big numbers. Any card that started 91 or below would lose almost all its value

[HiDesertAce]

so based on this theory Vladito never moves below diamond.

i don't see how he stays at 100 come Monday AM. even though he is hitting better.

.222 BA as of right this second. 1 for 1 today.

[bailey]

I wondered about this for a long time and a cap would explain it. What would happen if someone stockpiled a 100 copies of some bronze card that made it to diamond and cashed in for hundreds of thousands of points? Why would anyone invest money in the game then, if a F2P player could scoop up $100's of points by speculating wisely? Luckily for me the player I've stocked up on has a chance at promotion to the next level, at least. If there is a cap it should be + or - 10 so every card can move up a level.

[HiDesertAce]

Originally Posted by dkgo

I havent looked that much at it but to use a phrase I hate, this is pretty big if true.

Explains why my bellinger and contreras investments stopped moving up weeks ago despite continuing their same big numbers. Any card that started 91 or below would lose almost all its value

I think the Bellinger POTM card prevents him from moving up. that card is one of the top 20 hitters in the game. alongside the legends. Same with the Vlad FL card. Personally, i am not a fan of these cards, I believe they make the game "universe" more of a videogame type enviroment.



I also think thats why Alonso is not a diamond. because he has a diamond POTM card.



Mondesi should be a diamond too IMO.

[dkgo]

If there is any artificial way in which they are suppressing live cards then it should be clear from the onset. Bellinger stalled before the potm was even released though

[sk3tch]

I have only one question - where’s the nearest pitchfork store?

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by bailey

I wondered about this for a long time and a cap would explain it. What would happen if someone stockpiled a 100 copies of some bronze card that made it to diamond and cashed in for hundreds of thousands of points? Why would anyone invest money in the game then, if a F2P player could scoop up $100's of points by speculating wisely? Luckily for me the player I've stocked up on has a chance at promotion to the next level, at least. If there is a cap it should be + or - 10 so every card can move up a level.

Well, it would take a long time for that to happen and there is also a very small chance that the one card they invested in is the one that makes it.

It also doesn't make sense to deal in bronzes. I've made hundreds of thousands of points from the diamond/perfect and gold/diamond jump. Anything else requires way too much volume and time to be worth doing.

[Findest2001]

Wouldn't the cap apply to reductions in OVR as well though? I'll scour my list to find the screenshot but I have a player who just had an 11 OVR change. I can't remember if it was up or down but I'll screenshot as soon as possible for proof.

EDIT: Either I sold it or I was mistaken. Either way I just went through almost 600 cards in my collection and I couldn't find it anywhere. More than likely I was simply mistaken.

[Westheim]

Nobody moved more than three points in the first week. So now it's five weeks later and the max move is eight points?

Sounds about right to me.

[Matt Arnold]

There's no long-term cap. There's only so much a player can move based on how many IP/PA they have accrued so far. If Bellinger keeps hitting .400, he will make it to a 100 at some point.

[JazzyJesus5]

So their ratings will go up in increments? Should Bellinger continue hitting the way he has, he'll be 100 when the highest a player's rating can go up is at least 10 points?

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by JazzyJesus5

So their ratings will go up in increments? Should Bellinger continue hitting the way he has, he'll be 100 when the highest a player's rating can go up is at least 10 points?

More so that the current ratings again are only about 25% of his overall ratings. More time gives the current ratings a larger portion of his ratings, and so assuming he keeps playing at that rate, should keep moving up. But yeah, they don't just move all at once.

[atabakin]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

More so that the current ratings again are only about 25% of his overall ratings. More time gives the current ratings a larger portion of his ratings, and so assuming he keeps playing at that rate, should keep moving up. But yeah, they don't just move all at once.

Matt, I don't think the issue is so much that Player X should be at exactly a rating of Y at this point in time. It just seems highly unusual for so many players to have moved up exactly 8 points. If there is a limit on how much a player can move based on PA/IP, and that limit seems to be 8 points at this point in the season, then that's still a cap.

[Willie M]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

More so that the current ratings again are only about 25% of his overall ratings. More time gives the current ratings a larger portion of his ratings, and so assuming he keeps playing at that rate, should keep moving up. But yeah, they don't just move all at once.

The fact it's capped at 8 means it's a hard cap, which doesn't make sense from a data set point. The Bellinger thing is fine, he doesn't necessarily have to be a 100.

However, you're basically telling me a second year player who is a 60 to start will only be a 68 after hitting .400 with 15 home runs if his initial rating is a 60.

No one is asking for every player to jump dramatically, but the #8 just seems like a really random number to use across the board. If there is a cap shouldn't it be more like:

90+ player cap at 8
80+ player cap at 10
70+ player cap at 12
60+ player cap at 15
50+ player cap at 20
(random numbers, not actual data)

The 50/60 rated players are basically unusable until August, is what you're saying. Just doesn't feel right.

[HRBaker]

If MAX+8 represents 25% of his overall ratings, then the "cap" would grow to be about MAX+32 by the end of the season in October. A 60 Bronze could become a 92 Diamond by October, and anyone over a 68 Bronze could become a Perfect card.

I think that's plenty of room to grow and it's reasonable not to happen all at once.

[<Pion>]

Given that we've already had players move 12 points, how can there be a cap at 8 unless it was instituted later?

[DonkeyKongSr]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

Given that we've already had players move 12 points, how can there be a cap at 8 unless it was instituted later?

It appears to be +8 / -12 right now.