Let's have a theoretical discussion of what role ratings should play in sports sims.

[aran]

Some of you grand gentleman have been playing sports sims for longer than I've been eating meat and lusting after women, so I come to you with this question: How should a game give ratings to players? (I'm assuming we're talking about an overall rating, not specific skill-related or mentality-related ratings.)

Should the ratings be reflective of the total package?
Under this idea, ratings would be adjusted based on in-game performance as well as hypothetical, projected, and in-practice performance. There's no such thing as a low rated player with good stats--the intangibles are accounted for in his rating. A player's rating would grow as he performs better, regardless of if his measurable skills improve. I guess the rating would be a combination of performance and skill, weighted towards performance: skills + intangibles = total rating.

Should the ratings be reflective of only a scout's assessment of a player's skill, independent of his performance?
No matter how much skill a player has, he can always perform poorly or inconsistently. Under this system that player's rating will not suffer because of poor play. It will only suffer if his skills deteriorate. This is the system that FOF seems to use. skills = total rating.

We also run into a quandary regarding ratings of mental abilities like in FM--but, then again, there are no overall ratings in FM.

You don't have to agree with either of my two hypotheses. Feel free to discuss any point and share your ideal rating system, or the system that you think would be the most realistic or fun.

I'm really interested in what all of you guys have to say on this topic, especially QuikSand and the other seasoned text sim disciples.

[Young Drachma]

I really believe it depends on the game we're talking about. I think that to some degree, if ratings spell it all out..there isn't a point in stats because then things are uber predictable and that would take all of the "fun" out of it.

I do think there ought to be visible ratings or scout ratings that basically give you a rough measure of what the player can do, but that there ought to be some sort of hidden agenda ratings that either make the player better or worse than their actual ratings..or even do what they're "supposed" to do.

But I think the variety and randomness, even when it defies logic, is what makes things great.

[Joe]

there should be no ratings

[molson]

there should be no ratings

In real life you can actually watch the games. Ratings in a text sim are just a necessarily replacement for that. A rough number, based vaguely on how a player "looks" or is evaluated by a scout. I'd be curious if you had a better idea.

[st.cronin]

I think the evolution is towards having a set of ratings which are not subject to scout error - like how fast a fastball is, or how much the defensive tackle can lift - and another set of ratings which are always hidden, like a pitcher's "ability to cause a batter to swing and miss" or a soccer player's "creativity," but which your scout, whether that is an actual scout or just a fog-of-war, will have something to say about.

[aran]

I really believe it depends on the game we're talking about. I think that to some degree, if ratings spell it all out..there isn't a point in stats because then things are uber predictable and that would take all of the "fun" out of it.

I do think there ought to be visible ratings or scout ratings that basically give you a rough measure of what the player can do, but that there ought to be some sort of hidden agenda ratings that either make the player better or worse than their actual ratings..or even do what they're "supposed" to do.

But I think the variety and randomness, even when it defies logic, is what makes things great.

Well, a player never plays exactly as well as he's rated because he's, after all, a member of a team and human. Everyone can make bad decisions or misuse their skills. The end result of accurate ratings isn't absolute predictability.

[aran]

I think the evolution is towards having a set of ratings which are not subject to scout error - like how fast a fastball is, or how much the defensive tackle can lift - and another set of ratings which are always hidden, like a pitcher's "ability to cause a batter to swing and miss" or a soccer player's "creativity," but which your scout, whether that is an actual scout or just a fog-of-war, will have something to say about.

But ther are always subjective things, though: how accurate a quarterback is at throwing touch passes, how much movement a pitcher can put on a curveball, the situational awareness of a midfielder, the tactical knowledge of a coach. We need some measure of those in order to effectively evaluate talent, even if those assessments can be wrong.

[ColtCrazy]

Ratings are a necessary evil at times because a game can't simulate the real life tediousness of daily practices when coaches and assistants make notes of players. Receiver A has better hands than Receiver B, but Receiver C is the fastest guy we have, etc. While it would be neat to have a game where you get short notes instead ot ratings, I wonder how that would work.

As far as just ratings go, I do like how FM does it in that some ratings are hidden. Some of those come out with scouting, others won't come unless you spend time scouting or using the player, and even then some are hidden throughout the game and you must watch how the player performs (or acts). I think that adds a lot of strategy to the mix.

[st.cronin]

But ther are always subjective things, though: how accurate a quarterback is at throwing touch passes, how much movement a pitcher can put on a curveball, the situational awareness of a midfielder, the tactical knowledge of a coach. We need some measure of those in order to effectively evaluate talent, even if those assessments can be wrong.

There are known things about every player. It is known how tall OJ Mayo is, how many free throws he makes in practice, how high he can jump, how fast he can get down the floor. What is unknown is how those skills, governed by his mind, perform in a given game.

[aran]

There are known things about every player. It is known how tall OJ Mayo is, how many free throws he makes in practice, how high he can jump, how fast he can get down the floor. What is unknown is how those skills, governed by his mind, perform in a given game.

But scouts can assess his skills as they interact with each other through observing his performance in scrimmages. You shouldn't have to start the guy in a competitive situation in order to see if he has a brain in his head or not.

My point is that there are subjective things that you NEED to know to make executive decisions.

[st.cronin]

But scouts can assess his skills as they interact with each other through observing his performance in scrimmages. You shouldn't have to start the guy in a competitive situation in order to see if he has a brain in his head or not.

My point is that there are subjective things that you NEED to know to make executive decisions.

I agree. My point is that there should be things that are known, and things which are unknown. That's more or less the model used by FM, EHM, and FBCB.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think that sims should try and emulate real-life as far as possible.

Thus certain aspects are generally available (ie. height, weight) because they'lll be present on the club website etc. - attributes themselves should be visible if realistically someone would know about them in their current situation.

On top of that I'm an advocate of having at least 'some' hidden stats which affect performance - the sort of thing which is intangible in most cases (ie. how a player handles pressure etc.) ... this also means that the sim isn't just a pure 'numbers game' and there is a real essense of managerial judgement going on.

[aran]

The key to any sports game being fun and replayable is that it is not outwardly only a numbers game. We're trying to model human beings here. Part of the nature of a human being is for there to be hidden "ratings" (for instance, how well I can learn math. There's no way you can ever measure that). Those hidden ratings can be estimated, though, by scouts: It's their role. Of course, there are some things that scouts will never be able to estimate, like when a player will become hot or cold, or how good a player can possibly get. Where do you draw the line between what is hidden, but can have a number assigned to it without making things tedious/ridiculous, and what is hidden, but can be described by a scout in words reasonably well.

i.e. In FM, a player's consistency of play is one of those variables that is revealed in language by a scout's report, not in numbers. This could be made into a numeric stat. "Streakiness"? Why did you decide to describe this only in words and not in numbers? And can you generalize that definition and apply it to any attribute?

[Young Drachma]

The key to any sports game being fun and replayable is that it is not outwardly only a numbers game. We're trying to model human beings here. Part of the nature of a human being is for there to be hidden "ratings" (for instance, how well I can learn math. There's no way you can ever measure that). Those hidden ratings can be estimated, though, by scouts: It's their role. Of course, there are some things that scouts will never be able to estimate, like when a player will become hot or cold, or how good a player can possibly get. Where do you draw the line between what is hidden, but can have a number assigned to it without making things tedious/ridiculous, and what is hidden, but can be described by a scout in words reasonably well.

i.e. In FM, a player's consistency of play is one of those variables that is revealed in language by a scout's report, not in numbers. This could be made into a numeric stat. "Streakiness"? Why did you decide to describe this only in words and not in numbers? And can you generalize that definition and apply it to any attribute?

Scouts give you the stuff you can't see. The "he's fast, he throws well, he's athletic, but seems to have no motivation." What they can't do, is measure intangibles. I mean, that's what your job as a manager or executive is. To evaluate their performance, coupled with the information your scout gives you, to provide some measure on whether or not you ought to commit resources to that player because they'll help you win more.

If it's all spelled out for you or if a scout can somehow do your job for you, there isn't a point in having a human and the game will be ridiculously predictable.

Maybe that's okay and maybe there is a middle ground somewhere that has some "hidden" talents that are able to measure, but I prefer not to get measurements of things like "greed" and "work ethic" and such alike, because at the end of the day, all of that stuff is subjective and can change based on a city the player is in, where they are in their career and the way they're generally modeled in text-sims as some sort of static thing. It just distracts from all of the other stuff.

It just seems some people can't handle the unknown of things and don't like trying to creatively explain to themselves.

Meh.

[molson]

What they can't do, is measure intangibles.

Sure they can - a scout can measure their interpretation of an "intangible" on a scale of 1-10, just like anything else. Of course, the accuracy of such a ranking is going to vary a ton compared to a more tangible skill, like arm strength.

"Hidden" rankings don't make any sense to me when there's no visual world for me to try to observe those things for themselves. If there's a possible trait of an athlete, a scout can estimate it. Maybe those numbers will be unreliable (especially with certain traits for younger or unknown players), but there's no reason they shouldn't exist.

I'm a fan of using a small number of rating integers. In OOTP, I use 1-5 or 2-8. Anything higher, and all you're doing is playing the guys with the higher ratings. With 1-5, it gives you a threshold, but you better rely on stats, etc.

[Dutch]

I have no problem with developers using a ratings scale. I do like Molson's idea about lower numbers though, that's got a lot of merit I think.


I have always envisioned three ratings for each player.


1.) The actual ratings
Hidden
Absolute
Ratings change based on experience, training and age
2.) Your scout's ratings
Players on your team, past or current
Ratings change is accelerated and is based on time on team
Modifier would be scout skill
3.) Global/Generic ratings
Ratings everybody else can see
Ratings change is dependent upon years played in the league
Perhaps a scout modifier here as well

[JonInMiddleGA]

If it's all spelled out for you or if a scout can somehow do your job for you, there isn't a point in having a human and the game will be ridiculously predictable.

But that approach fails to account for the random nature of the various 2d6 "rolls" that typically take place in sports games.

[Marc Vaughan]

I have no problem with developers using a ratings scale. I do like Molson's idea about lower numbers though, that's got a lot of merit I think.


I have always envisioned three ratings for each player.


1.) The actual ratings
Hidden
Absolute
Ratings change based on experience, training and age
2.) Your scout's ratings
Players on your team, past or current
Ratings change is accelerated and is based on time on team
Modifier would be scout skill
3.) Global/Generic ratings
Ratings everybody else can see
Ratings change is dependent upon years played in the league
Perhaps a scout modifier here as well


I've played around with this idea in the past - its one of those things which sounds 'great' on paper - but in theory makes things a tad tedious.

For instance do 'you' the manager have a view of your own (ie. are you allowed to 'pencil in' what you think a players stats are or do you always have to view things through someone elses eyes?) and what view does the game default to using (ie. can you set it to always use a specific scout/coach's views).

I dislike always using someone elses 'eyes' simply because irl everyone has their own view and I hate the 'minds eye' of having a manager walking around unable to see anything and always asking for his assistants advice on things he should know for sure himself.

Is this something you've thought about in this regard and whats your take of the 'way around' it?

[Marc Vaughan]

i.e. In FM, a player's consistency of play is one of those variables that is revealed in language by a scout's report, not in numbers. This could be made into a numeric stat. "Streakiness"? Why did you decide to describe this only in words and not in numbers? And can you generalize that definition and apply it to any attribute?

One of the things I personally like in sports sims is where you can use what is generally thought of as a 'negative' trait in a positive manner.

For instance most people dislike selfish wingers - who might be more inclined to run at goal than cross - personally I like having one and set my team up so the striker on his side drifts wide (hopefully pulling the DC with him) while the winger runs in to shoot .... its things like that which feel like 'management' and make the genre satisfying imho :D

[Dutch]

I've played around with this idea in the past - its one of those things which sounds 'great' on paper - but in theory makes things a tad tedious.

For instance do 'you' the manager have a view of your own (ie. are you allowed to 'pencil in' what you think a players stats are or do you always have to view things through someone elses eyes?) and what view does the game default to using (ie. can you set it to always use a specific scout/coach's views).

I dislike always using someone elses 'eyes' simply because irl everyone has their own view and I hate the 'minds eye' of having a manager walking around unable to see anything and always asking for his assistants advice on things he should know for sure himself.

Is this something you've thought about in this regard and whats your take of the 'way around' it?

Your own 'eyes' would still see the stats, understand how those stats were generated, against whom, in what circumstances...things the AI could not possibly adjust for realistically.

I wouldn't think of it as just 'looking through someone else's eyes' -- I would equate it closer to an advantage or bonus for having the guy on your roster. Did the Patriots really know Tom Brady was a great player before he ever played when everybody else thought he was a bum? Did the Rams know something about Kurt Warner? Are there signings in the English League Soccer that leaves everyone baffled and then the guy turns out to be pretty good?

It's not perfect, a little gamey, but also adds another layer of strategy (who to sign?) and another layer of player evaluation.

BTW - If you have a player on your team, you would only see your scouts view of him, not what everybody else would see. Getting back to molson's comment earlier about limiting ratings, it could be as simple as players on your team getting a 1-100 rating (or 1-20) and players not associated with your team getting A-F ratings.

To add to the thought process, once a player is on your team, you'll always follow him closer than some other guy and have that "edge". A bit of gameplay strategy/tactics added.

I'm just thinking out loud really. I don't mind the limitations of ratings in sports simulations as it is. I understand they are neccessary. An idea of this nature would really only be useful if it enhances the strategic thought process, enhanced player evaluations, and most importantly added some level of enjoyment to the gameplay. If it doesn't meet those three requirements, we probably shouldn't change a thing.

[aran]

Perhaps a way to do ratings in a game with fewer players (US football instead of soccer) would be "Your scout rates this player xth in the league and yth in the team at this skill." or "In this role, your scout rates this player xth in the league and yth on the team." Once you get out of the top 10% or 20%, the scout would tell you "this player is above average at x" or "this player is probably in the top 40% of the league in this skill." So your ratings would be from 1 to (number of starters at this position), then, for players below that level, a B to F rating...

Comparative ratings are always the best, I find, in sports games because they don't necessarily have a ceiling like how a number between 1 and 100 would appear to.