I think we can agree that the more realistic the in-game results, the better the roster set. Aside from user influence - which ought to be minimal - player ratings, sliders, and game settings can be modified to influence the results. Of course, a major aspect of roster creation is getting the visuals right - clothing, faces, styles, etc. But another major part is player ratings.
How do we balance sliders, game settings (difficulty, for example), and player ratings?
For each attribute, we want a scale of 1-100 that's relative to real life. 100 power means the player is the best ever, within reason. From my point of view, 100 should be Babe Ruth type of legendary, mammoth power. A player with a power rating of 1, however, shouldn't be able to ever hit a home run. Ideally, a player with a broken shoulder would see their in-game power reduced to 1, since there's no way they can knock it out.
A speedy guy like Dee Gordon can hit home runs, but they're relatively rare. But if Ruth is a 100, and a severely injured player is a 1, then what is Gordon? That requires compiling all player data across seasons and deciding what's average, what's above average, and so on.
Settings and sliders can affect the influence ratings have on the game. For example, if base running is at 10, then shouldn't the difference between a speed rating of 100 and 90 be smaller than if base running is at 1? 1 would force both players to run slower, while 10 would make the differences across values more extreme. I'm just making that up, but I wonder how the game actually handles this.
To the roster creators here at OS: to what degree do you take sliders and settings into account when deciding on ratings? And how do you justify giving a guy like Chris Carter 99 power? Does he really have the same ability as Ruth or Bonds? Or do you not look at the 1-100 power scale as injured-Ruth? Do you see it more like Carter is a 99 and Ruth is a 150? But that would break the game, seeing as it goes from 1-100.
Any thoughts or comments on this? What have you noticed in regards to player ratings and their relationship to sliders and settings?
How do we balance sliders, game settings (difficulty, for example), and player ratings?
For each attribute, we want a scale of 1-100 that's relative to real life. 100 power means the player is the best ever, within reason. From my point of view, 100 should be Babe Ruth type of legendary, mammoth power. A player with a power rating of 1, however, shouldn't be able to ever hit a home run. Ideally, a player with a broken shoulder would see their in-game power reduced to 1, since there's no way they can knock it out.
A speedy guy like Dee Gordon can hit home runs, but they're relatively rare. But if Ruth is a 100, and a severely injured player is a 1, then what is Gordon? That requires compiling all player data across seasons and deciding what's average, what's above average, and so on.
Settings and sliders can affect the influence ratings have on the game. For example, if base running is at 10, then shouldn't the difference between a speed rating of 100 and 90 be smaller than if base running is at 1? 1 would force both players to run slower, while 10 would make the differences across values more extreme. I'm just making that up, but I wonder how the game actually handles this.
To the roster creators here at OS: to what degree do you take sliders and settings into account when deciding on ratings? And how do you justify giving a guy like Chris Carter 99 power? Does he really have the same ability as Ruth or Bonds? Or do you not look at the 1-100 power scale as injured-Ruth? Do you see it more like Carter is a 99 and Ruth is a 150? But that would break the game, seeing as it goes from 1-100.
Any thoughts or comments on this? What have you noticed in regards to player ratings and their relationship to sliders and settings?
Comment