How should players be rated in next gen?

[NDiLeo25]

THIS CAN BE FOR OVERALLS AND OR INDIVIDUAL SKILLS (just a discussions about any type of ratings)

Video games seem to always use the 100-0 rating scale. I have never been a fan of this as it is to precise. Why should one persons rating be an 89 and another a 90 overall or on a specific skill. Baseball uses a 2-8 rating scale which is simple and broad.. or the 20-80 scale usually counted by fives. Letter grades were once used in the show in the player cards so why not actually rate by letters to simplify the rating process.

Which sounds more reasonable? CC Sabathia Overall of 94? CC Sabathia Overall A-? CC Sabathia Overall 7/8? CC Sabathia Overall 75/80?

David Wright Power vs RHP 76? David Wright Power vs RHP B? .. you get the idea

To me the overall numbers, and player ratings should be slightly more broad to help create more uncertainty for everything from trades to how to set the lineup. This would help performance stats mean more to a team in the show than ever.

[SoAwesome]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

Keep it the same. Letter grades are awful.

[Knight165]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

Keep it the same. Letter grades are awful.

I'm curious .....if you think they are(anyone).....awful.....what is it that makes it awful?


M.K.
Knight165

[Bobhead]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

If you're actually asking "What ratings should the user see next gen," then my answer is that I don't really care, and I'd be fine with letter grades or no ratings at all.

But if you're asking literally how the players ratings should be devised... The idea that the actual internal rating for a player should be intentionally ambiguous, such as a letter grade, seems quite silly to me.

To reiterate: how should the players be rated? As precisely as possible. But what ratings should the user see? Something in the middle, between informative and vague. Letter grades or even bars without numbers is my preference but really I don't care much.

[SoAwesome]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

I'm curious .....if you think they are(anyone).....awful.....what is it that makes it awful?


M.K.
Knight165

If letter games are outlayed like in 2k, that's fine. But if they replace numbers, then that's awful. Number gives you more specific rating than a letter grade.

[Knight165]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

If letter games are outlayed like in 2k, that's fine. But if they replace numbers, then that's awful. Number gives you more specific rating than a letter grade.

But why is it more awful?....unrealistic?....
Why is a letter grade "more awful" in representing real life players?...as opposed to numbers?.......
Can you(or anyone) tell who is a 99 or a 96?


M.K.
Knight165

[catch212]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

No matter how you display the numbers, seeing Sabathia rated among the elite pitchers in the game would be really bad.

As for your question, I prefer something with a bit of ambiguity like 2k's letter grades for individual attributes. However, I still like a number rating for overall. Then again, overall rating doesn't really mean a whole lot in baseball games anyways because different players/positions all bring something different to the game.

[seanjeezy]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

Are we talking about the stuff displayed on the player card or in the edit player screen?

[24]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

I'd prefer letter grades to anything but I honestly want an option to turn Overalls off. I hate picking Player A over Player B because Player A is 6 points higher when it comes to contact. I can't think of a new system but something has to be better and more realistic than what we currently have.

[KBLover]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

But why is it more awful?....unrealistic?....
Why is a letter grade "more awful" in representing real life players?...as opposed to numbers?.......
Can you(or anyone) tell who is a 99 or a 96?

It is unrealistic. Real life uses 2-8 or 20-80. Of those, I prefer 20-80. It makes finer distinctions between grades without getting into the 96 vs 99 sort of argument (which could be made of any scale, and no one can accurately tell, even scouts, that's why there's surprises and "bad picks" and trades that look like crap later).

However, if users are going to be given an indication of player ability, I would vote for one that's closer to real life - and then use a scouting system to put in "fog of war". Using a broad/uninformative rating scale to force bad/inaccurate data is not a good idea, imo. Same for no ratings. Managers and scouts and GMs do not have zero data on a player.

Like Bobhead said, internally, what better option for a game? Can a computer work with an ambiguous range? How would you put that in a formula to calculate events or user success?

A game can't take "Wright is a plus power hitter" and put that into a calculation to decide how to render the swing to the UI, the success of the swing, where the ball goes, etc. So it needs precise numbers.

Of course, I wish games would go the OOTP route. Just let the user pick. Then the user can pick narrow, broad, specific, or no ratings at all. In a game that seems to be about options, why not just give players the choice of using whatever scale they prefer?

[RandyBass]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

Don't like the current; what's the difference between 81 and 82? Nothing.

A-F? We're not in school here.

Real scouts and GMs use the 2-8 or 20-80 system. You hear them use that language all the time; no reason not to have it in The Show. I mean, are they going to start calling a slider a "slide ball" or use other inapplicable or archaic language? No, that would be silly. Time to get up to speed.

I would use the 20-80 system, because with it's increments of 5 you get a little more detail than the 2-8 system.

[assclown25]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

1st and foremost no player should be rated over 95- everyone has flaws in their game that would constitute them not to be rated a 95 or higher. (Def no one should be a 99)But I believe they should switch it to the 20/80 scale.

[NDiLeo25]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

I like the discussion so far. I really believe 100-0 is way too deep especially with overall grades. Broad overalls are very important to me and for skills i do believe each skill should be on the 2/8 or 20/80 (by 5) scale because this is a baseball sim isnt it? Robinson Cano would be an 80 bat id assume ... same with Joe Mauer. Who is to say one can be a 99 contact and another be 97. I just feel skills in baseball should be rated on a broad scale as they are in real life its just how it works. People argue about who has the strongest outfield arm all the time. Its not so obvious as to whos arm strength should be a 89 and whos should be a 74.

My biggest concern is with overall going to numbers instead of the bar. I think that was an awful decision. If not 20/80 2/8 or letters thats fine but please no 100-0 numbers PLEASE

[Bobhead]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

The problem with the 20/80 scale is that it's really only designed for prospects, not all players. You can't really fit Prince Fielder's speed on that scale, for example. Well you can't really fit Prince Fielder on any scale but you know what I mean.

[ChosenBrad1322]

Re: How should players be rated in next gen?

The 50-100 or whatever it is now is just fine. Although, there are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many 95+ players in the game when you do franchise mode. Some teams have 95+ at every position... when I think of 95+ that should be like an every year all-star one of the top 2 or 3 in MLB at his position.

I would also like to see exactly one person rated 100 at each position, whoever has the highest total of stats at that position gets the score of 100, so its easy to tell who is the best at each position. Then below that person you start with 99 and go on down as normal.

The ratings should be spread out better. Instead of 93+ being acceptable and 85 being just trash it should be like:

95-100 Top 3-4 in the league at that position
90-95 Top 10 in the league at that position
85-90 Top 20 at that position
80-85 About an average starter in MLB
75-80 Good AAA players
70-75 Average AAA players
65-70 Good AA players
60-65 Average AA players
55-60 Good Class A
50-55 Average Class A
Under 50: Lucky to be with an organization

But right now its:

99 = Top 7 in the league at that position
97-99 = Top 10 in the league at that position
92-97 = Top 15 in the league at that position
90-92 = An Average MLG starter
85-90 = Good AAA players
85 and under = not even worth having