Input Requested: Rating Scale

[RonCo]

We moved from the 1-10 scale to 20-80 at the same time as we moved to the relative rating scale. Since we're reconsidering the use of relative ratings, it's probably good to see what the league thinks about the scale itself. Technically, the 20-80 scale reduces the "fog of war" a bit more than the 1-10 scale, and a 2-8 scale creates even more uncertainty. The 20-80 scale sounds more baseball-like, I suppose. 1-10 is something many are used to. 2-8 is old-school baseball-like, and would make us just a tad more reliant on stats and performance.

Please let us know if you have a strong preference.

[RonCo]

I added 1-5 onto the list. @bcslouck , you'll need to vote again. Sorry.

[niles08]

Sorry for causing a you to revote @bcslouck ...but here is why I like 1-5 and voted for it.

1-5 is basically 1-10 but with added fog of war. My guy who is an 7 right now in the current 1-10 standings may be a 3 or may be a 4 in 1-5 depending on where he is on the 7 but god only knows, I know he isn't a 7 so I think it's tough to know where exactly he is.

I also like the 20-80 and 2-8 but the 1-5 just jive better with my brain.

[bcslouck]

I added 1-5 onto the list. @bcslouck , you'll need to vote again. Sorry.

Sorry for causing a you to revote @bcslouck ...but here is why I like 1-5 and voted for it.

1-5 is basically 1-10 but with added fog of war. My guy who is an 7 right now in the current 1-10 standings may be a 3 or may be a 4 in 1-5 depending on where he is on the 7 but god only knows, I know he isn't a 7 so I think it's tough to know where exactly he is.

I also like the 20-80 and 2-8 but the 1-5 just jive better with my brain.

You can't get me to vote again. I simply won't.

[RonCo]

Well, it's not like you don't care.

[bcslouck]

Joking aside, I've done 1-5. It's tough. We did potentials only so having actuals would help. I don't know, I'm kind of fine with 1-10. 2-8 is more realistic as Ron pointed out as an old school method while being more vague than 1-10. I'm 50/50 on them I think.

[GoldenOne]

I went with the 20-80 cause that seems more baseball-like. I also think that there are a fair number of folks that dont necessarily have enough time &/or arent involved enough to do the research needed for a 1-5, 1-10, or 2-8 rankings when looking at players. Personally, I think 1-10 could work but I really care more about the actual vs relative ratings. (I prefer actual if that matters but being able to toggle between both would be cool.)

[usnspecialist]

Voted 1-10, but 20-80 is ok as well. Also like Brett, I would love the ability to toggle but i don't think OOTP allows that at this point. If they do in the future I would vote to allow that.

[jleddy]

I voted for "Stats Only"

[niles08]

I voted for "Stats Only"

BINGO

[sjshaw]

Voted 2-8 but am fine with 1-5. I want more fog of war. 1-10 is ok. 20-80 is right out.

[jleddy]

I voted for "Stats Only"

And, as the emoji implies, I say that tongue-in-cheek.

It's my personal preference but not for this league, since -- as discussed several times before so we don't need to go down this road as a legit option -- it takes a ton of time and is likely to frustrate some current GMs as well as potentially scare off new GMs.

20-80 is great because it's existing baseball scouting lexicon but since we have 1-10, which does provide that fog of war I like, I vote to keep 1-10 and not upset the apple cart (or the pear cart in Chicago.)

[Lane]

I voted for "Stats Only"

gtfo, Ron

[Ted]

We moved from the 1-10 scale to 20-80 at the same time as we moved to the relative rating scale. Since we're reconsidering the use of relative ratings, it's probably good to see what the league thinks about the scale itself. Technically, the 20-80 scale reduces the "fog of war" a bit more than the 1-10 scale, and a 2-8 scale creates even more uncertainty. The 20-80 scale sounds more baseball-like, I suppose. 1-10 is something many are used to. 2-8 is old-school baseball-like, and would make us just a tad more reliant on stats and performance.

Please let us know if you have a strong preference.

Are you asking about the scale for actual and potential or con/eye/etc ratings or both?

[Ted]

We moved from the 1-10 scale to 20-80 at the same time as we moved to the relative rating scale. Since we're reconsidering the use of relative ratings, it's probably good to see what the league thinks about the scale itself. Technically, the 20-80 scale reduces the "fog of war" a bit more than the 1-10 scale, and a 2-8 scale creates even more uncertainty. The 20-80 scale sounds more baseball-like, I suppose. 1-10 is something many are used to. 2-8 is old-school baseball-like, and would make us just a tad more reliant on stats and performance.

Please let us know if you have a strong preference.

Are you asking about the scale for actual and potential or con/eye/etc ratings or both?

Also, I'm pretty sure we were stars from 1 to 5 for act and pot before the relative ratings switch, and the stuff like con/pow,etc has never changed (with the exception of showing actual grater than potential and allowing us to see values > 10). It still looks like those are on the 1-10 scale (which because OOTP is dumb, now allows overages in the 11 to 20 range)

[RonCo]

That's a good question.

The individual skills are still on a 1-10 scale, that, as you said, can now go off the charts. I admit it's weird.

[Ted]

That's a good question.

The individual skills are still on a 1-10 scale, that, as you said, can now go off the charts. I admit it's weird.

I'd leave the individual skills alone. We're used to them. Even if they go stupid high now. Changing the ratings system wont change that.

[Ted]

That's a good question.

The individual skills are still on a 1-10 scale, that, as you said, can now go off the charts. I admit it's weird.

But I was wondering if people knew which ratings system this poll was asking about. I'm not sure I do. I assume from the phrasing you mean the overall actual/pot.

[RonCo]

Yeah, I suspect we would keep the individual skills where they are. On the other hand, the purpose of this tread is to open any conversations folks want to have ... so ...

[RonCo]

Right now it looks like we're getting a pretty firm support for going back to "true" ratings. Maybe when this one is over I'll try another one on this scale question that's worded a little better. I admit I wouldn't mind using 2-8 on raw scales (both overall and individual) just to make the fog of war a little more foggier, but it's not a hill I care to die on or anything. Ultimately, while I have general preferences, I'm fairly agnostic on the scale.