Quote:
Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue
That's part of the reason I favor the same.
The other part is that I believe that the difference in gradients should be (in general) meaningful. The difference between "5" and "6" in any rating seems to be meaningful as it plays out in the game. The difference between "50" and "51" probably isn't, and there might be a tendency by myself as a GM/manager to make more of that difference than there really is.
|
Pretty much the same for me. I use 1-10 with no scouts or stars. I think for me, using this is the best, since I tend to have to go by past stats a little more when deciding between a player with a 5 rating and a player with a 6 rating. If I used a 1-100 scale, Id be tempted to use the player that was a 61 rating instead of the player that was a 54 rating, no matter what the past stats indicate. Something like that
__________________
Well, I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like? It's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how - what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what's stopping it, and what's behind what's stopping it? So, what's the end, you know, is my question to you.
|