OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

JeffR · 02-12-2004, 07:55 PM

I'm starting to think that the 1-15 scale for fighters' overall ratings is a little too limited. Right now, semi-reputable fighters like Gunnar Barlund and Larry Frazier get lumped in with no-hopers like Mel Turnbow and freakshows like Butterbean.

If it was 1-30, with the all-time greats still staying at the very top end of the scale, that'd open up some room for more precision in the middle and at the lower end. There'd probably be some minor adjustments needed to the ratings system (in addition to reworking the auto-calculate formulas for the OR), but I think it'd be worth it.

I suspect this'll be important as the role-playing game is developed - in the early part of a fighter's career, he'll probably be fighting a slowly-improving caliber of opponent. But if the ratings remaing 1-15, all of those early opponents will be 1's, even though there'll be a big difference in skilll between the warm bodies he beats in his first couple of fights and the trialhorses he's facing after a dozen or so bouts. In the real world, a 10-0 fighter who's only beaten guys with 0-10 records won't get much notice, but one who's 10-0 and is beating people with (legitimate) winning records will. I don't think that'll be reflected if the 1-15 scale stays in place.

02-12-2004, 07:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
JeffR Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 480	Overall Rating scale too small? I'm starting to think that the 1-15 scale for fighters' overall ratings is a little too limited. Right now, semi-reputable fighters like Gunnar Barlund and Larry Frazier get lumped in with no-hopers like Mel Turnbow and freakshows like Butterbean. If it was 1-30, with the all-time greats still staying at the very top end of the scale, that'd open up some room for more precision in the middle and at the lower end. There'd probably be some minor adjustments needed to the ratings system (in addition to reworking the auto-calculate formulas for the OR), but I think it'd be worth it. I suspect this'll be important as the role-playing game is developed - in the early part of a fighter's career, he'll probably be fighting a slowly-improving caliber of opponent. But if the ratings remaing 1-15, all of those early opponents will be 1's, even though there'll be a big difference in skilll between the warm bodies he beats in his first couple of fights and the trialhorses he's facing after a dozen or so bouts. In the real world, a 10-0 fighter who's only beaten guys with 0-10 records won't get much notice, but one who's 10-0 and is beating people with (legitimate) winning records will. I don't think that'll be reflected if the 1-15 scale stays in place.