Never played OOTP before

[Hibber]

I will probably get OOTP 2006, just wondering, are the ratings on a 1-20 scale?

[ifspuds]

They can be on a number of scales: 2-8, 1-10, 1-20, 1-100, and you can set different scales for different groups of ratings (one scale for batting, one for defense). One of the great features of OOTP is its customizability.

[SSG Troyer]

There are several user-selectable scales ... if memory serves, 1-5, 1-10, 2-8, 1-20, 20-80, and 1-100..

2-8 is the actual scale MLB scouts use, before you ask. 20-80 is an extension of that.

[Hibber]

Thanks for the info!

Any suggestions on what works best for you guys?

[jm47048]

I like the 1-100 ratings. I look at them as a percentage of being the best of the best. Kinda gives me the edge that way. I think, even in real life, that a 2-8 rating is not detailed enough. I can't figure out how the scouts use it.

[Hibber]

I was leaning towards the 1-100 anyway, it's what I'm most used to. Way back in the Front Page Sports days.

[ifspuds]

I personally like 1-10. It adds a little challenge to reading a player's ratings: is that 7 a "high" 7 or a "low" 7? The game still *uses* 1-100, it's just that you can only see 1-10.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by ifspuds

I personally like 1-10. It adds a little challenge to reading a player's ratings: is that 7 a "high" 7 or a "low" 7? The game still *uses* 1-100, it's just that you can only see 1-10.

That is what i use as well and for the same reason. I like the challenge of the unknown and its been what i've always used since ootp 4.

[sporr]

I still use 1-10 just because it is closest to what older versions of the game used.

[boilermaker]

As a fan of FM and EHM, I'll shoot for uniformity....I'm going 1-20, myself. Since everyone is interested in knowing.

[Vinny P.]

i lkike 1 - 100 myself. i just enjoy the clreaer picture of of how much young player develop. i enjoy watching players constantly improve throughout their career.

[Twelvefield]

Originally Posted by jm47048

I like the 1-100 ratings. I look at them as a percentage of being the best of the best. Kinda gives me the edge that way. I think, even in real life, that a 2-8 rating is not detailed enough. I can't figure out how the scouts use it.

Scouts consider 5 to be the number of the skill that is baseline for Major League play. If you score 5 on each of all 5 skill ratings, then your total is 25. Teams double that number to get the player ability score from 20-80. Such a player then would have an ability score of 50.

So if 5 is the number for "satisfactory", teams typically want three numbers that go above that (good, better, best) and three numbers that go below that (bad, worse, worst). 5-3+2; 5+3=8, giving you a scale of 2 to 8 with 5 exactly in the middle. Make sense? It's pretty easy when you don't try to concentrate on the math.

Put it another way, although this is strictly my interpretation:

2="Extremely poor ability"
3="Poor ability"
4="Some ability at minor league level, but not fit for majors"
5="Satisfactory basic ability for majors, but not at all exceptional"
6="Some advanced abilities at major league level"
7="Advanced major league ability"
8="Outstanding superior major league ability"

See how 5 goes exactly in the middle? Anything below 2 or above 8 more or less defies description, so scouts don't waste using numbers in those ranges. Doubling the rating gives you a bit more of "granularity" in your numbers without having to use fractions, which with sloppy handwriting could be misinterpreted.

[BIG Irish]

Couldn't you just use a few more adjectives/decriptions and use 1-10. 2-8 just doesn't make sense to me.

0="No ability"
1="Extremely poor ability"
2="Poor ability"
3="Some ability at minor league level, but not fit for majors"
4="Below average major league ability
5="Satisfactory basic ability for majors, but not at all exceptional"
6="Above average major league abilty"
7="Some advanced abilities at major league level"
8="Advanced major league ability"
9="Outstanding superior major league ability"
10="Hall of Fame ability"

5 is still the middle number and therefore "average".

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by BIG Irish

Couldn't you just use a few more adjectives/decriptions and use 1-10. 2-8 just doesn't make sense to me.

0="No ability"
1="Extremely poor ability"
2="Poor ability"
3="Some ability at minor league level, but not fit for majors"
4="Below average major league ability
5="Satisfactory basic ability for majors, but not at all exceptional"
6="Above average major league abilty"
7="Some advanced abilities at major league level"
8="Advanced major league ability"
9="Outstanding superior major league ability"
10="Hall of Fame ability"

5 is still the middle number and therefore "average".

there is no 0 in 1-10, so 5 isnt the middle

[phenom]

I use the 1-100 in leagues where I'm just a spectator (which I do quite often, because I like poring over stats).

But in leagues where I'm participating, I like the 1-20 scale, or 1-10 if I want a little bit more of a challenge.

Try a league with no ratings turned on. That's fun.