Formula to change 200 rating to 20-80 scale?

[Neags23]

Does anyone know a good formula to convert a rating on a 1-200 scale to the 20-80 scale?

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by Neags23

Does anyone know a good formula to convert a rating on a 1-200 scale to the 20-80 scale?

From what I can tell, the game uses

2080Rating = (5 * Round[OrigRating / (50/3)]) + 20

or something equivalent to that.

The boundaries for each rating are these:

20: 1 - 8
25: 9 - 24
30: 25 - 41
35: 42 - 58
40: 59 - 74
45: 75 - 91
50: 92 - 108
55: 109 - 124
60: 125 - 141
65: 142 - 158
70: 159 - 174
75: 175 - 191
80: 192+

[injury log]

If it's a linear conversion, then you'd multiply by 60/200 (to get a rating from 1-60), then add 20. This boils down to multiplying by 3, dividing by 10, and adding 20. I don't know if the conversion is linear in OOTP (I'd assume it is), and this formula might leave you with results that are off by 1, at least at times.

EDIT- I was ignoring that the 20-80 scale uses 5-point increments, and in any case, Zeyes' data is surely what the game does. So ignore me...

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by injury log

If it's a linear conversion ...

Oddly enough, from what I've seen the 20-80 scale is the only one that isn't quite linear. For comparison, here's the 2-8 scale:

2: 1 - 32
3: 33 - 65
4: 66 - 98
5: 99 - 131
6: 132 - 164
7: 165 - 197
8: 198+

So the formula is something like 28Rating = RoundDown(OrigRating / 33) + 2, which results in all translated ratings encompassing the same "rating space" interval of 33 points, except the lowest value is one point short. The other scales 1-[5,10,20,100] work the same way with RoundDown. The 20-80 scale on the other hand is short by half an interval at the front.

[Neags23]

The 20-80 scale only goes in increments of 5? I never noticed that. So a batter couldn't be rated 78?

[injury log]

The 20-80 scale is in 5-point increments, yes. The 1-100 scale is in 1-point increments, so if you want that level of resolution, that's the scale to go with. The 20-80 scale actually only has 13 values that it uses (unless you display ratings that exceed the maximum)- much lower resolution than 1-100, even if they sound similar.

edit- and thanks, Zeyes, for clarifying the odd non-linearity in the scale; I had the impression there might be something quirky there from your post to tech support about the color coding of rating numbers... There is a very counterintuitive conversion in OOTP from 20-80 to 2-8!

[RchW]

Originally Posted by injury log

The 20-80 scale is in 5-point increments, yes. The 1-100 scale is in 1-point increments, so if you want that level of resolution, that's the scale to go with. The 20-80 scale actually only has 13 values that it uses (unless you display ratings that exceed the maximum)- much lower resolution than 1-100, even if they sound similar.

edit- and thanks, Zeyes, for clarifying the odd non-linearity in the scale; I had the impression there might be something quirky there from your post to tech support about the color coding of rating numbers... There is a very counterintuitive conversion in OOTP from 20-80 to 2-8!

Quite strange. The 20-80 scale used for overall/potential rating is not set in 5-point increments. Anybody know why?

[injury log]

Ah, good point Rich. No idea why, but thanks for the correction. It does seem to be a different category of rating, in some sense (in that you can only set it to stars or 20-80; you can't use the other scales).

[Zeyes]

Originally Posted by injury log

I had the impression there might be something quirky there from your post to tech support about the color coding of rating numbers... There is a very counterintuitive conversion in OOTP from 20-80 to 2-8!

That's for sure. I actually prefer the 20-80 way...the middle rating of 50 covers the midpoint exactly (92-108), while the 2-8 scale is oddly shifted towards the high end. 198 points to get an 8 rating?

FWIW, the 1-5 scale also hits the middle (almost) exactly...3 corresponds to 80-119 points. The other three scales, using an even number of values, are off by a bit (e.g. 5/10 = 80-99, 6/10 = 100-119) but at least in a logical way. It's barely noticeable on the 1-20 and 1-100 ranges anyway since their own granularity is pretty fine already.

I haven't quite figured out what's up with the colour coding...my working theories are a) the formula used for the colouring is slightly off...maybe using 16.7 instead of the exact 50/3 or somesuch, or b) the rating scale was slightly adjusted at some point, maybe from 2006 to 2007, and the colours didn't undergo the same adjustment.