Hiding ratings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball



Message

HighandOutside1 -> Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 12:47:56 AM)

Shaun, Any chance of giving us the option to shut off ratings. I like to evaluate my players based purely on statistics. It feels more realistic to me.



XCom -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 3:59:24 AM)

Or maybe a way to hide just the potential rating to make scouting a bit more challenging from year to year.



puresimmer -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 4:36:06 AM)

One thing that can help here is to use a much less granular ratings scale like (1-5), at 1-5 players are so bunched up that ratings become much more of just a "guidance" and you really need to depend on stats. That is the whole reason I let the user determine ratings granularity. Try it out, its fun.



Amaroq -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 4:53:20 AM)

I tried 1-8 for a while, it was a very different experience from the default 1-100 scale.



XCom -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 5:33:58 AM)

I understand, Shaun.  Sounds good.

Any thoughts on hiding potential?  I find that when playing in a league of human competitors it is a lot more fun when you don't know if that draft pick you just made is going to be a bust or a stud.  I would just like to have it as an option.



lynchjm24 -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 5:38:11 AM)

If you hid potential then how would you know who to draft? It seems to me that might be the only rating that matters.



KG Erwin -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 5:55:03 AM)

There are SO many factors to consider.  The depth of this sim can easily escape new players.    Simply drafting a team is an art unto itself.    The concept of the ratings is easy to grasp, but you gotta remember that these can change from year to year.   It takes a while to "get it".      



XCom -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 6:03:55 AM)

Well, how do ML scouts differentiate between amateur players?  They look at their attributes and skill set and try to determine which players are most likely to develop into ML players.  I envision looking at amateurs just by their skill ratings as they come into the league.  Depending on their age at draft time and how far advanced they are ratings-wise that would be how they are scouted initially.  Of course, there would still be a hidden potential rating which would only become relatively evident after a couple of trips through Spring Training and ratings adjustment.

Of course, I haven't played the game enough to know exactly how the potential rating works in practice.  I assume if you draft a player with a potential rating of 80 that there is no doubt that if handled correctly roster-wise he will improve a great deal.  So, of course that player would go very high in a draft (assuming his skill ratings are high as well) and he has no chance of being a bust.



KG Erwin -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 6:10:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lynchjm24

If you hid potential then how would you know who to draft? It seems to me that might be the only rating that matters.


There's so much more than that. For hitters, contact, power and eye mean much. For defensive abilities, it's a complex mix of hands, arm and range. For pitchers, the most important things are "stuff" and control.

God, I could go on for days about drafting strategies, but for a given year, you CAN draft a core team that can match your general image of an ideal to work towards.

You MUST think in a long-term mode. If you use finances, this must also be taken into account. I play in the reserve clause era, so finances become irrelevant. Still, development of your minor-leaguers and careful picks in the rookie draft are vital.



Beach23BoyP -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 6:55:00 AM)

I use 1 to 10.



lynchjm24 -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 2:58:17 PM)

I understand that. But the player who can contribute right out of the draft is rare. If you couldn't see any potential rating, how could you pick between all the 19 year olds who have a 3 contact and a 2 power rating? It would just become blind luck.



XCom -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 4:23:26 PM)

Well, I think if you could not see the potential rating you would have to use one of the much larger ratings scales like 1-100 or 1-50.  But, using your example...say you can see the potential rating of those 3 contact 2 power guys, and I'll throw an eye rating in there too (I'm assuming you are using a 1-20 rating scale?)

Player A - 3CH, 2PW, 3E, 6POT
Player B - 3CH, 2PW, 3E, 16POT
Player C - 3CH, 2PW, 3E, 10POT

Obviously, Player B would be taken first out of this group and he will definately be a solid player.  But, if you hide the potential and open up the ratings (on a 1-100 scale say) - assuming that the POT is the same as above just you can't see it:

Player A - 14CH, 9PW, 13E
Player B - 17CH, 11PW, 16E
Player C - 15CH, 12PW, 14E

That makes things a bit more interesting, IMO.  Yes, Player B would still be selected first and yes he will still be the best player of the bunch...but what about this scenario?

Player A - 17CH, 11PW, 16E
Player B - 14CH, 9PW, 13E
Player C - 15CH, 12PW, 14E

Here, player A would likely be selected first of the group...but, you are probably looking at a bust (of course you won't realize it until after a couple of seasons).  Player B will probably get drafted low, but may turn out to have a good career because his ratings will increase a great deal.

This just provides the bust/diamond in the rough possibilities that happen all the time in the real world.  If you are more comfortable using POT to scout, I completely understand.  I would just like to see the ability to hide it for fictional leagues to change the draft dynamic a bit.

Edited: To correct the POT ratings in example 1



Paul Vebber -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 5:40:45 PM)

I have been moving down the granularity scale - its almost like a "difficulty setting". Even teh 1-20 scale now seems almost "Cheating".

I think the sweet spot is the 1-8 scale.

What I would like to see is a bit more "fog of war" in the ratings - particularly for guys on the other teams.



HighandOutside1 -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 7:26:42 PM)

Let me first say that I am very close to purchasing this game. Although I'd like a eliminate ratings option, I can live with the 1-5 scale.

However, as I was looking at the in-game screen I noticed that the ratings were in very large font. Now, I recognize this is not a major issue, but I was wondering if the ratings could be eliminated or reduced in size and the player statistics enlarged. It is just an aestheics thing for me I suppose.




XCom -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 8:46:38 PM)

I agree that the 1-8 scale seems like a nice place to give enough ambiguity to the ratings to have to actually use the players a bit before getting an idea of their skill level.  The one thing I like about this game is being able to customize it to your own personal preferences.  I think that gives the game so much more replay-value.



Amaroq -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 9:38:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: XCom
Of course, I haven't played the game enough to know exactly how the potential rating works in practice. I assume if you draft a player with a potential rating of 80 that there is no doubt that if handled correctly roster-wise he will improve a great deal. So, of course that player would go very high in a draft (assuming his skill ratings are high as well) and he has no chance of being a bust.


Yeah, in PS'07, it is definitely possible to *mis-handle* a guy - I just posted about this in another thread, but all the potential in the world doesn't assure that he'll be an All-Star.

Also, I think there's a lot of misconception about what 'potential' might mean, based on other games.

Front Office Football, for example, shows you the 'max' a player can become in each rating, and Football Manager '06 has a hidden 'maximum potential' for each player.

In PureSim, the number 'Potential' relates to *one* thing only: how much he will improve in a one-year span, *if* the game decides that he should improve.

Quite a number of things impact this.

1. If he's at the wrong level of the major/minor system, he may regress or maintain rather than improve
2. If he's not getting enough playing time, he may regress or maintain rather than improve
3. There is a hidden 'peak age' rating - 'Potential 90' with a 'peak age' of 23 is different from 'Potential 90' with a 'peak age' of 27... (in terms of how good they will *eventually* become) ... and there's no way to see that 'peak age'.
4. His 'Potential' rating may change from year to year (unrelated to the 'peak age' thing - he's learning good habits, was a late bloomer, or is turning out to be a real bust.)

Add to that the idea that the 'real' ratings matter, and you have a situation where you can try to compare a guy who is 40-40-40-Pot:50-Age:20 versus 10-10-10-Pot:90-Age:18... but you can't really say who is going to be better five years down the line. The younger guy has higher potential: he will learn more year-over-year, and he's likely to have more years to learn. However, he also has to make up 30 points in each of the major categories. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. Also, you can't tell what year is the 'peak year' for those two players - the 20-year-old *might* have more 'growth years' ahead of him, but its likely the 18-year-old does.

There's a lot of luck involved in bringing a prospect to All-Star level, and enough skill involved that your choices really are impacting it.

So, I think Shaun's struck a better balance on it than most competitors in the field.



XCom -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/8/2006 10:59:25 PM)

Ah, cool. That clarifies a few things. I didn't know about the "peak age". So, that is generated when the player is created? After the peak age is reached is a player's improvement greatly diminished even if he still has high potential?

I'm coming from the world of BBPro98 which had hidden max potential ratings on players. That probably explains my comments in the thread. lol Anyway, I always liked not knowing for sure how good a player was going to be when he was drafted. Made things much more realistic to me. Seems like Puresim has taken that even further here.

I'm glad this board is here and that we have people willing to explain things as they learn them.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaroq

quote:

ORIGINAL: XCom
Of course, I haven't played the game enough to know exactly how the potential rating works in practice. I assume if you draft a player with a potential rating of 80 that there is no doubt that if handled correctly roster-wise he will improve a great deal. So, of course that player would go very high in a draft (assuming his skill ratings are high as well) and he has no chance of being a bust.


Yeah, in PS'07, it is definitely possible to *mis-handle* a guy - I just posted about this in another thread, but all the potential in the world doesn't assure that he'll be an All-Star.

Also, I think there's a lot of misconception about what 'potential' might mean, based on other games.

Front Office Football, for example, shows you the 'max' a player can become in each rating, and Football Manager '06 has a hidden 'maximum potential' for each player.

In PureSim, the number 'Potential' relates to *one* thing only: how much he will improve in a one-year span, *if* the game decides that he should improve.

Quite a number of things impact this.

1. If he's at the wrong level of the major/minor system, he may regress or maintain rather than improve
2. If he's not getting enough playing time, he may regress or maintain rather than improve
3. There is a hidden 'peak age' rating - 'Potential 90' with a 'peak age' of 23 is different from 'Potential 90' with a 'peak age' of 27... (in terms of how good they will *eventually* become) ... and there's no way to see that 'peak age'.
4. His 'Potential' rating may change from year to year (unrelated to the 'peak age' thing - he's learning good habits, was a late bloomer, or is turning out to be a real bust.)

Add to that the idea that the 'real' ratings matter, and you have a situation where you can try to compare a guy who is 40-40-40-Pot:50-Age:20 versus 10-10-10-Pot:90-Age:18... but you can't really say who is going to be better five years down the line. The younger guy has higher potential: he will learn more year-over-year, and he's likely to have more years to learn. However, he also has to make up 30 points in each of the major categories. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. Also, you can't tell what year is the 'peak year' for those two players - the 20-year-old *might* have more 'growth years' ahead of him, but its likely the 18-year-old does.

There's a lot of luck involved in bringing a prospect to All-Star level, and enough skill involved that your choices really are impacting it.

So, I think Shaun's struck a better balance on it than most competitors in the field.




lynchjm24 -> RE: Hiding ratings (6/9/2006 12:33:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: XCom


Obviously, Player B would be taken first out of this group and he will definately be a solid player.  But, if you hide the potential and open up the ratings (on a 1-100 scale say) - assuming that the POT is the same as above just you can't see it:

Player A - 14CH, 9PW, 13E
Player B - 17CH, 11PW, 16E
Player C - 15CH, 12PW, 14E

That makes things a bit more interesting, IMO.  Yes, Player B would still be selected first and yes he will still be the best player of the bunch...but what about this scenario?



I guess we would just have to agree to disagree, because you are just guessing in the last two scenarios. You might as well get rid of all the ratings, because without knowing their potentials - it's just a WAG. Of course, you'd be able to infer it based on their salary demands..



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.59375