Please fix 1-100 rating coversion from 1-10

[Cleasby]

It is clear that the current 1-100 rating method is broken in game. 1-100 ratings should in tehory bring greater variability between players as there are more numbers to essentially split highliy skilled players to lowly skilled players. However from observation there is an issue where most players do not show ratings above 65 for most skills even if they are a 5 star rated player in comparison to a 1 star player. This means that rather than using a 1-100 scale the game is simply converting and squashing ratings into a 20-65 range on average.

This is incredibly furistrating as it removes a great level of variance for players in game and makes it incredibly difficult for people who want more detail to find it. 1-10 is incredibly high level on ratings and is great for a casual player but for people who want to run online leagues or build a granular understanding of the game the current coversion to 1-100 is not fit for purpose.

I would strongly encourage the development team to recheck the mapping between 1-10 versus 1-100. If it is not possible to map ratings on a 1-100 scale either remove this setting or map it to a 1-x setting that accurately reflects the variance displayed in the ratings. I would rather use a full range of scale then have a game suggest ratings are 1-100 when they simply are not.

As you can see by the screenshots below when you compare 1-10 ratings with 1-100 a vast number of the ratings are bottlenecked in the 20-65 range. Therefore it does not accurantely show elite players versus the rest of the pack and is not a tur 1-100 rating scale.









For example here is a 5 star prospect see how in the 1-100 ratings he is stick in this middle third.

[C-Bailey24]

I brought this up about three versions ago and Gary gave an explanation that involved the pro game and transition of players to the pro game, etc. Can't remember his exact words. But I agree with everything you posted along with the fact that it's just plain ugly lol

[Gary Gorski]

Ok so let me explain what is happening here. First there is not a conversion going on to 1-100, what you are seeing (with varying levels of accuracy based on coaches) is their actual in game rating. There is a conversion of the ratings to the 1-10 scale however to distribute the ratings in a more uniform method. The college and pro players are rated on the same scale in order to move the player from college to pro so when you are looking at a player who has a 49 in scoring its not that the number has somehow been converted to that...that's his actual rating right now. Now if he was in the pro game a 49 in scoring would not been that great - he would probably be comparable to a guy who averages 8-9 PPG in the pros but a guy who does that in the pros would be an excellent college player which is why it shows him as a 5 start player. If you rated people in the 80s, 90s etc in CB they would be amazingly good - it would be as if you were dropping LeBron on a college team.

In order to have the 1-100 scale be distributed more like the 1-10 scale there would have to be a conversion of the actual ratings to some kind of scaled system - that is possible - but it will also not matchup if you attempt to edit the players then. You might see a case where this guy shows his scoring as 90 but if you use the editor to look at him it would show a 49.

What I can try to do is add a 3rd ratings view which would convert the actual ratings to a different scale of 1-100. It will take a bit of work but its possible to do - its just that there will have to be an understanding that what you're looking at is not the real rating that is being used.

[thecoolestjedi]

I’d say my two cents into this issue would be that 1-100 ratings reflect what the college players have in relation to other college players? Rn, a lot of star players are hanging with maybe 40-60 in things like scoring and 1-100 should offer the biggest variance. A lot of the cream of the crop guys are as of now in the players I’ve observed almost similar to that of 3 star guys or average guys in the game. I feel this issue forces the player to do 1-10 ratings simply because 1-10 has no issue showing top players rated as top guys while 1-100 doesn’t and doesn’t seem to offer much variance for attributes like scoring

[Gary Gorski]

So as I just got done talking about on the developer dynasty stream on Twitch (and if you don't follow us on Twitch please do so in order to attend our streams) - I will be implementing a 1-100 adjusted scale. It will probably need some tweaking through FirstAccess but if you want to learn about it go to https://www.twitch.tv/wolverinestudios and click on the video from the stream we just did and I talk all about it at the start of the stream

[Phatman]

Gary, when I move my CB 20 league over to 21. Will I have this option to change it to the adjusted scale? Please say yes..

[Chris]

Now this is customer service and human centered design. Love it.

Wolverine Studios listening to their fans!

[Gary Gorski]

Gary, when I move my CB 20 league over to 21. Will I have this option to change it to the adjusted scale? Please say yes..

No the game would come in with the same scale as used before

[Gary Gorski]

Gary, when I move my CB 20 league over to 21. Will I have this option to change it to the adjusted scale? Please say yes..

No the game would come in with the same scale as used before

[Cleasby]

Now this is customer service and human centered design. Love it.

Wolverine Studios listening to their fans!

This. Thank you Gary for understanding the need for ratings to be a standalone for this game as well as convertible to the pro game.