Jump to content

When sorting players by an attribute value, ranges should be counted as the middle value


Recommended Posts

Not sure if this is clear enough but what I mean is basically when i'm searching for players and sorting by the value of a specific attribute, I see no reason why players with ranged attributes of 10-20 which average 15-16 should appear higher than a player who has a definite 19.
That's the 1st thing but also...

The wider the range generally means the poorer the player, more or less, because they're less known (I know the knowledge of the area and scouting network also matter but still).
If I'm sorting by higher values the best players should come first, or at least players with actually high values in the attribute I'm sorting by. Having the many many many unscouted unknowned players first kinda defeats the purpose cuz you gotta scroll for a looooong time through...let's be honest, trash players, until you get to the players with actually good values for the given attribute.

See for yourself, how players like these: 
image.png.9e86c3d3dfbae8ddfccebbfbe8d7e3a8.png

...Show up before them :

image.png.a947d02d3f6b0cf14f69c85c3abd0d22.png

At least for value like 15-18 then I kinda know the value is good either way, and also it's players that have a certain reputation, so often times not the worst.

Which is why the "average" value being what's considered would make the most sense to me rather than how ranges are being treated.
Right now they're only sorted as, for example, 13-19 > 12-19 then 11-19 then 10-19, until the wider range with 19 as the max, then 18, then, say, 15-18, then 14-18...until the wider range, and so on and so on. Leading to a ranged value of 4-17 being displayed higher than a 16 value.

I'd prefere something like, ideally :
18 > 17 >  16 > 13-19 > 15 (13-19 could be higher than 16, would be acceptable too imo)

Now about how to sort between two ranged values with the same middle/average value, the criteria would have to be either, thinner range first, wider last, or higher possible value first. I'd personally go with thinner range first.
So :
17 > 16 > 14-18 > 13-19 > 12-20 > 15 > 14-16 > 12-18 > 11-18 > 10-19 > 14...


An alternative solution would be to first display players with definite, known attributes, and then ranges, like :
known values > range values (sorted the way they are right now in relation to each-other) > blank values.
Or, maybe, the lesser value of the range being taken into account instead of the higher? Not ideal either tho.

But yea imo the best way to do it would be to count the middle value.

Or an option to set a preference maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...