Players ratings - Should they be hidden?

[neystar206]

i wish EA wouldnt let us see player ratings in the game. just use the star systems with some other scouting service added to the game.

you would use the spring game and a few practices just before the start of the season to set your depth charts like real coaches do in real life!!!!

[souljahbill]

Wha?

[oweb26]

i wish EA wouldnt let us see player ratings in the game. just use the star systems with some other scouting service added to the game.

you would use the spring game and a few practices just before the start of the season to set your depth charts like real coaches do in real life!!!!

Are you serious or fucking with us?

[cdj]

I would assume serious as I've seen this suggestion before. Typically the idea is (something along the lines of) the user will make the determination on the best player by how they perform in practice or games.

Some people have suggested having only the OVR hidden, some want all, etc. Basically, I believe they feel users typically only look/care at the OVR when they should be evaluating the player and how they fit in their style of play.

[steelerfan]

A nice "compromise" to this would be to switch to a letter-grade system. This way, if one player is an 87 and another is 89, you'd simply see "B+" for both.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[souljahbill]

A nice "compromise" to this would be to switch to a letter-grade system. This way, if one player is an 87 and another is 89, you'd simply see "B+" for both.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

I've thought this before too. Just never verbalized or typed it up. Mostly because when looking at numbers for various categories, it all runs together eventually.

[morsdraconis]

I think a system of not knowing more than a letter grade for the player would be very interesting and, with playing time, the ratings start to become unlocked. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Otherwise, I just find myself, in most cases, chasing certain ratings for positions and not caring about anything else.

More than anything though, I want ratings to actually matter because, it certainly seems like there are instances of ratings not mattering for certain things.

[Jayrah]

Letter system would be interesting indeed. But I don't think it should be hidden at all. I contend that with the tape and film study aspect of the game today, most coaches (if not all coaches) know exactly what they're getting their hands on when a player signs. Just like in the game maybe players exceed or underachieve when it comes to your expectations once he joins the program, but you can see a players' skill set and attributes on film. To me, the game is now replicating that very well with the "scouting" feature. That's exactly what happens is that you look at a player on film and give him a grade, or number and line it up with your system and needs.

[gschwendt]

Personally, I'd like to see ranges similar to the old Head Coach system. Players could perform anywhere inside that range... the better the player and the more you know about him, the smaller his range (ie 5th year seniors, their range might be smaller). It would help replicate players having an off day and also players playing out of their mind.

[morsdraconis]

Personally, I'd like to see ranges similar to the old Head Coach system. Players could perform anywhere inside that range... the better the player and the more you know about him, the smaller his range (ie 5th year seniors, their range might be smaller). It would help replicate players having an off day and also players playing out of their mind.

It would also help replicate players playing in systems that they don't perform well in (zone blocking OL playing in a man blocking system, man coverage corner playing in a zone coverage system, etc).

Obviously, going that in-depth with that would require significant changes to the way the current system is done in NCAA, but it would be preferable, in my opinion.

[ram29jackson]

I would assume serious as I've seen this suggestion before. Typically the idea is (something along the lines of) the user will make the determination on the best player by how they perform in practice or games.

Some people have suggested having only the OVR hidden, some want all, etc. Basically, I believe they feel users typically only look/care at the OVR when they should be evaluating the player and how they fit in their style of play.


I dont have all damn day to research my videogame team LOL ..its a stupid idea-period

ratings are needed to make obvious decisions quickly because this aint no career LOL

[SmoothPancakes]

I dont have all damn day to research my videogame team LOL ..its a stupid idea-period

ratings are needed to make obvious decisions quickly because this aint no career LOL

Cut about 5 hours a day out of looking up random ass videos on youtube of random ass noobs playing Madden online, and you'd have plenty of time to research your team. :P

[steelerfan]

Cut about 5 hours a day out of playing dress-up with your fake schools, and you'd have plenty of time to research your team. :P

Fixed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[SmoothPancakes]

Fixed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

:D :D :D

[ram29jackson]

Cut about 5 hours a day out of looking up random ass videos on youtube of random ass noobs playing Madden online, and you'd have plenty of time to research your team. :P

if i'm playing a sports video game for five hours,it better be on the field and not outside of it...that said, the new recruiting addition should cut down that time frame..it better lol

[souljahbill]

Cut about 5 hours a day out of looking up random ass videos on youtube of random ass noobs playing Madden online, and you'd have plenty of time to research your team. :P

LMFAO!!!

:D

[oweb26]

I personally could go to either a letter grade or even a range but not having anything is simply not feasible to me.

I would like to believe the casual fan wouldn't want it either, as I can't see too many people being happy to sit through countless hours of practices to find who is the better player. No casual video game player will dedicate that amount of time to setting a depth chart and I think its safe to assume that a significant number of causal players only get NCAA to hold over until Madden.

In my world (which is the only one that matters to me) there is no way I would even bother setting my depth chart with everything being hidden, just think of the time that would take on an OD. My depth chart is never set through the year until around week 6-8 when I find the people I want to fill positions outside of my stars (not impact players which I have benched on numerous occasions).

I dunno seems like alot of work when you have nothing to go off of.

[JeffHCross]

I like the idea of ratings changing back from numbers to letters. The primary reason being that the difference between an 85 and an 83 is very thin, yet we make it out like the 85 has an obvious advantage. Of course, the problem then lies in the transition points between grades. For example, let's assume a 10 pt system with top 3 being + and bottom 3 being -. You could have two players at 87 and 86 that show as B+ and B. But that could just as easily be players rated 89 and 83. Much bigger difference there. Or, similarly, two players that are B+ and B- could be 89 and 80 as easily as 87 and 83.

While I agree that neystar's suggestion was serious, I actually think he probably wasn't talking about the entire roster, but was instead talking about recruiting. That's what I'd interpret from seeing him mention scouting services, star ratings and spring practices. That sounds like a recruiting thing. But every scout that is looking at a player, whether a recruit, on the roster, or in the NFL draft, is going to write down some sort of rating. So it's a stretch to throw ratings out completely. I do agree that they could be a little more ambiguous though.

However, I do think Dynamic Player Performance (if it comes to NCAA at some point) mitigates all this a little bit. Just because you're an 90 doesn't mean you'll always perform at a 90 level. Makes it less important to get that 90 over that 88.

[baseballplyrmvp]

my problem with the ratings is that they're all way too high. the baseline for average teams are listed as mid to upper 70's for the team ratings. when you start an average team that high, it leaves very little room to separate the elite teams from good teams from the average teams. lowering the baseline for team ratings would also help distinguish college football's superstars from just the good players. i think it would also force people to "know" their team more as you'd have to know who was capable of performing at a certain level.

[JeffHCross]

my problem with the ratings is that they're all way too high.:+1:

[Little Steve]

I say no to this because knowing EA, the computer will always know the higher rating and start the players in perfect order.(Also way to much time) And about the to high rating thing i don't mind that so much, their are worse things at hand in the gameplay area. Example the outside run is hard to defend, and can we not have DF Plays that work 90% of the time, kills the game...

[baseballplyrmvp]

I like the idea of ratings changing back from numbers to letters. The primary reason being that the difference between an 85 and an 83 is very thin, yet we make it out like the 85 has an obvious advantage. Of course, the problem then lies in the transition points between grades. For example, let's assume a 10 pt system with top 3 being + and bottom 3 being -. You could have two players at 87 and 86 that show as B+ and B. But that could just as easily be players rated 89 and 83. Much bigger difference there. Or, similarly, two players that are B+ and B- could be 89 and 80 as easily as 87 and 83.

While I agree that neystar's suggestion was serious, I actually think he probably wasn't talking about the entire roster, but was instead talking about recruiting. That's what I'd interpret from seeing him mention scouting services, star ratings and spring practices. That sounds like a recruiting thing. But every scout that is looking at a player, whether a recruit, on the roster, or in the NFL draft, is going to write down some sort of rating. So it's a stretch to throw ratings out completely. I do agree that they could be a little more ambiguous though.

However, I do think Dynamic Player Performance (if it comes to NCAA at some point) mitigates all this a little bit. Just because you're an 90 doesn't mean you'll always perform at a 90 level. Makes it less important to get that 90 over that 88.A+ to F- only puts a minimum rating at 50 though. :confused: how would you put a grade on ratings below 50? would you have like a non linear correlation in grades (F = 0-39, D = 40-59, C = 60-79, B = 80-89, A = 90-99?

[JeffHCross]

I said I like the idea, not that I know how it works ;)

Though right now an "F" on a recruit's rating, I do believe, means practically anything from a 0 to a 50.

[baseballplyrmvp]

I said I like the idea, not that I know how it works ;):D good point.

[souljahbill]

F-=0-5
F=6-15
F+=16-20
D-=21-25
D=26-35
D+=36-40
C-=41-45
C=46-55
C+=56-60
B-=61-65
B=66-75
B+=76-80
A-=81-85
A=86-95
A+=96-99

Would that separate the mediocre from the elite?

[JeffHCross]

Yes, but you'd also have to have the ratings spread within the roster change significantly. That spread is only useful if 50 really is the average, rather than a totally mediocre player.

[baseballplyrmvp]

i'd be more in favor of that that what it is currently.....where even average players have ratings in the 70's and 80's.

[morsdraconis]

They DESPERATELY need to overhaul their ratings system. Right now, the formula doesn't allow for guys to be athletically gifted but still suck (aka, have low ratings). And, above all, players in the 60s and low 70s shouldn't be bad players. They should be niche players. Really, no player should be above a 95 in the game and players above that should be once a draft class or one every few draft classes and not 30+ at every position.

Their rating system just isn't logical. There are very few players in college football that are truly elite players at their position and their ratings should reflect that.

[JeffHCross]

The problem isn't just the ratings. I imagine you both know this, but, the ratings are so directly tied to the formulas for how successful a certain action is (i.e. "successful catch", "successful tackle", etc), that those formulas would likely have to be totally reworked for a wider ratings range to be effective. As it is today, I imagine a WR with a 50 CTH rating would be absolutely terrible at drops. That wouldn't be good if it was the "average".

Personally, I'd love to see a wider rating range, and I'd really love to see NCAA and Madden on the same rating scale. What I mean is that I'd love to take an Andrew Luck or somebody and their ratings in NCAA directly apply to Madden. The NFL is full of great players ... the ratings scale should be the small, tight window with little difference / margin for error between players. As it is now, Madden is the one with the significantly wider ratings margin. And that seems totally backwards to me.

[TIMB0B]

It seems to me that half of the attributes are universal, and what ultimately determines which side of the ball you play on comes down to position specific skills i.e. Passing, Ballcarrying, Receiving, Blocking, and Tackling.

I came about the following when I was thinking of how I could create myself as a player as genuine as possible. Ideally, I want to enter my scores from my old high school combine results then guesstimate my position specific skills to determine my overall.

Basically, you'd enter the applicable numbers for each exercise to determine the attributes in parenthesis.

40 Time - Speed
20 Yard Shuttle - Acceleration
3 Cone Drill - Agility (Spin, Juke, Route Running, Blocking Footwork, and Strafe/Backpedal ability)
Vertical - Jump (Hurdle and Leaping ability)
Broad Jump - Explosiveness (Trucking, Diving, Impact Block, and Hit Power ability)
Bench Press - Upper Body Strength (Stiff Arm, Release, Pass Block Strength, and Block Shedding ability)
Squat - Lower Body Strength (Break Tackle, Run Block Strength, Bullrush (Power Move?), and Press Cover ability)

All of those attributes are universal, which would mean if you moved from offense to defense or vice versa, those abilities would be the same rating. Using Adrian Peterson as an example (who had a broad jump in the NFL combine that was off the charts for his size), we've all seen how he trucks opposing defenders, but I can bet that if he played defense, you'd see the same violent hits when he tries to tackle someone. It's because of his explosiveness, and all four of those attributes (trucking, diving, impact block, and hit power) are exemplified by the broad jump, just as the 3 Cone Drill shows Spin, Juke, Strafe, and Backpedal abilities collectively because agility is about footwork and change of direction skills. What separates the players from these universal attributes, though, would still be determined by their position specific skills.

Also, you have to take into account, for example, that an OL-man may time lower than the average athlete in the 3 Cone Drill, but it doesn't mean his footwork would be bad for a lineman. Obviously, you're not going to put a DB, WR, etc on the line just because of their 3 Cone Drill time - they wouldn't have the size and strength to play the position. So, weight should be some kind of factor as well in the end.

Additionally, this would be more realistic when recruiting. The universal attributes would be displayed as combine results, and position specific skills would have letter grades, because they can't necessarily be measured by combine results, but through game film or practice.

NOTE: I'm not sure where Finesse Move would fall. I don't know what it is in the game.

[souljahbill]

Finesse would be agility.

[TIMB0B]

Finesse would be agility.

There you go.

[JeffHCross]

NOTE: I'm not sure where Finesse Move would fall. I don't know what it is in the game.Finesse Move is, in the game, the ability for a defender to do a swim/slap/rip/agility-based move to get out of being blocked, while Power Move is the same for a bull rush/power/strength-based move. A high FMV means they'll be successful with a finesse move. A high PMV means the same for power. There are a few drills that could test this, but you probably didn't do them on the HS level, at least not timed. It's definitely agility based though, so it would be move of a 3-cone area than anything else.

However, things like Finesse Move, Power Move are very skill-based. The most agile person in the world isn't going to be able to rip or swim at the same level as a well-taught NFL lineman. It's not a purely physical act.

You might be interested in these two threads of mine, since you're talking about the equation of real-life numbers and in-game ratings: http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?78-Converting-40-times-to-NCAA-10-SPD & http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?77-Creating-Historical-Players-in-NCAA-11

[TIMB0B]

You might be interested in these two threads of mine, since you're talking about the equation of real-life numbers and in-game ratings: http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?78-Converting-40-times-to-NCAA-10-SPD & http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?77-Creating-Historical-Players-in-NCAA-11

Now, imagine if you could simply enter your combine results, and it calculates the attribute number for you, or vice versa. For example...

Under edit/create player attributes, enter:

40 Time: 4.50
OR
Speed: 87

20yd Shuttle: 4.28
OR
Acceleration: 88

3 Cone Drill: 7.02
OR
Agility: 85

Those numbers are hypothetical for the example. Change either of those numbers, and the other will adjust correspondingly.

This is what I want to see when creating/editing players. The ability to actually enter your combine results or the attribute number to reach your desired ratings.

Also, as far what the combine numbers should be relative to the attribute number, I'd set the maximum (a 99 rating) to the NFL combine records for each. Therefore, high school prospects would come in naturally with max numbers in the high 80s to low 90s, leaving room for them to progress throughout college like real life.

Check out the highs and lows of a recent Under Armour combine --> http://combines.underarmour.com/football/combines. You can sort each column by clicking at the top.

Compared to the NFL combine records:
BROAD JUMP
11'5

VERTICAL
46"

FORTY
4.24

3 CONE
6.42

20yd SHUTTLE
3.80

BENCH PRESS
49 reps

[TIMB0B]

Finesse Move is, in the game, the ability for a defender to do a swim/slap/rip/agility-based move to get out of being blocked, while Power Move is the same for a bull rush/power/strength-based move. A high FMV means they'll be successful with a finesse move. A high PMV means the same for power. There are a few drills that could test this, but you probably didn't do them on the HS level, at least not timed. It's definitely agility based though, so it would be move of a 3-cone area than anything else.]
If this is the case, then I think Power Move and Bullrush should be separate and actually roll Power Move with Finesse Move; the strength/agility would determine the difference i.e. a player tendency.

Bullrushing is in essence the equivalent to run blocking. You're driving your opponent back. I think the "sprint" button (R-2 on the controller) could be utilized to achieve the bullrush/drive (run) blocking instead of R-Analog since those are PMV and Impact Block.

[souljahbill]

What I'd like to see is the blocking ratings more easily understandable. You have strength, run block strength, and pass block strength. Wha? Add to that run and pass footwork and there's too many categories that aren't really clear. Same thing for awareness and play recognition. I know people want more ratings to better differentiate people but without clarity, it's confusing. I think a much better way to differentiate players is just using the whole 100 pt scale, making 50 avg. (and not 70-75).

[baseballplyrmvp]

What I'd like to see is the blocking ratings more easily understandable. You have strength, run block strength, and pass block strength. Wha? Add to that run and pass footwork and there's too many categories that aren't really clear. Same thing for awareness and play recognition. I know people want more ratings to better differentiate people but without clarity, it's confusing. I think a much better way to differentiate players is just using the whole 100 pt scale, making 50 avg. (and not 70-75).way back before this site split from utopia, i think it was wisey who said that:

run and pass block strength is used against defenders when they use a power move.

run and pass block footwork is used against defenders when they use a finesse move

general run and pass block are used to help the player get in position to make a block.

as for the bolded........YES!!!!!

[souljahbill]

way back before this site split from utopia, i think it was wisey who said that:

run and pass block strength is used against defenders when they use a power move.

run and pass block footwork is used against defenders when they use a finesse move

general run and pass block are used to help the player get in position to make a block.

as for the bolded........YES!!!!!

Makes sense. Every rating category should have a descriptor so that we know what it means and we can make better decisions when evaluating players.

[majesty95]

Personally, I'd like to see ranges similar to the old Head Coach system. Players could perform anywhere inside that range... the better the player and the more you know about him, the smaller his range (ie 5th year seniors, their range might be smaller). It would help replicate players having an off day and also players playing out of their mind.

THIS ^^^

[TIMB0B]

Makes sense. Every rating category should have a descriptor so that we know what it means and we can make better decisions when evaluating players.I agree.