JeffHCross Project #1: How is OVR determined?

When you don't do any input but your guy still manages to break free, that could be Elusiveness or Trucking. Both of those ratings are used for CPU ball carries, and when you take on a tackle without doing input I believe you get treated like a CPU ball carrier. One thing I'm noticing in your posts is that you aren't mentioning Elusiveness at all, while I personally think Elusiveness is the primary rating for "slipping" tackles. Not running over a guy, but the animation you see where the defender gets one hand on your player and slips off ... that's Elusiveness. That's why I look at the Elusiveness of my guys before I pick my PR/KR, and it's effective in my eyes.

It's also possible that I received incorrect information and BTK is actually used in tackling calculations after all. We're basing this entire conversation on the foundation that I'm actually right ;)

The CPU controlled players are getting the same type of dice rolls that a human-controlled player does. CPU controlled players try jukes, trucks, spins, whatever, just the same as you and I -- when it's human controlled it just waits for human input, the calculations are still likely done with the same variables and ratings. I don't believe NPC versus PC has largely anything to do with it.

See the reason why I just find this bad is because it confuses the player. I'm sure there are gamers who recruit a guy based off his high break tackle rating and then are pissed when they come to find out and play as him in game that he doesn't break free from tackles any better then a smaller guy with lower BTK rating. The player thinks break tackle is the rating you want if you wish for your HB to break free from tackles. That's only natural given the name "Break Tackle" but in actuality it's trucking.

The problem is some recruits may have a high break tackle but low trucking where other may have high trucking but really low break tackle.

So on one side it doesn't make sense but on the other side you can really find some nice gems and steals for breaking tackles if you just focus on trucking. A :3star: player with C Break Tackle but A Trucking will play just like a user controlled John Clay last year where as a :5star: runningback with A+ Break Tackle and only C Trucking won't. Just stupid if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher 8

Just stupid if you ask me.

---

It's also possible that I received incorrect information and BTK is actually used in tackling calculations after all. We're basing this entire conversation on the foundation that I'm actually right ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

When you don't do any input but your guy still manages to break free, that could be Elusiveness or Trucking. Both of those ratings are used for CPU ball carries, and when you take on a tackle without doing input I believe you get treated like a CPU ball carrier. One thing I'm noticing in your posts is that you aren't mentioning Elusiveness at all, while I personally think Elusiveness is the primary rating for "slipping" tackles. Not running over a guy, but the animation you see where the defender gets one hand on your player and slips off ... that's Elusiveness. That's why I look at the Elusiveness of my guys before I pick my PR/KR, and it's effective in my eyes.

---

Okay well I did say this which by the sounds of what you just wrote is true then? Mainly the bolded... ignore the rest as we've already discussed that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher 8

Isn't the Elusive rating kind of redundant? I mean what exactly does Elusive do, why does it matter?

You got Agility to determine how agile they are and Speed and Acceleration to determine how fast they are so those are the ratings that determine how scat backy they are, the smaller Barry Sanders type guys.

Break Tackle determines how much they can break out of tackles, which I assume means once a tackle animation starts that break tackle rating kicks in to determine if they can slip out or not, so what does Elusive do?

Does it affect those tackle animations from even starting or initiating? Like say the defender attempts to tackle and a HB with a high Elusive Rating would likely reject that tackle animation from even initiating and keep on running?

If that's the case wouldn't Elusive be better than Break Tackle?

Avoid the tackle animation from even starting rather than breaking free once it has started. Since it slows you down to battle out of a tackle where if the tackle just misses all together from the attempt you don't get slowed down...

Idk... I'm just trying to figure out what's the best things to look for in a recruit since afterall that's what this thread is for...right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

It's also possible that I received incorrect information and BTK is actually used in tackling calculations after all. We're basing this entire conversation on the foundation that I'm actually right ;)

---

Yes I'm always typing up my reply to one of your posts and don't see your latest post, twice now it's looked like you've read my mind ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher 8

Okay well I did say this which by the sounds of what you just wrote is true then? Mainly the bolded... ignore the rest as we've already discussed that...

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

I believe Elusiveness is used for when you try to "elude" or "slip" a tackle (I believe it's a heavy component in why some QBs are able to slip out of sacks, for example), whereas Trucking is for power moves and going through a tackle. I think I've seen some truck moves performed without input on the truck stick, so it's not solely related to stick input.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

I personally think Elusiveness is the primary rating for "slipping" tackles. Not running over a guy, but the animation you see where the defender gets one hand on your player and slips off ... that's Elusiveness. That's why I look at the Elusiveness of my guys before I pick my PR/KR, and it's effective in my eyes.

---

I hope this makes sense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

when you take on a tackle without doing input I believe you get treated like a CPU ball carrier.

---

So you think that if I didn't do any player input like try to truck stick or spin or juke and a tackle animation starts up or begins to happen because the elusiveness rating dice roll that happens behind the scene fails to avoid the animation from even beginning that it treats me like a CPU ball carrier and not a player controlled ball carrier?

And then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

The CPU controlled players are getting the same type of dice rolls that a human-controlled player does. the calculations are still likely done with the same variables and ratings.

---

Wouldn't that mean that the game then uses the BTK rating to determine if the npc player breaks free from a tackle animation that has already started?

Sure, That would totally go against everything we've just discussed and that you were told but to me that would make more sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher 8

So you think that if I didn't do any player input like try to truck stick or spin or juke and a tackle animation starts up or begins to happen because the elusiveness rating dice roll that happens behind the scene fails to avoid the animation from even beginning that it treats me like a CPU ball carrier and not a player controlled ball carrier?

---

Yes. I've broken some tackles without doing any truck stick or other input, and it's largely (or maybe solely) been the "elusive" type of breaking tackles. Take a high ELU player and put him back at PR, and I practically guarantee you'll see tackles broken before you even had a chance to react to the hit coming.

Now, if you don't do any user input at all, including left-stick input, then you are a CPU-controlled player, because the CPU takes over until you actually perform input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher 8

Wouldn't that mean that the game then uses the BTK rating to determine if the npc player breaks free from a tackle animation that has already started?

---

No. Simulation versus Gameplay, not NPC vs PC. The control of the player has nothing to do with it. Assuming I'm right about BTK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

No. Simulation versus Gameplay, not NPC vs PC. The control of the player has nothing to do with it. Assuming I'm right about BTK.

---

But you said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

when you take on a tackle without doing input I believe you get treated like a CPU ball carrier. the calculations are still likely done with the same variables and ratings. I don't believe NPC versus PC has largely anything to do with it.

---

So if you're treated like a CPU ball carrier wouldn't that be simulation and hence NPC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cipher 8

So if you're treated like a CPU ball carrier wouldn't that be simulation and hence NPC.

---

Just think of it like this:

If the play happens and you actually see the players, it's gameplay, whether you're controlling the player or not. That's elusiveness.

If the play happens without you seeing it (super sim in game, sim over computer, sim from menu), that's break tackle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Latecomer to this thread. Always glad to see stuff like this, because figuring out under-the-hood ratings issues has always been an interest area of mine. A question: has anyone tried labbing the "BTK not relevant when user is inputting" theory? It would go something like this: you set up a running play against a particular defensive play where your running back is usually isolated against the same one or two defenders. You set up two HB's who are identical except that test HB #1 is rated ELU 1, TRK 1, BTK 99 and test HB #2 is rated ELU 99, TRK 99, BTK 1. Your test defense would be identical as well, and you'd probably want an average defense to work against. Running the same play while usering the HB in the same general manner (with no attempts at spinning/juking/trucking) should give noticeable results that confirm the theory one way or the other (i.e., if BTK truly has no effect while usering the ballcarrier, you will see HB #2 will break significantly more tackles). Anyway, just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jwallace0317

Latecomer to this thread. Always glad to see stuff like this, because figuring out under-the-hood ratings issues has always been an interest area of mine. A question: has anyone tried labbing the "BTK not relevant when user is inputting" theory? It would go something like this: you set up a running play against a particular defensive play where your running back is usually isolated against the same one or two defenders. You set up two HB's who are identical except that test HB #1 is rated ELU 1, TRK 1, BTK 99 and test HB #2 is rated ELU 99, TRK 99, BTK 1. Your test defense would be identical as well, and you'd probably want an average defense to work against. Running the same play while usering the HB in the same general manner (with no attempts at spinning/juking/trucking) should give noticeable results that confirm the theory one way or the other (i.e., if BTK truly has no effect while usering the ballcarrier, you will see HB #2 will break significantly more tackles). Anyway, just a thought.

---

Yeah I think I need to see some testing to see if BTK really doesn't matter during the game when your playing. Not saying I don't believe you Jeff but I just would like confirmation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

Just think of it like this:

If the play happens and you actually see the players, it's gameplay, whether you're controlling the player or not. That's elusiveness.

If the play happens without you seeing it (super sim in game, sim over computer, sim from menu), that's break tackle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The way that I think of it: If there's an animation to trigger, then ELU/TRK matter, due to the fact that the game needs to figure out which animation to play. If there isn't an animation, then the game doesn't need to worry about whether or not the player broke the tackle, they can simply note that he broke a tackle, so BRK is the only stat that matters.

All the other discussion about BRK v. ELU/TRK is somewhat academic, because it assumes that there exist backs with one that is quite high, and the others that are very low. My expectation is, that unless you edit the ratings yourself, if BRK is high, then either TRK or ELU are also going to be high, and we're tilting at windmills here.

I've done some labbing on this, and here's what I can tell so far:

BTK matters when usering the back, clearly. I tested a back with 99 BTK, and 0 TRK and 0 ELU, and without using any special moves or the truck stick, he shed tackles to a significantly high degree.

TRK functions just like SPN and JUK. In other words, the higher the TRK rating, the more effective your "truck moves" will be when you move the right stick forward. Specifically, the higher the TRK rating, the more often you will be able to fall/stumble forward over a defender for a couple extra yards using the truck stick. One confirmation of this, from the inverse perspective, is using a test back with 0 BTK, 99 TRK, and 0 ELU. WITHOUT using the truck stick, this back was pretty much dead meat for any defender trying to tackle him. This confirms for me that the rating, by itself, does nothing unless you're using the truck stick move associated with the rating.

ELU is how "small" the player is. And by small I don't mean physical appearance, I mean how he is perceived as a moving object by defenders. The best way I can analogize this is the difference between asking you to catch a pebble when I toss it to you, compared to a basketball. The higher the ELU, the more the runner is like a pebble, and defenders have to be more precise in addressing the ballcarrier when making a tackle, as opposed to a low ELU meaning that a defender can tackle the ballcarrier even when taking a bad angle to him. This is most apparent when usering the back between the tackles...a back with high ELU is less likely to be gobbled up immediately. How it seems to relate to BTK is this: ELU helps determine whether a defender will be able to initiate physical contact (start a tackle) with the ballcarrier. BTK helps determine whether the defender, if he IS able to start a tackle, will be able to complete it, or whether the ballcarrier will shed him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

I uploaded all of the formulas by position to google docs: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...mc&hl=en#gid=0

---

Rudy, is there a reason you are not including all attributes for each position? I understand that they are fairly insignificant but they do factor into the OVR rating.

For example, here is the formula I came up with for QBs

Code:

---

Overall = - 63.1 + 0.146 Speed - 0.00005 Strength + 0.0321 Agility
          + 0.0327 Acceleration + 0.00100 Jumping + 0.358 Awareness
          - 0.00041 Stamina + 0.0261 Injury + 0.0300 Break Tackle
          + 0.0108 Trucking + 0.0120 Elusiveness + 0.00070 Stiff Arm
          - 0.00273 Spin Move + 0.00609 Juke Move + 0.00013 Carrying
          + 0.00004 Ball Carrier Vision - 0.0021 Run Block
          + 0.00529 Run Block Strength - 0.00544 Run Block Footwork
          + 0.0083 Pass Block - 0.00477 Pass Block Strength
          + 0.00741 Pass Block Footwork - 0.00180 Impact Blocking
          - 0.00757 Catching - 0.00139 Spectacular Catch
          + 0.00491 Catch In Traffic - 0.00157 Route Running + 0.00087 Release
          - 0.00167 Tackle + 0.00040 Hit Power + 0.00136 Pursuit
          - 0.00060 Play Recognition + 0.00110 Power Moves
          - 0.00582 Finesse Moves - 0.00049 Block Shedding
          - 0.00779 Man Coverage + 0.00699 Zone Coverage - 0.00188 Press
          + 0.547 Throw Power + 0.600 Throw Accuracy + 0.0010 Kick Power
          + 0.0033 Kick Accuracy + 0.00059 Return

---

So I ran the numbers for CBs and trying to predict an recruits OVR. The tough part is we don't get all of the attributes for a recruit before they sign, which I don't particularly understand since those attributes are a factor. The formula for CBs is

Code:

---

Overall = - 72.8 + 0.411 Speed + 0.0430 Strength + 0.0809 Agility
          + 0.167 Acceleration + 0.0427 Jumping + 0.0813 Awareness
          - 0.00219 Stamina + 0.0409 Injury + 0.00094 Break Tackle
          + 0.00124 Trucking - 0.00119 Elusiveness - 0.00096 Stiff Arm
          + 0.00045 Spin Move - 0.00019 Juke Move - 0.00070 Carrying
          - 0.00268 Ball Carrier Vision + 0.00460 Run Block
          + 0.00480 Run Block Strength + 0.00055 Run Block Footwork
          + 0.00224 Pass Block - 0.00176 Pass Block Strength
          - 0.00085 Pass Block Footwork - 0.00135 Impact Blocking
          + 0.0394 Catching - 0.00145 Spectacular Catch
          + 0.00085 Catch In Traffic + 0.00260 Route Running - 0.00180 Release
          + 0.0822 Tackle - 0.00043 Hit Power + 0.0798 Pursuit
          + 0.0813 Play Recognition - 0.00169 Power Moves
          + 0.00202 Finesse Moves - 0.00080 Block Shedding + 0.287 Man Coverage
          + 0.288 Zone Coverage + 0.0840 Press + 0.00090 Throw Power
          - 0.00339 Throw Accuracy + 0.00308 Kick Power + 0.00358 Kick Accuracy
          + 0.00004 Return

---

Based on this and using the ratings provided I think we can narrow down a Recruits OVR. I took a 4 star CB with these ratings

Code:

---

Speed        A
Zone Coverage        B+
Man Coverage        B-
Acceleration        A
Press        C+
Tackle        D
Play Recognition        B-
Awareness        D-
Agility        B+
Pursuit        C+
Stength        D
Jumping        B+
Injury        B
Catching        D

---

And applied it to the formula, we should get a low end of 77 and a high end of 83, since all we have is a range of ratings for each letter grade.

I want to test this out a little further on my console to see if #1 I can get more recruit ratings than on the web and #2 sim out a dynasty and see what a recruit comes in at.

seriously..why dont you just ask the guys at EA to tell you how its determined ? I'm not trying to be mean or funny..you have an in-road to these guys..call them up and ask them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram29jackson

seriously..why dont you just ask the guys at EA to tell you how its determined ? I'm not trying to be mean or funny..you have an in-road to these guys..call them up and ask them

---

Well I don't know what in road you are talking about but I would love to have it. :)

You shouldn't include insignificant variables. If they don't pass the 95% test (fairly standard) and have a t-value of 1.96 or more (with this number of samples) then they shouldn't be included. Furthermore a good analyst will look at the results and determine if the borderline variables are functioning properly. For example, does it make any sense for a QB to LOSE points as his stamina or spin move goes up? That formula says it does because you have included insignificant variables (some may be borderline and even included) and the results, while very minimal, make no sense. From all the tests I ran I included all variables and you could see fairly easily which ones were very significant and designed to be included from the nominal variables (like block shedding for a QB). I excluded the insignificant ones and only used the significant ones. To do otherwise would be a mistake imo. Remember, the computer is a whore for stats and if it can find any pattern to help minimize the errors it will, even if they don't make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Rudy, is there a reason you are not including all attributes for each position? I understand that they are fairly insignificant but they do factor into the OVR rating.

For example, here is the formula I came up with for QBs

Code:

---

Overall = - 63.1 + 0.146 Speed - 0.00005 Strength + 0.0321 Agility
          + 0.0327 Acceleration + 0.00100 Jumping + 0.358 Awareness
          - 0.00041 Stamina + 0.0261 Injury + 0.0300 Break Tackle
          + 0.0108 Trucking + 0.0120 Elusiveness + 0.00070 Stiff Arm
          - 0.00273 Spin Move + 0.00609 Juke Move + 0.00013 Carrying
          + 0.00004 Ball Carrier Vision - 0.0021 Run Block
          + 0.00529 Run Block Strength - 0.00544 Run Block Footwork
          + 0.0083 Pass Block - 0.00477 Pass Block Strength
          + 0.00741 Pass Block Footwork - 0.00180 Impact Blocking
          - 0.00757 Catching - 0.00139 Spectacular Catch
          + 0.00491 Catch In Traffic - 0.00157 Route Running + 0.00087 Release
          - 0.00167 Tackle + 0.00040 Hit Power + 0.00136 Pursuit
          - 0.00060 Play Recognition + 0.00110 Power Moves
          - 0.00582 Finesse Moves - 0.00049 Block Shedding
          - 0.00779 Man Coverage + 0.00699 Zone Coverage - 0.00188 Press
          + 0.547 Throw Power + 0.600 Throw Accuracy + 0.0010 Kick Power
          + 0.0033 Kick Accuracy + 0.00059 Return

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ram29jackson

seriously..why dont you just ask the guys at EA to tell you how its determined ? I'm not trying to be mean or funny..you have an in-road to these guys..call them up and ask them

---

As far as I understand it, the request has been made several times over the years. This is the kind of information that companies like EA like to keep close to the vest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

You shouldn't include insignificant variables.

---

Correct. Plus, anytime you see repeated patterns of +.05 then -.05, or something along those lines, you can relatively guarantee that those aren't really factors in OVR. That's just the regression seeing a connection between two actually-independent variables, then balancing it out the other way.

Or, another factor to consider, why in the world would they say that a QB's rating was negatively impacted by higher ratings in an individual rating.

yeah I understand what you guys are saying, but I don't completely agree. If we were truly trying to "predict" which variables had an affect on OVR then yes those insignificant variables would be disregarded.

However I think those other variables are definitely part of the formula so should be included. My rationale is, if they are not in the formula... why are they there. I would understand having them there as a placeholder so to speak since those variables are used in for other positions and not specific to each position, but why give them random ratings. Why is CBs spin move 83 if it's not factored into his OVR.

The other thing that I noticed is that there are 2 variables that are not included in any of the formulas the Rudy did. Return and Stamina. Return makes sense but Stamina?

But psu, does it make sense to include a variable in the formula that is completely contradictory to value? Like a better spin move resulting in a lower overall rating? That just makes no sense and is completely wrong in a regression analysis.

The point of the exercise wasn't to come up with a new formula and create a way to say how good a player is at each position. The point was to determine what variables EA is using to get that overall rating. It's up to you then to determine how much that overall means to you. For example, I believe guards are graded higher for run block than pass block. If you are a pass happy Air Raid team you might want to overlook the overall rating in this case. Very clearly EA uses specific variables for specific positions. To use all ratings for every position is simply wrong. It would be the same as using the number of the player or his name. They shouldn't be correlated and even if there was a slight correlation we wouldn't bother including it.

Rudy, I completely agree with you, I'm not saying what you are doing it is wrong. If I'm trying to determine which factors make my crops grow better and I find that timing between fertilizing has an insignificant effect, I'm not factoring that into my equation. However I for some reason feel EA is using all variables though, even though it may not make sense... gut feeling.

I tried to find some players that have identical "significant" ratings. That was kinda difficult. I did find something though that may help my case. 2 Kickers with identical KAC and KPW ratings. 84 and 84. Their awareness is 50 and 80 respectively. Based on your formula they should come out to be 82 and 84, when actually their ratings are 83 and 84. Yes it's a small difference but I think that it does show that their are some other factors coming into place.

I ran them with all variables included and got 83 and 84. In the grand scheme of things does it really make any difference, probably not, but I just have a feeling that they are using all variables.

Well I was wrong, my damn gut anyway. EA does it right

By the way, that 197-198 pound run stopping DE was the #11 DE in the country and a 4* player. Just looked him up the other day.

So here's how I proved myself wrong :D. I created a player with the exact same ratings as a current player on the default roster, then I ran all of the non significant attributes from Rudy's equations up to 99. The OVR stayed the same which would lead us to the fact that, yes only certain attributes are in the OVR equation.

I think the reason the overalls are off on some guys (1 point max) is due to the way they round the calculations and/or some other ratings that might seem insignificant but could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

So here's how I proved myself wrong :D. I created a player with the exact same ratings as a current player on the default roster, then I ran all of the non significant attributes from Rudy's equations up to 99. The OVR stayed the same which would lead us to the fact that, yes only certain attributes are in the OVR equation.

---

i'm just saying that I noticed that years ago.. I dont care or know what the significance is, just saying I noticed it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

yeah I understand what you guys are saying, but I don't completely agree. If we were truly trying to "predict" which variables had an affect on OVR then yes those insignificant variables would be disregarded.

---

That is what I was trying to predict ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

I think the reason the overalls are off on some guys (1 point max) is due to the way they round the calculations and/or some other ratings that might seem insignificant but could be.

---

This is true. One thing I know they do is cut off the OVR rating at 99 (i.e. some players are actually higher than 99, but the game displays 99) and, I believe, 40. The other thing I know is done is rounding.

Interesting thread. Has anyone devised a method (aside from Jeff) to derive Trucking, Elusiveness, Spin Move attributes based on actual player characteristics (i.e. HT, WT, 40 time, etc.) or actual stats (yards/carry, TD/carry, etc.)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nmccauley

Interesting thread. Has anyone devised a method (aside from Jeff) to derive Trucking, Elusiveness, Spin Move attributes based on actual player characteristics (i.e. HT, WT, 40 time, etc.) or actual stats (yards/carry, TD/carry, etc.)?

---

As far as I'm aware, no. And it's tough to characterize my method as deriving it either. I derive some, but not much. I'm hoping to change that in the future, but haven't had time yet.

The only other people I know that are looking into this kind of stuff are Playmakers (on OperationSports) and MattUM2. I know Playmakers makes his historic teams by finding a contemporary comparison for a historic player. I'm not fully up to speed on how Matt comes up with his numbers.

maybe i missed it, but where do you get the numbers to plug into the calculations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twookool

maybe i missed it, but where do you get the numbers to plug into the calculations?

---

They come from a player's individual ratings. SPD, AGI, THP, etc. You could also use this to estimate a recruit's incoming OVR (which is part of what PocketScout has done), by first converting the B+ and C- ratings to numbers.

The real meat of this regression isn't to find out an individual's OVR -- that's already there by a simple glance at the roster. It's what goes into that calculation that was interesting.

If someone wanted to get really sophisticated, they could now take something like what Rudy's done and modify it to their own liking. Essentially re-calculation the OVR ratings for their players. Think Play Recognition is more important for a defensive player than Block Shedding? Easy change.

Good info here!!

Thanks for the reminder, Sigma. I really need to get back into this again. There's a few things I wanted to do but never had a chance to put together.

Yeah, thanks sigma. This was the first time I've read this thread, and there is a lot of great info in here. Jeff, while reading this thread, I was thinking exactly what you're suggesting. By being able to download my OD rosters, I could easily change the formula to weigh the attributes that I find important for a user controlled OVR, and set my lineup based on my own calculations, rather than sifting through all of the attributes. It will also help greatly with identifying my type of players in recruiting.

Excellent thread topic! I may run a test when I get home tonight, but does anyone know if Rudy's calculation is accurate for NCAA12?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBI

does anyone know if Rudy's calculation is accurate for NCAA12?

---

I didn't really ask directly while I was at the Community Day events last season, but ratings did come up several times in conversations between me and a couple devs that we were working on rosters/ratings. What I got out of those conversations was that there was a slight change to how a WR's overall was being calculated, but not significant.

I can't make any such prediction about 13 though.

I definitely think my year 3 FAU team is the better for me stumbling across this old thread. I think AWR should be more important (I play coach mode) but I understand why it's not because the user is the AWR for the players. Then again, what about the CPU controlled opponent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The user's AWR really only takes the place of the QB (or HB on a running play) and the defender you choose to control. AWR does factor in to other players, IMO.

I think AWR is as important as it should be. As it stands now, you can't have a super OVR if you have high AWR but lack the physical skills. But you can be at least decent OVR if you have the physical skills but lack AWR. That's true for real football too ... you'll usually play a gifted player, who may make some mistakes, over the guy that understands the Xs and Os but that can't keep up with those around him.

But for you, since your playing CM, you should probably prioritize AWR when you're comparing your QBs. Shouldn't make much difference for how you assess other players though.

That's the funny thing ... All of my QBs AWR is sub 70 but the kid with the highest THA performs the best of the 3. I just suffered through 2-3 games without my starting QB and went 2-1. In those 3 games my backs definitely shouldered the load to give us a chance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk