Kudos to EA for making concious effort to space out roster ratings.

[AuburnAlumni]

This is a welcome addition that not a lot of folks seem to have noticed when looking at the vids.

Even teams like Bama, etc. who are rated Top 5 in the game have backups that are more in the 75-79 range. Very refreshing to see this. Top rated players at certain positions are in the 92-94 range and not 99s. Excellent.

We all know how the old USC/Florida/Florida State rosters back in the day would have the 3rd string TE rated as an 88 overall.


Now obviously, the actual individual player ratings of many guys are a bit off, but that's not the point. Taken as a whole, I'm seeing a much broader range being used.


My only question is this. Will the CPU generated players be on the same level as the initial roster set? By that I mean...looking at some of the top rated true freshman in the game, such as Florida's Jeff Driskell and Auburn's Kiehl Frazier..both regarded as blue chip, Top 5 QBs....are 75 and 72 respectively. I have no problem with that at all. However, after year 1......will the CPU generated Top 5 QBs be rated in the mid 80s?

I'm hoping that since the initial roster ratings are lowered and more spread out, this falls in line with how the CPU generated recruits are created.

Our Online Dynasty group already plans on simming a few seasons to get a gauge on how the top true freshmen are rated.

If CPU generated recruits are still coming in at 80+, we'll go back through the initial roster set and rerate the top 2011 Freshmen accordingly.


But overall...well done EA. Thank you for using a wider range initially.

[schumj]

Couldn't agree more. I think people are freaking out about missing players and stuff and sure there is a lot of work to make the rosters, but I like that the ratings are better spread out and will take that over good rosters where you have to re-do so many ratings.

[Wildcats302]

Quote: Originally Posted by AuburnAlumni

This is a welcome addition that not a lot of folks seem to have noticed when looking at the vids. Even teams like Bama, etc. who are rated Top 5 in the game have backups that are more in the 75-79 range. Very refreshing to see this. Top rated players at certain positions are in the 92-94 range and not 99s. Excellent. We all know how the old USC/Florida/Florida State rosters back in the day would have the 3rd string TE rated as an 88 overall. Now obviously, the actual individual player ratings of many guys are a bit off, but that's not the point. Taken as a whole, I'm seeing a much broader range being used. My only question is this. Will the CPU generated players be on the same level as the initial roster set? By that I mean...looking at some of the top rated true freshman in the game, such as Florida's Jeff Driskell and Auburn's Kiehl Frazier..both regarded as blue chip, Top 5 QBs....are 75 and 72 respectively. I have no problem with that at all. However, after year 1......will the CPU generated Top 5 QBs be rated in the mid 80s? I'm hoping that since the initial roster ratings are lowered and more spread out, this falls in line with how the CPU generated recruits are created. Our Online Dynasty group already plans on simming a few seasons to get a gauge on how the top true freshmen are rated. If CPU generated recruits are still coming in at 80+, we'll go back through the initial roster set and rerate the top 2011 Freshmen accordingly. But overall...well done EA. Thank you for using a wider range initially.

Do you think we should ask the poster who has been posting so many vids of ratings, gameplay, etc, to test this out over a couple of years of dynasty in regards to incoming recruit ratings? Just a thought.

I agree with you, I like the stretched out ratings. I'm definitely going to be redshirting most of my backups that I legally can at Kentucky lol gonna take a while to build them up with our backups all in the 60s, but that makes it all the more fun when I do.

[illwill10]

I really like that ratings are spread out. I was planing on lowering OVRs anyway, so it saves a ton of time. Hopefully Roster makers dont improve ratings anymore. 86+ Seem to be the studs now.
Last year John Brantley would have been 90. This year a 80. I am loving it. Besides a few 90+ players, I wont have to really mess with Overalls. But I will mess with some ratings like ACC, Pursuit, BCV, AGI, PRC, and Jump

[SeaOfRed75]

This is great if

1) as stated, new recruits on average are rated similarly
2) progression is done so some of these top recruits are 94-95 by their junior or senior year
3) player ratings matter more especially on the line

lastly, I noticed a couple juco's on Nebraska's roster at least are rated too low. Hopefully this does not mean they reverted to the mistake they made in earlier versions of the game with jucos rated FAR too low. Jucos are immediate impact guys EA.

[illwill10]

Quote: Originally Posted by SeaOfRed75

This is great if 1) as stated, new recruits on average are rated similarly 2) progression is done so some of these top recruits are 94-95 by their junior or senior year 3) player ratings matter more especially on the line lastly, I noticed a couple juco's on Nebraska's roster at least are rated too low. Hopefully this does not mean they reverted to the mistake they made in earlier versions of the game with jucos rated FAR too low. Jucos are immediate impact guys EA.

I think that is the reason why ratings were stretched. I dont think recruits ovrs were changed much, so they wanted to streched out roster

[jwinslow]

They really took a big step forward with these ratings. There are some curveballs (Ohio St's walkon OL, Donnie Evege at 87 ovr, Jordan Kovacs at 89 ovr, lol), but by and large this is pretty encouraging.

Now we need to see if the first year recruits dwarf the lowly rated underclassmen.

[jfsolo]

Quote: Originally Posted by SeaOfRed75

This is great if 1) as stated, new recruits on average are rated similarly 2) progression is done so some of these top recruits are 94-95 by their junior or senior year 3) player ratings matter more especially on the line lastly, I noticed a couple juco's on Nebraska's roster at least are rated too low. Hopefully this does not mean they reverted to the mistake they made in earlier versions of the game with jucos rated FAR too low. Jucos are immediate impact guys EA.

Its always a guessing game. Sometimes you'll have a Lavonte David or a Dejon Gomes who blow up, and sometimes you'll have a Kenny Wilson or a Tyrell Spain who don't pan out.