The EA guys seem to be "dodging" ratings questions.

[Dynamite]

I agree with AA, there needs to be some kind of understanding as to how a player/team is rated, and what factors go into giving someone a 99 as opposed to a 95, or a team Defense rating of 79 as opposed to 81...the minute differences are the ones that get me. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between a 99 and a 98, or a 65 and a 66, so I want to know what goes into the process.

Quote: Originally Posted by NC State-31 UNC-27

Obviously, the ratings for each individual player are based on their athletic ability and talent. In your FSU example for instance.....92 rated offense seems high for a team that has struggled a lot the last few years. But honestly, individually their talents should make for a good group. EA can't incorporate coaching into a teams rating so it is what it is. Good athletes and highly recruited players make for highly rated individual players and thus a highly rated offense or defense. You can't dumb down the players individual abilities because their coaches are inept in real life. Also why Wake Forest looks underrated in the game. They play very well as a unit and are extremely well coached. But their players just aren't THAT talented and thus their ratings are lower than their production on the field suggests it should be. It's easy to figure out.

Well said

[Brandwin]

That's why I don't complain about ratings. I just deal with what they have a move on. After a year or two of playing it doesn't really matter. One person might think this player is rated too high while the other thinks its just right and someone else thinks its too low.

Editing them is just a waste of time as well. Everyone has different opinions. Its much easier just going by with what EA gives us.

Can't please everyone.

[ODogg]

Quote: Originally Posted by DookieMowf

That's why I don't complain about ratings. I just deal with what they have a move on. After a year or two of playing it doesn't really matter. One person might think this player is rated too high while the other thinks its just right and someone else thinks its too low. Editing them is just a waste of time as well. Everyone has different opinions. Its much easier just going by with what EA gives us. Can't please everyone.

Yeah, unless someone is drastically off, like by 20 points, it's stupid. I remember the first year James Laurenitis played, he was rated a 59 or 63 or something overall but it was not EA's fault. No one knew jack squat about him until Hawk and Carpenter left. I just had to suffer online. For offline I moved him up to an 88 or so. Now that we can edit rosters for our online dynasty that is really what matters. If we couldn't edit the default rosters for that we'd have a real issue IMO.

[jfsolo]

Quote: Originally Posted by MacPlex

Like many have said. If you guys look at the rosters and then go back and look at the Off, DEF and OVR ratings they dont represent the avgs of the teams. Stop complaining they're just place holders or numbers if you will.All 99's just means you come half-stepin when you play us you're going to get blown out.

What this gentleman said.

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

Have they rated some players too high or too low? Have their depth charts had mistakes? Sure. But the game has 120 teams X 70 players. That's 8400 players if every roster is maxed out. That's a lot of work. Sure EA could allocate a ton of guys to perfect rosters but most people that buy the game are oblivious to mistakes anyways. They only complain about "their" team if that. As people get into dynasty mode, current roster sets quickly become meaningless as well. You are one of very few hardcore fans that has the knowledge and desire to pick apart every major roster in the game. Since you can edit the rosters yourself, its not that big a deal. It would be awfully nice if they could release a PC editor to make it easier but I think this issue is being blown out of proportion. Lastly, who cares if OSU or Georgia are rated 99? That's only two teams given the highest overall score. Only a few other teams are even rated 99 in any one category. Its a relative score that DOES NOT mean they are perfect. One just has to look at the ratings of their individual players which indicates strengths and weaknesses. Even the greatest offenses and defenses of all time had weaker areas than others. Should the ceiling on team grades be a 90 or 95? What difference would that even make since its all relative anyways? The EA guys DID say that the overall score is weighted and certain positions (like QB on offense) affect the score more than others making some team's ratings seem overrated. They also said they are looking into how they do rosters and how they might improve them. They might even use OS to help in this area. Who knows? But I don't think they have really dodged the questions that much because there is no right answer or perfect solution.

And this guy as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by DookieMowf

That's why I don't complain about ratings. I just deal with what they have a move on. After a year or two of playing it doesn't really matter. One person might think this player is rated too high while the other thinks its just right and someone else thinks its too low. Editing them is just a waste of time as well. Everyone has different opinions. Its much easier just going by with what EA gives us. Can't please everyone.

I use to be one of those ratings obsessed people who would rail against the default numbers, and spend weeks re-rating all the teams in all the various different sports games.

Then I stopped trying to get my leagues to exactly mirror reality and instead let them have a life of their own, so to speak. Things became less "stressful", and more enjoyable.

[nxt]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

What this gentleman said. And this guy as well. I use to be one of those ratings obsessed people who would rail against the default numbers, and spend weeks re-rating all the teams in all the various different sports games. Then I stopped trying to get my leagues to exactly mirror reality and instead let them have a life of their own, so to speak. Things became less "stressful", and more enjoyable.

I agree with your agreement. Ratings are subjective... just like the preseason polls. I wouldn't stress too much over it. Just like every year, if we don't agree with them, we can edit them to our own personal liking. No biggie. I dunno, maybe I'd be more up in arms if we did not have the ability to edit them.

[AuburnAlumni]

Well gee....

I'm glad that Ohio State fans like rudy and ODogg don't "stress" over how their team is rated.

I just want to know the PROCESS. That's it. That's all. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS YEARS RATINGS. I'm wanting to know how they rate the teams every year. The process, the team of researchers, etc. However they do it.

So please...all of the guys jumping in here to say that their lives are in a much better place, they've found God, etc. all due to not "worrying" about the rosters....awesome. I'm happy for ya. Seriously.

All guys like me and Stewaat want to know is HOW EA has gone about rating them. That's all. I'm curious as hell and want to know and the fact that it seems to be the most secretive subject of all just amps up my curiosity 100x fold.

I do think it's funny that folks think they are just "place holders". Sure they are....yet I rarely see folks picking Arkansas State or Northwestern when they play in online leagues or in games online against their buddies. They usually are picking Florida, or Texas, or Ohio State. I wonder why that is?

This whole thread, as many OS threads do, got waaaaaaaaaaay too "deep" instead of letting it be what it was...an inquiry as to what the ratings department at EA is, how they go about researching, etc.

It's the same as the Stadium Sounds section of the game.
It's the same as the Graphics department.
It's the same as the Gameplay department.

It's an aspect of the game and an important one at that. If you can't understand the curiosity other than thinking it's all about "complaining" about a guy's ratings then I don't know what to tell you. I guess folks just don't "get it" and I'll just give up and say nevermind.

EA does not put the time/effort into rosters that I and select other OS'ers would like them to but they are not obligated to do so. The problem I have is the blatant mistakes that should be corrected. I am not worried about the players not having "perfect" ratings but it's the extreme cases which should be caught.

Sam Young of Notre Dame is rated a 94 and labeled a pre-season All-American. He is a right tackle who was on one of the worst offensive lines in the history of football last year. ND had the worst offense in the country and it wasn't close. Why this year is the o-line rated as such: 87, 81, 83, 85, 94?

Other pet peeves are inaccurate depth charts with players listed as starting who aren't even on the team and rating starters very low and placing them at the bottom of the depth chart.

I don't see any reason EA can't go in and update rosters before they ship the game out.

Just my opinion.




And YES these ratings have a HUGE IMPACT during on-line games. For one thing if your favorite school has a decent starting QB this season but he's rated very low and 3rd string then what do you do?