Question for the Roster Makers/Updaters/Editors

[JayoD]

I just wanted an opinion from all you Roster people...most notably Rickster101 and Flipmo23...since I respect your opinions.

How would you approach the editing when players move up and down the Depth Chart? Let's say a 2nd string OLB outplays the starter who may have had a down year or just simply got outplayed? How would you edit their ratings accordingly?

Anyways...thanks in advance. I'm looking forward to y'all opinions on this.

[Flipmo23]

I wouldn't change it at all, especially if you're talking about overall ratings. I've played 11 seasons with 4 friends in franchise, and the one thing we all have come to realize is that in this game, some players just play better than others regardless of overall. Whether it's certain attributes like consistency or composure, the overall rating never tells the whole story.

With that said, if you MUST change their ratings to reflect starter status, I guess you could go with composure/consistency/leadership. Consistency in particular makes the biggest difference in overall rating.

What I absolutely do NOT believe in is changing ratings that shouldn't be changed, i.e. making a player faster than he should be. Is it fair for me to speed up Larry Johnson just because he became the starter? I mean, his speed rating was based on his 40-time, so he shouldn't be any faster in the game than he is in real life. Stuff like that, I try to avoid because it throws off the balance of the game more than you think.

In the OSCD roster for example, we compensated for this by increasing all the composure/leadership/consistency ratings for the top players. Look across the board at all the leaders of every team, and you'll see they have really ratings in these areas.

But I personally do not believe that players with higher overall ratings are always better, since any long time player knows that it's just not true. So really, I focus more on editing players so that they play like their real life counterparts, not just so they are comparatively on point. That usually leads to an unbalanced roster full of biased ratings.

[SwayGod53]

Over the 100's of hours I've put into 2k5, I have a small piece of advice. If you are going through a sim franchise (simulating the games), you are going to have greater success with higher rated players. If you notice when you start a game it has your team overall, offense, and defense, having an ILB starter who is 90 and a starter that is an 80 will affect your overall tremendously. Also the leadership factor. Obviously 2K took into account making teammates with a high leadership play better, so if you have a 90 ILB with 95 LDR (i.e Ray Lewis) your D is going to play good defense. There is alot that goes into it, but all in all, if you are just simming games you will have better success having the highest rated player starting. If you play the games you will see who you like and who you don't like. I had a better rated tight end starting, and I was playing the games, this tight end, I forget his name, was dropping everything. I put in my backup because he was a better WR, which I like to involve my TE's in the the passing scheme, and I was happy with the results. Everyone's different. Just have fun with it.

[JayoD]

Quote: Originally Posted by Flipmo23

I wouldn't change it at all, especially if you're talking about overall ratings. I've played 11 seasons with 4 friends in franchise, and the one thing we all have come to realize is that in this game, some players just play better than others regardless of overall. Whether it's certain attributes like consistency or composure, the overall rating never tells the whole story. With that said, if you MUST change their ratings to reflect starter status, I guess you could go with composure/consistency/leadership. Consistency in particular makes the biggest difference in overall rating. What I absolutely do NOT believe in is changing ratings that shouldn't be changed, i.e. making a player faster than he should be. Is it fair for me to speed up Larry Johnson just because he became the starter? I mean, his speed rating was based on his 40-time, so he shouldn't be any faster in the game than he is in real life. Stuff like that, I try to avoid because it throws off the balance of the game more than you think. In the OSCD roster for example, we compensated for this by increasing all the composure/leadership/consistency ratings for the top players. Look across the board at all the leaders of every team, and you'll see they have really ratings in these areas. But I personally do not believe that players with higher overall ratings are always better, since any long time player knows that it's just not true. So really, I focus more on editing players so that they play like their real life counterparts, not just so they are comparatively on point. That usually leads to an unbalanced roster full of biased ratings.

I see what you mean. Although, there's a natural progression from one season to another. Off season is actually the time where players get better. They train to get stronger and faster...and just learning the nuances of the position makes them better.

I'll go with the consistency slider tho...although in some instances...like in OLB Shawne Merriman's case for example. He didn't sit idle all summer. He went through an intense workout regimen. The coaching staff and anyone who's seen the little mini-camps and offseason coaching sessions...have commented on how low his bodyfat is compared to last season
(his weight seems to be the same). As a result of all that...he's stronger and faster than ever.

It's actually a tricky situation tho... I mean should I change his strength and speed? And how much should I change it? Another example is C Nick Hardwick...he packed on 30 lbs of muscle in order to match up with the bigger DTs. His strength should be improved but did the extra weight decrease his quickness? It's just an example cuz it was reported he didn't lose any of his speed. I was just throwing it out there.

Anyways...good post Flipmo23. I agree with not changing attributes to reflect their positioning on the depth chart. I think the biggest obstacle is the change in their ratings just by them learning the position and the game overall. I mean...players improve all the time. They improve their tackling...they improve their coverage...they improve runing routes....they even increase their arm strength. The problem is how would you incorporate that into the roster edits?

[Rickster101]

Quote: Originally Posted by Flipmo23

I wouldn't change it at all, especially if you're talking about overall ratings. I've played 11 seasons with 4 friends in franchise, and the one thing we all have come to realize is that in this game, some players just play better than others regardless of overall. Whether it's certain attributes like consistency or composure, the overall rating never tells the whole story. With that said, if you MUST change their ratings to reflect starter status, I guess you could go with composure/consistency/leadership. Consistency in particular makes the biggest difference in overall rating. What I absolutely do NOT believe in is changing ratings that shouldn't be changed, i.e. making a player faster than he should be. Is it fair for me to speed up Larry Johnson just because he became the starter? I mean, his speed rating was based on his 40-time, so he shouldn't be any faster in the game than he is in real life. Stuff like that, I try to avoid because it throws off the balance of the game more than you think. In the OSCD roster for example, we compensated for this by increasing all the composure/leadership/consistency ratings for the top players. Look across the board at all the leaders of every team, and you'll see they have really ratings in these areas. But I personally do not believe that players with higher overall ratings are always better, since any long time player knows that it's just not true. So really, I focus more on editing players so that they play like their real life counterparts, not just so they are comparatively on point. That usually leads to an unbalanced roster full of biased ratings.

Basically I pretty much agree with my partner here, this is pretty much something we talked about sometime ago when getting the details and "STANDARDS" set up going into the OSCD series and we've pretty much stayed on course with the project keeping this inmind.

I gotta say though it wasn't easy at first after looking at the "DA" set-up we were using some of the outcomes were really, really strange when first looked at but when looking further into the details and breakdowns especially for the rookies we didn't expect the numbers to add up the way they did but they in fact were true to what we concidered an actual make up for the player down to the finest details as close as we researched them and the results have lead to the final roster releases since then keeping consistent and true to the rosters Integrity ever since so for that matter the system we used seems to be working just fine but keep inmind this roster is built with Franchise play inmind and left with room for growth aimed particularly for the rookies when if used properly should progress as their playing experiences grow along with the USERS expeirence using them.

Now if they were just for exhibition or random play then perhaps we might have chosen a different set-up as in a "Play Now" sitution but whats the fun in that having it already given to you with exaggerated numbers that aren't true to the rosters Integrety, we try to keep it fair and honest presenting them as they should be refecting rookies and vet players to work uniformly and keep the rosters fair and with room for growth.

Probably the best way to see these changes would be in seeing them improve in the Franchise mode and make changes as you see them on the bases of their performances but thats something the USER would have to pay attention to and make moves based on how he handles his personel sometime you just gotta know whoes doing what and keep an eye on whoes making those improvements that might lead to to starting rools later on or if improvements merit a change in lineup.

I gotta admitt though since camps are still buzzing and players work out alot of surprises might pop up so I'd like to keep a somewhat open mind myself due to the fact alot is still unknown and sometimes the number don't reflect the actual outcome so again I'm still somewhat open minded until the final results are in as in what happens after the camps are over and the players actually perform on the Gridiron...you never know sometimes things can and do change but for the most part I'm in agreence with what we've been doing so far but again sometime you just don't know things do change I think you can understand what we're sayin' here JayoD you pretty much seem to be well informed and on top of things.





Holla Back ya'll
Rickster101 aka "Jack Bauer"

[JayoD]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rickster101

Basically I pretty much agree with my partner here, this is pretty much something we talked about sometime ago when getting the details and "STANDARDS" set up going into the OSCD series and we've pretty much stayed on course with the project keeping this inmind. I gotta say though it wasn't easy at first after looking at the "DA" set-up we were using some of the outcomes were really, really strange when first looked at but when looking further into the details and breakdowns especially for the rookies we didn't expect the numbers to add up the way they did but they in fact were true to what we concidered an actual make up for the player down to the finest details as close as we researched them and the results have lead to the final roster releases since then keeping consistent and true to the rosters Integrity ever since so for that matter the system we used seems to be working just fine but keep inmind this roster is built with Franchise play inmind and left with room for growth aimed particularly for the rookies when if used properly should progress as their playing experiences grow along with the USERS expeirence using them. Now if they were just for exhibition or random play then perhaps we might have chosen a different set-up as in a "Play Now" sitution but whats the fun in that having it already given to you with exaggerated numbers that aren't true to the rosters Integrety, we try to keep it fair and honest presenting them as they should be refecting rookies and vet players to work uniformly and keep the rosters fair and with room for growth. Probably the best way to see these changes would be in seeing them improve in the Franchise mode and make changes as you see them on the bases of their performances but thats something the USER would have to pay attention to and make moves based on how he handles his personel sometime you just gotta know whoes doing what and keep an eye on whoes making those improvements that might lead to to starting rools later on or if improvements merit a change in lineup. I gotta admitt though since camps are still buzzing and players work out alot of surprises might pop up so I'd like to keep a somewhat open mind myself due to the fact alot is still unknown and sometimes the number don't reflect the actual outcome so again I'm still somewhat open minded until the final results are in as in what happens after the camps are over and the players actually perform on the Gridiron...you never know sometimes things can and do change but for the most part I'm in agreence with what we've been doing so far but again sometime you just don't know things do change I think you can understand what we're sayin' here JayoD you pretty much seem to be well informed and on top of things. Holla Back ya'll Rickster101 aka "Jack Bauer"

Yeah, I definitely get where both you and Flipmo23 are coming from. I also understand that you've devised your standard of setting up the ratings and are sticking to them. Very admirable.

How did ya'll handle last year's rookies tho? How did you guys make them "progress" if at all?

[Flipmo23]

The non-rookies were handled on a case by case basis. Basically, players that had great years were updated to reflect a better player. Also, as mentioned before, on a position by position basis we made the stars shine even more through tinkering with their consistency, leadership, and composure. This is especially true for the star QBs, though it is also apparent at the corner position (just look at the Champ, or McAlister on the Ravens). We also made the gap between a star RB and a not so good RB larger.

Some players had minor changes, such as certain players that need to play more than one position, i.e. Seahawk's QB Seneca Wallace playing WR, same with Marcus Vick.

So basically the rookie ratings were based on the formula in conjunction with the NFL Draft Analyzer mentioned in the original thread, while the veteran ratings were based mostly on performance since that's all we had to judge them on.