IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking?

[DCEBB2001]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

I can 100% assure you that you're wrong,moving on...

I will cite a phone interview I had with 6 developers (including Donny Moore) back in the summer of 2011. I was interviewing for a position on the team after my ratings website was recommended to one of the managers on the Madden team at EA/Tiburon.

Donny Moore directly asked me how I would handle "a suit in management telling you to change a player's rating, even if you know that the new rating would be inaccurate." He used Larry Fitzgerald as the example.

Since, I don't work for EA, you can guess as to what my answer was.

That was the sticking point for me. They are not interested in getting accurate ratings into their game. They began by saying how impressed they were with my site and how they wanted that data to be a part of it. However, I basically told them that I would not compromise my system, a system that I believe in, simply because management would tell me to change it. That is wrong.

If there is any ethical and/or moral high-ground to be had in rating players accurately, EA seems to not be interested.

[Skyboxer]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

I wasn't really talking about playing h2h, I don't really even do that unless it's in tournaments, I'm not a tournament player, I play sim even in tournaments, but anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of offline CFM. IF CFM is better this year than last year overall and easier to navigate, and the gameplay & presentation feels fresh and realistic, that's enough for me to put up with a less expansive CFM for M16. So would that be enough for you guys?

JP I appreciate your enthusiasm and in the end I know I'll enjoy the game for what it brings but yet still see all the missed opportunities.

What I don't think you realize or sense with most of us (Brought on by the "would it be enough" question...)
Is we've been "settling" for 10 years.
Madden has moved at less than a snails pace as far as taking Madden to higher levels.
It's not that we don't know Kolbe etc.. work hard
It's not that we don't realize they have a certain audience

It's the fact that games made over 10 years ago had/have more depth etc that Madden has now.
EA having the NFL license has done 0 to give us a more NFL experience.
On the grand scheme of things it's done the opposite and that's leave us with no options and again "settling" year after year...

[jpdavis82]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

I will cite a phone interview I had with 6 developers (including Donny Moore) back in the summer of 2011. I was interviewing for a position on the team after my ratings website was recommended to one of the managers on the Madden team at EA/Tiburon.

Donny Moore directly asked me how I would handle "a suit in management telling you to change a player's rating, even if you know that the new rating would be inaccurate." He used Larry Fitzgerald as the example.

Since, I don't work for EA, you can guess as to what my answer was.

That was the sticking point for me. They are not interested in getting accurate ratings into their game. They began by saying how impressed they were with my site and how they wanted that data to be a part of it. However, I basically told them that I would not compromise my system, a system that I believe in, simply because management would tell me to change it. That is wrong.

If there is any ethical and/or moral high-ground to be had in rating players accurately, EA seems to not be interested.

Ok, but that was 2011, the leadership and developers relationship is a little different now, that's well known information.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

Ok, but that was 2011, the leadership and developers relationship is a little different now, that's well known information.

LOL! The data distribution of the ratings hasn't deviated since Madden 10! That was the last time they "tried" to stretch the ratings out. They even made it a sticking point to buying the freakin' game that year! Then, they reverted back to their old, over-inflated, ways in 2011; not to be changed since.

The data backs this up. Just pull up every roster file for each year, pre-release, and you will see the differences between 2010 and 2011-2015. Then, you will see how similar 2011-2015 are. Make sure you look at the distribution of the ratings as well and the ever important standard deviation.

I pose this hypothetical question: If EA interviewed me in late August of 2011 to incorporate my ratings into their game by making me a member of their staff (a hint at them wanting to CHANGE their rating system), then why have they not changed the ways in which players are rated in the time since? If they REALLY wanted to make the game better via more accurate ratings (as they told me my ratings would do for them), then why haven't they changed them by now?

THAT seems to be the most potentially damning evidence of all...not what EA has done in this regard, but what they HAVEN'T done, having had ample opportunity to make the game better using more accurate ratings.

[SmashMan]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

Ok, but that was 2011, the leadership and developers relationship is a little different now, that's well known information.

That doesn't mean that Madden's ratings aren't still set with marketing and player ego as the primary concern.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

That doesn't mean that Madden's ratings aren't still set with marketing and player ego as the primary concern.

EXACTLY! They showed real interest and a real attempt in 2011 and I was flattered to be the subject of such change. However, what have they done in the years since? They were interested in 2011, didn't get what they wanted, and instead of making changes on their own, they stayed with the status quo? If they were interested in making the game more accurate for ratings in particular, but the overall gameplay in general, they would have done so by now!

Let's all stop kidding ourselves - EA is NOT interested in going all-out to make a better game for us. Their snail's pace for change in such a simple, yet important, part of the game is valid evidence.

[jpdavis82]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

LOL! The data distribution of the ratings hasn't deviated since Madden 10! That was the last time they "tried" to stretch the ratings out. They even made it a sticking point to buying the freakin' game that year! Then, they reverted back to their old, over-inflated, ways in 2011; not to be changed since.

The data backs this up. Just pull up every roster file for each year, pre-release, and you will see the differences between 2010 and 2011-2015. Then, you will see how similar 2011-2015 are. Make sure you look at the distribution of the ratings as well and the ever important standard deviation.

I pose this hypothetical question: If EA interviewed me in late August of 2011 to incorporate my ratings into their game by making me a member of their staff (a hint at them wanting to CHANGE their rating system), then why have they not changed the ways in which players are rated in the time since? If they REALLY wanted to make the game better via more accurate ratings (as they told me my ratings would do for them), then why haven't they changed them by now?

THAT seems to be the most potentially damning evidence of all...not what EA has done in this regard, but what they HAVEN'T done, having had ample opportunity to make the game better using more accurate ratings.

If you're talking about the numbers themselves exclusively, then maybe so, but to me there's a lot more to ratings than the OVR. It's about the way the player plays, if a 75WR plays like a 99WR it doesn't matter if he's rated a 99 or a 75. The important thing is starting to distinguish the way players play based on their individual skill sets.

[SmashMan]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

The important thing is starting to distinguish the way players play based on their individual skill sets.

Agreed. And they could do that by making the ratings based on data that is consistent across all players.

[Reejer]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

For me the "Gameplay being good" includes players playing like their ratings (And ratings spread out more) and a noticeable difference in team strengths/weaknesses.
Basically will the go to strategy be to grab all speed players again?

I believe that they don't make realistic team strengths/weaknesses for two reasons:
1-They don't want to alienate fans of bad teams.
2-Online players wouldn't want to play with bad teams.


I however, as an offline only guy, used to love turning my great team into a bunch of scrubs, so that I could build them back up (M-06' PS2). I would start by trading Brett Favre for Casey Bramlet (Bengals #3 QB), and all of my other team stars would be gone and traded for draft picks.


Oh, how I miss those days... You know... The days before XP, confidence, and potential. Back when progression/regression actually worked, before they decided to "fix" it.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

If you're talking about the numbers themselves exclusively, then maybe so, but to me there's a lot more to ratings than the OVR. It's about the way the player plays, if a 75WR plays like a 99WR it doesn't matter if he's rated a 99 or a 75. The important thing is starting to distinguish the way players play based on their individual skill sets.

Oh, I'm not talking about just the overall. I'm talking about every single rating for every single position group.

One of the things that EA does not do well is use the ratings to properly differentiate between player skills. Every player feels the same at just about every position. Why? Because the ratings are not differentiated enough. One of the things I hear most about the FBG Ratings, is that players FEEL different because they ARE different and are rated accordingly. There is no range of speed ratings for WRs. There is no PBK range for LTs. There is simply the source data and a "let the chips fall as they may" approach.

If EA let the data dictate the ratings instead of making ratings then justifying them later, they would have a better product. Now, they are beginning with their conclusions first, and coming up with the hypothesis afterward.

It's all bass ackwards.

[MajorSupreme]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

If you're talking about the numbers themselves exclusively, then maybe so, but to me there's a lot more to ratings than the OVR. It's about the way the player plays, if a 75WR plays like a 99WR it doesn't matter if he's rated a 99 or a 75. The important thing is starting to distinguish the way players play based on their individual skill sets.

But then there's another problem, everyone plays the same. 65 ovr can make the Calvin Johnson catches regardless. Why have the overalls if you say it doesn't matter? Why not have guys rated by words like "elite", "average", etc.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

Agreed. And they could do that by making the ratings based on data that is consistent across all players.

Dood, you are stealing my thunder here! 100! EA needs to start considering the PARTS that make up the composite of a player profile better. Once the parts are accurate, the OVR will take care of itself.

Even better would be eliminating the darn OVR and developing an algorithm that determines how good a player is based on the individual attributes alone, and incorporate THAT into how the AI determines the value of a player. Then, the AI would sign/draft/cut players based on how well the individual attributes fit each particular team's system.

[Hooe]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

But then there's another problem, everyone plays the same. 65 ovr can make the Calvin Johnson catches regardless. Why have the overalls if you say it doesn't matter? Why not have guys rated by words like "elite", "average", etc.

The ratings themselves do matter and affect how the game plays out.

The problem is the lack of ratings differentiation. The average wide receiver on the default roster of Madden NFL 15 has SPD 90 / ACC 90 / CTH 80 / SPC 81 / CIT 79 (I've done the math). It feels like everyone can catch the ball because everyone in-fact CAN catch the ball based on how the default ratings are set up.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

The ratings themselves do matter and affect how the game plays out.

The problem is the lack of ratings differentiation. The average wide receiver on the default roster of Madden NFL 15 has SPD 90 / ACC 90 / CTH 80 / SPC 81 / CIT 79 (I've done the math). It feels like everyone can catch the ball because everyone in-fact CAN catch the ball based on how the default ratings are set up.

Precisely. All you have to do is make the variance, 1) dependent upon real data, and 2) follow an equally measurable model for all players.

No more QBs being rated slower/weaker/less agile than a WR with similar physical measurables just because they play a different position. No more losing physical attribute ratings simply because you move a player to a different position. Is a guy like Gardner or Webb slower because he lines up at QB instead of WR for a few snaps? Does it make him any less aware than he previously was? Is a TE now less agile because you moved him to DE?

Come on! That is total crap and that is NOT how it works in the real world!

[oneamongthefence]

Re: IF the gameplay is good enough, can it make up for what CFM appears to be lacking

Precisely. All you have to do is make the variance, 1) dependent upon real data, and 2) follow an equally measurable model for all players.

No more QBs being rated slower/weaker/less agile than a WR with similar physical measurables just because they play a different position. No more losing physical attribute ratings simply because you move a player to a different position. Is a guy like Gardner or Webb slower because he lines up at QB instead of WR for a few snaps? Does it make him any less aware than he previously was? Is a TE now less agile because you moved him to DE?

Come on! That is total crap and that is NOT how it works in the real world!

I have to agree with everything you do and it sounds like the team wants to go this route but it's dictated by their bosses to some extent. And maybe even the NFL. The ratings spread is a lot more in FIFA. So that leads me to believe it's not just the Madden team.