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

[jpdavis82]

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 agree and hopefully they will address this soon.

[Reejer]

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.

I always wondered why the Development Team made things harder for themselves than necessary.


Especially on basic ratings, that are easily based off of true data, like SPD and ACC. We know the majority of players 40yd dash and shuttle times. And since football is played on a 100yd playing field that is marked off each yard, it seems like it should be a pretty easy calculation. And if they used the vertical jump stats, there wouldn't be a LB jumping 5ft into the air to make a pick.


I could see using the hypothetical 0-99 ratings for certain ratings that are harder to use a statistic or another measureable. For these abstract ratings, they should still follow a logical equation. Ex: For a rating like AWR, it could be calculated with a basic equation based off of playing/practice time.

[charter04]

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

If they would allow editable draft classes and/or draft class share we wouldn't need their sorry ratings anyway. That's probably why they don't include that feature. I can tell you Madden plays much much better with FBGratings than their sorry excuse for ratings. But, I'm getting off topic

[Skyboxer]

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

If they would allow editable draft classes and/or draft class share we wouldn't need their sorry ratings anyway. That's probably why they don't include that feature. I can tell you Madden plays much much better with FBGratings than their sorry excuse for ratings. But, I'm getting off topic

I'd love a global editor for Madden. Get ratings the way I want then as new rookies come in make the basic edits (ie.. LB jump like what was said) and move on...

[N51_rob]

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

I'm just interested to hear you guys' thoughts on this, I'm seeing a lot of disappointment surrounding CFM this year on here and I'm just wondering if the gameplay is good enough, will it be enough to keep your attention? There's also the presentation, which hasn't been spoken about much, but it's an important piece too.

At this point, if I am being honest I don't know. Gameplay is always number 1 for me, as it makes playing in a CFM more enjoyable. But I just don't know because, gameplay has never been "good enough" (Madden 05 was close and Madden 10 player movements were nice). I'm in the skipping this Madden and if gameplay is great not good enough that may convince me the watering down of CFMs depth is worth tyring to play through it...

But judgeing by the track record of this dev team any new gameplay mechanic that is released is always a year from being the way it should. The new DL controls brought back the old proble of DTs being super human (how many leagues either had Suh type guys with 30-40+ sacks in a season or banned user control of the DT). Or like QB inaccuracies are so toned back from what the Game CHangers played becuase the H2H Online and MUT Online crowd complained about the lack of control?

Point being I guess is Madden no longer gets my money sight unseen, they have burned through all that credibility, I am now needing to see it in action and see the depth of the game before I give them my money.

[lgxjames]

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

Gameplay (while lacking) hasn't been what bought or sold me with Madden, it was it's lack of immersion (specifically within CFM). The only thing that might make me look this direction with an intent to buy is if presentation takes next-gen steps forward. I'm talking weekly wrap show, draft blowout,etc.

[khaliib]

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

The problem with the question is that Madden's interpretation of football machanics is derived through their ratings system, and that system is driven by "one" guy and what he "feels" and often times far, far away from any sound football logic.

You can sit and talk to as many people as you want to, but it's a fact that Donny struggles to understand basic football concepts and their implementation with in the ratings system that he's in control of.

If you're into a sport, it will bother you when you see things happening that are not in line with that sport.

Maybe that's the problem, maybe it's just having a cool job with a game developer because to continually release player ratings in the same manner when you have at your fingertips the ability to correct or at least alleviate some of the horrible gameplay machanics, just makes me think it's just about having a job.

The horrible regression/negative confidence problem proved that in spite of all their excuses given, gamers having the ability to edit ratings inside of CFM would not cause stability problems to the mode.

Had an OL drop from a 75 OVR to 57 OVR in two years.
The game AI doesn't even play players rated that low, yet they programmed confidence to adjust ratings to such a level with no issues to CFM.

So why can't we have rating editing ability to customize our experience to our liking?

Simply giving this option would bring more excitement than anything that they're currently/soon to market.

All I know is that someone had to sit in the meeting and push back about giving ratings editing ability in CFM to gamers.
Wonder who?

Outside of some gear, there is "NO" customization in CFM to help drive the mode.

It's a fact that the community can improve the gameplay a 100 fold when allowed to edit the ratings that drive animations/gameplay.

Lastly, gameplay runs into a stalemate due to all ratings being so congested at the top end of the 0-99 scale.
There is no such thing as a "Bad" player because the AI is programmed to not use/play players below Donny's high thresholds.
And since we don't have the ability to correct that ourselves, gameplay will quickly hit a wall due to any given starting off/def 11 being rated in a congested manner.

Simpy changing/adjusting the weights that trigger animations (most of these animations are already in the game, it's the triggering thresholds and the way Donny rates players so high) doesn't mean gameplay is improved.

Especially when basic concepts/fundamentals will still be absent because "simulation" is not the focus or end game for M16.

Hopefully I'm/we're proven wrong!!!
Would be nice for a change and long overdue!!!

[Sheba2011]

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

I spent about 75% of the time actually playing games, so gameplay is the most important to me. I had fun wth CFM last year, obviously would love it to be a lot more sim, but it's not and honestly I stopped expecting it to be a long time ago. I can have fun with CFM again this year.

[vrtkolman]

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

I guess, as long as CFM improvements would be promised in subsequent years. The gameplay can be as good as it gets, but if the games don't mean anything to me I just can't get into it. Also, I think the CFM AI influences gameplay quite a bit. When you are in your 5th year into your CFM and the AI is trotting out a 70 ranked QB behind an offensive line ranked in the 60's, well that will definitely affect gameplay for the worse.

[dkp23]

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

Gameplay will likley not be good as long as they keep using this engine they are using. No gang tackling, warping, suction, rbs running with the ball behind their back, odd physics.

[Mr.Smif]

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

Yes, because I refuse to play CFM until training camp is back. But I highly doubt gameplay will be good enough.

[fballturkey]

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

You could have the perfect game in terms of gameplay and if you don't have formation subs you still have a crappy football game.

[ggsimmonds]

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

I agree and hopefully they will address this soon.

First he was 100% wrong and you moved on, now he is right and you hope the team addresses this.

[jpdavis82]

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

First he was 100% wrong and you moved on, now he is right and you hope the team addresses this.

Yeah it's confusing, unfortunately I can't discuss what is and is not being addressed, but of course when I say hopefully the team addresses this, everyone assumes that means I was wrong. It doesn't mean anything, just that I hope it is addressed.

[khaliib]

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

Well speaking on the topic of gameplay, I just finished an analysis were i zeroed every attribute for every player on the Titans roster except...
-Speed and Acceleration
-QB Throw Power
-K/P Power and Accuracy
and what impact did this have on gameplay with default Sliders/0 Sliders/Max Sliders?

"Absolutely Nothing from ratings viewpoint"!!!

With Scouting and Drafting being talked about today, what's the point JP when "0" Ratings plays exactly the same as if the players had ratings?
Gameplay was pretty much the same on all skill levels, as well as custom.

Everything we're talking about now to lead up to the unveiling of the improved Gameplay showing at E3, is of no value because it's all cosmetic with the AI displaying no difference between having an numerical attribute or a "0".

Players behaved/animated exactly the same.
I never knew this game was so predetermined/programmed to this extent.

Maybe there was a "Total Overhaul" that can't be revealed right now.
I hope!!!