FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by cdon2k

Nice work, but as has been said, this game needs more than just ratings to fix madden in it's current state. NCAA's player momentum/interactions are head and shoulders above madden and that ruins the game for me. Madden just looks "weird" while NCAA is coming close to simulating realistic player movements. That said, your site may influence Donny a bit and that could be good for the game so all is not lost.

Wanna know something cool? The head guy who powers my site is a close friend of John Madden's and has connections to his daughter, who is the acting head of the Madden name brand. This could influence how ratings are done in the long run should it get enough attention garnered by the guys at Tiburon and EA. That is the goal, anyway...do what they do...but better.

[notque]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

You are more than welcome to use what you find on the site, but the actual distributions and rating formulas are not on the site. A magician never reveals the secrets to his tricks.

Yeah, if you're unwilling to share any distribution or formula data then that's a no go on working together.

Was thinking of some sort of link back exchange, and work together on this stuff. I wouldn't release any of the data you share, and it would just be used to implement in the game I run.

Eh, it was a good idea.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by notque

Right, you are Madden centric, so there are some attribute descriptions that aren't compatible, but it isn't that far off. There are much larger problems on my end I'd have to worry about, like the fact we use a 0-100 scale, and Madden for the most part doesn't (that I've seen.) So we actually have a lot more players on the low end of the scale. How are you doing distributions like that?

Madden uses a 12-99 for attributes, but we use 40-99 for overall ratings. The distribution of attributes is based upon the standard distribution of all player data since 1998. The overalls are based upon an exponential distribution, so we have far more players at the 40 OVR end than the 99 OVR end.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by notque

Yeah, if you're unwilling to share any distribution or formula data then that's a no go on working together. Was thinking of some sort of link back exchange, and work together on this stuff. I wouldn't release any of the data you share, and it would just be used to implement in the game I run. Eh, it was a good idea.

I have to do it out of cornering my own market. If I am going to do something differently than the competition, I cannot let the competition know exactly how I am doing it. I would be open to letting you in on how some of it works, but I can't just give everything away. Feel free to send me a PM to discuss it. Perhaps we can get some agreement drawn up from there.

[PGaither84]

The site is a joke. Always has been. They don't even have their ratings listed, only OVR with no justification.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

The sight is a joke. Always has been. They don't even have their ratings listed, only OVR with no justification.

Perhaps you meant "site" and not "sight".

Why do you say it is a joke? Did you read the post about why the attributes are not included yet? Ever try to fill in 17000 players' worth of data into a website via an SQL server? It takes a ton of time and a huge attention to detail. If it is such a joke, I strongly challenge you to either: A) create a site that is better, or B) ask for some justification.

Perhaps you would have a greater appreciation for the operation if you understood (or at least tried to understand) what goes into such a massive undertaking. I, in turn, would ask you also what justification you would like to see. Or perhaps you are simply an angry 49ers fan who doesn't like seeing his team rated poorly.

[KingV2k3]

I am kind of shocked at how many guys asked questions and made assumptions on this topic / site that coupld have easily been answered by simply reading the preceeding posts in this thread...

That being said, I applaud your efforts, and the fact that it could actually get it's "day in court" at the game's developers, is an exciting possiblity...

Here's my "two cents"...

AWR is a mess in this game...

Rookies often come in so low, that they will never be able to get up to an AWR rating in this game that will eventually make them "starter material"...

Esp. at the QB position...low AWR rated guys play waaaaay stupid...

I suggest that instead of giving them super low AWR and decent passing attributes, you balance all the relevant rookie ratings out so that they have a chance to develop...

Same thing with OL...they come in with decent blocking attributes, but it's not worth much if they always pick the wrong guy / wrong angle, due to really low AWR...

IMHO there should be a much smaller "range" with this attribute...

Regards!

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by KingV2k3

I am kind of shocked at how many guys asked questions and made assumptions on this topic / site that coupld have easily been answered by simply reading the preceeding posts in this thread... That being said, I applaud your efforts, and the fact that it could actually get it's "day in court" at the game's developers, is an exciting possiblity... Here's my "two cents"... AWR is a mess in this game... Rookies often come in so low, that they will never be able to get up to an AWR rating in this game that will eventually make them "starter material"... Esp. at the QB position...low AWR rated guys play waaaaay stupid... I suggest that instead of giving them super low AWR and decent passing attributes, you balance all the relevant rookie ratings out so that they have a chance to develop... Same thing with OL...they come in with decent blocking attributes, but it's not worth much if they always pick the wrong guy / wrong angle, due to really low AWR... IMHO there should be a much smaller "range" with this attribute... Regards!

I can't agree more about the readers not READING the posts. It's unfortunate.

As for AWR I also realized this as a huge issue. AWR has a stunning positive correlation to the OVR of a player. It also has a positive correlation to the EXP of a player...statistically speaking.

What I came up with was a way to use both to determine the AWR of a player. Simply making a rookie's AWR equal to OVR-10+EXP allows the correlation to OVR to remain. After each year completed, 1 AWR point is added to that equation. So if a rookie is a 70 his AWR is 60 in his first season. If after his first year he jumps up to 75, his awr is now 66 (OVR-10+EXP) since he gained 1 year of EXP. What ends up happening is you get guys who have been in the league the longest getting more AWR.

It also sets a minimum for the AWR rating. The lowest a player can be rated is a 40 OVR, and as a rookie, his EXP can be a minimum of 0. Therefore, the lowest AWR is 30. However, as a player matures that number will go up with EXP, even if the player is still rated as a 40 OVR.

Thoughts?