Every team gets 2-3 first round picks each draft.

[BigChillin]

Quote: Originally Posted by msdm27

The thing that allows the dev team to rate 2016 class rookies "so low" is that they know the rating can be adjusted via update or in M18; whereas for the generated rookies they need to create a system where rookies from 2nd round and lower, are not so far away from being viable starters that it becomes impossible to start them until year 3 or 4, thus generated rookies have higher "ratings floor" than 2016 rookies.

Yeah, people aren't taking this into account and I think it's the reason why you can't really compare the Madden generated draft classes with the 2016 draftees YET. With the 2016 draftees, there is nothing to go off of to rate them until they play at least a few games in the NFL. They all pretty much HAVE to be rated according to which round they were drafted in. Many of them are currently rated lower than they will be halfway through the season.

During Russell Wilson's rookie year (Madden 13), he was rated at a 70 before the season because of his draft placement. By the end of the year (probably halfway through the season), he was obviously much higher than that. That's because there is no way to know a rookie's true rating until they actually play. Like the post I quoted said, the reason they are so low across the board is because those ratings were given with weekly updates in mind.

For Madden draft classes, the game assigns a player's true rating. There's no speculation/guesswork involved, the game knows their true rating when the draftee is created. Busts are rated accordingly, and late round gems are rated accordingly. They aren't going to randomly rate 2016 4th round guys at an 80 before the season starts when they haven't played.

That being said, I do agree that the draft classes need to be toned down a bit. There are far too many 78+ guys, who probably would have been 80+ guys in Madden 16 due to the fact that they lowered overalls across the board for this year's Madden. There DEFINITELY shouldn't be 30-40 guys who are 78 or higher in each draft. That's why in these 10 year sims where people are testing XP sliders, there are so many guys who are 80-85 compared to current rosters no matter what the sliders are set at. It's because there are way too many highly rated rookies.

[mcavner]

Quote: Originally Posted by mvb34

You can edit the rookies after the draft!

Yup. But if the issue for someone is that the rookies are rated too high in comparison to this year's rookie class... you can edit this year's rookie class this one time OR edit the rookie class every single year.

We don't know if all of these higher end rookies develop into studs... but if the overall of the entire league is a little better as a whole that's not huge b/c you still have parity.

The only players at a disadvantage is this year's rookie class.

And yes, thank goodness we have editing b/c whether you think it's too high or too low YOU have a tool to fix it and find your happy place/sweet spot. Full editing in career mode is the best thing developers can do for franchise gamers.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigChillin

Yeah, people aren't taking this into account and I think it's the reason why you can't really compare the Madden generated draft classes with the 2016 draftees YET. With the 2016 draftees, there is nothing to go off of to rate them until they play at least a few games in the NFL. They all pretty much HAVE to be rated according to which round they were drafted in. Many of them are currently rated lower than they will be halfway through the season. During Russell Wilson's rookie year (Madden 13), he was rated at a 70 before the season because of his draft placement. By the end of the year (probably halfway through the season), he was obviously much higher than that. That's because there is no way to know a rookie's true rating until they actually play. Like the post I quoted said, the reason they are so low across the board is because those ratings were given with weekly updates in mind. For Madden draft classes, the game assigns a player's true rating. There's no speculation/guesswork involved, the game knows their true rating when the draftee is created. Busts are rated accordingly, and late round gems are rated accordingly. They aren't going to randomly rate 2016 4th round guys at an 80 before the season starts when they haven't played. That being said, I do agree that the draft classes need to be toned down a bit. There are far too many 78+ guys, who probably would have been 80+ guys in Madden 16 due to the fact that they lowered overalls across the board for this year's Madden. There DEFINITELY shouldn't be 30-40 guys who are 78 or higher in each draft. That's why in these 10 year sims where people are testing XP sliders, there are so many guys who are 80-85 compared to current rosters no matter what the sliders are set at. It's because there are way too many highly rated rookies.

Very good explanation and yet another argument for the construction of dual ratings for each player. One set of ratings that can be seen, and one set that is hidden that actually drives the gameplay. That way, the game can rate players based on draft position/scouting, but have their true ratings still there to drive how they play on the field. Then, the ratings can evolve as they play and produce (or not) on the field (just like it works for the roster guy in real life).

[ASUBoy93]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigChillin

That being said, I do agree that the draft classes need to be toned down a bit. There are far too many 78+ guys, who probably would have been 80+ guys in Madden 16 due to the fact that they lowered overalls across the board for this year's Madden. There DEFINITELY shouldn't be 30-40 guys who are 78 or higher in each draft. That's why in these 10 year sims where people are testing XP sliders, there are so many guys who are 80-85 compared to current rosters no matter what the sliders are set at. It's because there are way too many highly rated rookies.

If there are 30-40 guys rated 77-80+ than that means just about every team finds about .94 to 1.25 starters/high-end contributors after each draft. That sounds about right in line with most NFL seasons.

Tyler Lockett and Thomas Rawls proved themselves as capable starters with the Seahawks last year and Lockett was taken in the 3rd while Rawls was an UDFA.

I actually think these ratings are right in line with how a Madden roster would look at the end of the actual season's conclusion (like Madden 16 rosters in February 2016).

Just my 2 cents.

[ASUBoy93]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

Very good explanation and yet another argument for the construction of dual ratings for each player. One set of ratings that can be seen, and one set that is hidden that actually drives the gameplay. That way, the game can rate players based on draft position/scouting, but have their true ratings still there to drive how they play on the field. Then, the ratings can evolve as they play and produce (or not) on the field (just like it works for the roster guy in real life).

The hidden ratings for rookies was a great feature they used to have in Madden. I think it was Madden 12? I could be wrong. But the idea behind that mechanic was fantastic, for it to be implemented in current gen would be a superb step forward.

[msdm27]

Quote: Originally Posted by ASUBoy93

If there are 30-40 guys rated 77-80+ than that means just about every team finds about .94 to 1.25 starters/high-end contributors after each draft. That sounds about right in line with most NFL seasons. Tyler Lockett and Thomas Rawls proved themselves as capable starters with the Seahawks last year and Lockett was taken in the 3rd while Rawls was an UDFA. I actually think these ratings are right in line with how a Madden roster would look at the end of the actual season's conclusion (like Madden 16 rosters in February 2016). Just my 2 cents.

These ratings would be on par with M16 ratings, that is correct; however, we are on M17... With a different rating scale, so the ratings for incoming rookies are indeed inflated

[ASUBoy93]

Quote: Originally Posted by msdm27

These ratings would be on par with M16 ratings, that is correct; however, we are on M17... With a different rating scale, so the ratings for incoming rookies are indeed inflated

I was just comparing how in previous games the rookies would be rated higher by the cycle's end, and then applying that to a theory that in this year's version of Madden the rookies in the draft would naturally be rated higher to reflect how good a rookie actually is.

I am more than aware that Madden 17 has a different rating scale. A player that is rated 77-82 is a good starter for the most part in M17. One of those rookies for each team is probably more accurate than we thought it was.

[ASUBoy93]

Sorry for flooding the thread but I had another thought:

I'd be more interested to see how many 77-80+ rookies with superstar dev are in each draft. Those are elite quality players and concern me more than 20+ rookies with a 78-82 rating and normal/slow dev.

If the superstar dev is limited for those higher ratings then I think the draft classes are more than fine.