7 Players Are Rated an Overall 99 in Madden NFL 19, Your Thoughts?

[mattjames2010]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

What exactly are you trying to get at here? Genuine question. With the archetypes being the way they are now and the new specialist depth charts the AI 100% should be able to differentiate a slot receiver from a boundary one and play them properly.

....this is not new. You get EA made this claim 7 years ago, right? They actually stated in an interview during E3 that "Teams will draft based on scheme" - they pointed out an example that since Davis liked fast WRs, the Raiders would be more likely to draft faster WRs - this didn't happen. It was a bogus claim and the AI didn't adapt to new coaches coming in, the draft logic of each team stayed the same.

As for the AI being able to determine a slot receiver over a boundary one - you're still not getting it. What is the point of a team like the Patriots drafting a slot WR when you go into the game, and 99% of their snaps come on the boundary?

What is the point of drafting a player like Kamara when the AI doesn't differentiate between a hybrid back that is better suited for equal rushes and receiving? Instead, because it's Madden, you sim the season and look at the stats and Kamara will have 250-350 rushing attempts because the AI doesn't fit the playbooks to it's players. Instead, like every other Madden that actually allows editing, you'll have to be the one that goes in and changes up a playbook and EVEN THEN the sim stats will play out like Kamara is a workhorse back.

What I am proposing is far more dynamic and complex AI - and yes, by the way, this can be done - this has been done in Front Office Football since the damn 90s.

And you bring up any claim you want that has come from EA, as I said, we'll come back to this thread when their new system is so bare bones that modders will have to clean up the mess.

[TB5XSBW]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattjames2010

Of course I don't accept the popular opinion just for the sake of popularity - I ask for opinions to be backed up. If it gets backed up with sufficient evidence, my opinion would sway. The fact that I can provide you with statistics that prove you wrong and yet you counter with "Well the popular vote says" is not obliterating anything, it's a cop out. If you can't provide your own source, can back up your own claims with statistics - then you're not winning anything. The same goes for any coach and player that can't do the same. You should be able to point out the specifics and you have failed to do so. Again, if you're trolling, then good job, kid. If not, I want you to back up your claim with an actual source that shows me data about Brady being better presnap - the only thing I can find on that is an article from 2011 that says Rodgers was the best in the league since becoming a starter at recognizing the blitz. I'm getting bored now.

Only in your imagination have you provided any statistics to prove anything wrong. The default position is that Brady is the greatest QB in the history of the game, as that's the widely accepted position of the vast majority of people far more knowledgeable than some random guy "mattjames2010." Me, and those with a brain who recognize this fact, have won this debate long ago. Therefore, if you know anything about argumentation and logic, the onus is on you to try to disprove that beyond all doubt. You haven't even come close to doing so (and given that you've got as much to work with as flat earthers, you never will.) Better get to it, champ.

[mattjames2010]

Quote: Originally Posted by TB5XSBW

Only in your imagination have you provided any statistics to prove anything wrong. The default position is that Brady is the greatest QB in the history of the game, as that's the widely accepted position of the vast majority of people far more knowledgeable than some random guy "mattjames2010." Me, and those with a brain who recognize this fact, have won this debate long ago. Therefore, if you know anything about argumentation and logic, the onus is on you to try to disprove that beyond all doubt. You haven't even come close to doing so (and given that you've got as much to work with as flat earthers, you never will.) Better get to it, champ.

Yeah, you're trolling. Still provided nothing and I have.

We're done here.

[TB5XSBW]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattjames2010

Yeah, you're trolling. Still provided nothing and I have. We're done here.

We were done several years ago when the debate was settled. Not sure why you decided to go on this insurmountable journey, but at least you've come to your senses and decided to bow out.

[canes21]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattjames2010

....this is not new. You get EA made this claim 7 years ago, right? They actually stated in an interview during E3 that "Teams will draft based on scheme" - they pointed out an example that since Davis liked fast WRs, the Raiders would be more likely to draft faster WRs - this didn't happen. It was a bogus claim and the AI didn't adapt to new coaches coming in, the draft logic of each team stayed the same. As for the AI being able to determine a slot receiver over a boundary one - you're still not getting it. What is the point of a team like the Patriots drafting a slot WR when you go into the game, and 99% of their snaps come on the boundary? What is the point of drafting a player like Kamara when the AI doesn't differentiate between a hybrid back that is better suited for equal rushes and receiving? Instead, because it's Madden, you sim the season and look at the stats and Kamara will have 250-350 rushing attempts because the AI doesn't fit the playbooks to it's players. Instead, like every other Madden that actually allows editing, you'll have to be the one that goes in and changes up a playbook and EVEN THEN the sim stats will play out like Kamara is a workhorse back. What I am proposing is far more dynamic and complex AI - and yes, by the way, this can be done - this has been done in Front Office Football since the damn 90s. And you bring up any claim you want that has come from EA, as I said, we'll come back to this thread when their new system is so bare bones that modders will have to clean up the mess.

I agree with the bold. I have been asking for Owners/Coaches that reflect the depth that is offered in Out of the Park. As for what is in the rest of the post, and the underlined part especially, I can't really say much on it or else I'd be breaking the NDA of the beta.

[mtmetcalfe]

Quote: Originally Posted by TB5XSBW

We were done several years ago when the debate was settled. Not sure why you decided to go on this insurmountable journey, but at least you've come to your senses and decided to bow out.

So I’m enjoying the conversation on some of the deficiencies that is Maddens rating systems and how it impacts the game and people’s opinion of what that could mean for the future in this thread. I however have no patience for blind fan boy cheerleading and trolling. If you have nothing to bring to the conversation please move along.

[Sphinx]

May I just say that unless you have played the beta or have some other knowledge of cpu roster management, you are just speculating.

In regards to the 99 overall players, I don't know why this is something people get in a fight about. If you play in CFM most of those guys will go down or retire in a season or two. So who cares?

[TB5XSBW]

Quote: Originally Posted by mtmetcalfe

So I’m enjoying the conversation on some of the deficiencies that is Maddens rating systems and how it impacts the game and people’s opinion of what that could mean for the future in this thread. I however have no patience for blind fan boy cheerleading and trolling. If you have nothing to bring to the conversation please move along.

NFL players are all blind Brady fanboys. You learn something new every day.