Taem Ratings ... make them meaningful

[CLEAR17]

Yea i would like to know how team ratings are put together. Hopefully this year a team's chemistry/morale will affect the team overall

[CVELL]

[quote=Steeler99;2039319138]That's my point ... make the team ratings mean something so that playing with different teams will have a different feel, and different challenges! In any of the previous Maddens, team ratings meant NOTHING.

Nice post. I agree, I think Madden needs an Adaptive Rating System that constantly changes ratings based on match-ups. At the Team Select Screen I should see ratings based on how the Colts and Steelers match-up. My already dismal run game should negatively reflect what we already know, but be off-set by my other Offensive Weapons. The Steelers should feel like a bully to the Colts, and the Colts should seem like a technically sound team with great execution.

Then its up to us to strategically use our strengths to compete, WHILE managing our weaknesses to WIN. Before the game even starts I know I have to slow down the pass rush/blitz to give my Offense an opportunity to win, just like you would be looking to control the clock on the ground on Offense, while looking to created turnovers to win.

Our teams should feel that way. Steelers could and should take more risks on Defense. Strips, jump routes, press, while the Colts might stay back, attempt sure tackles. Give each team an identity. Then base our success on our ability to do the things we DO well vs the things we NEED to do well.

I think ratings should change according to situation, almost per play. Example - if I don't consciously set pocket protection, and got defenders constantly hurrying P. Manning, his Awareness, Accuracy, Pocket Presence should be negatively affected due to me not protecting my Franchise QB. We should always HAVE to be playing the game to our strengths. If he's the key to my Offense, I should have to honor that. Check down quicker, read box efficiently, maybe hot route RB to stay in or to a Slant/Curl from Streak because of possible blitz.

I'll go on forever so I'm gone.
Good post.
Thanks.

[Steeler99]

[quote=CVELL;2039325978]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steeler99

That's my point ... make the team ratings mean something so that playing with different teams will have a different feel, and different challenges! In any of the previous Maddens, team ratings meant NOTHING. Nice post. I agree, I think Madden needs an Adaptive Rating System that constantly changes ratings based on match-ups. At the Team Select Screen I should see ratings based on how the Colts and Steelers match-up. My already dismal run game should negatively reflect what we already know, but be off-set by my other Offensive Weapons. The Steelers should feel like a bully to the Colts, and the Colts should seem like a technically sound team with great execution. Then its up to us to strategically use our strengths to compete, WHILE managing our weaknesses to WIN. Before the game even starts I know I have to slow down the pass rush/blitz to give my Offense an opportunity to win, just like you would be looking to control the clock on the ground on Offense, while looking to created turnovers to win. Our teams should feel that way. Steelers could and should take more risks on Defense. Strips, jump routes, press, while the Colts might stay back, attempt sure tackles. Give each team an identity. Then base our success on our ability to do the things we DO well vs the things we NEED to do well. I think ratings should change according to situation, almost per play. Example - if I don't consciously set pocket protection, and got defenders constantly hurrying P. Manning, his Awareness, Accuracy, Pocket Presence should be negatively affected due to me not protecting my Franchise QB. We should always HAVE to be playing the game to our strengths. If he's the key to my Offense, I should have to honor that. Check down quicker, read box efficiently, maybe hot route RB to stay in or to a Slant/Curl from Streak because of possible blitz. I'll go on forever so I'm gone. Good post. Thanks.

GREAT post!!!

I agree with everything mentioned above. Those ideas would truly make this game represent what I believe most of us are looking for. I just wish Ian or one of the other dev's would see this and at least give us some feedback on any potential updates/changes to help in this area.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steeler99

Actually that statement is NOT true. Try it for yourself on your 09' game. Take any team and drop a player, then re-sign that same player. You'll see the team rating changes even though you have maintained the EXACT same roster? For example I just checked Arizona with their original roster and they are a 78 rated team. I then dropped Leinart, and picked him back up as a free agent. Arizona is now an 88 rated team. That tells me that the original team ratings are some random number that the game dev's come up with based on how the NFL team is rated? But once you make a roster adjustment, the rating then changes to match the average of the player ratings actually on the roster. Just a theory, but it seems to be the way it works, which really makes the original team ratings absolutely worthless? I know team ratings aren't that big of a deal, but I would like them to actually represent the overall skill level of a team. That way if I'm looking for the most difficult challenge I know which team will be easiest or hardest to play with. Ian - could you please provide some input on this? Thanks

If that is true then I apologize and my post was wrong!

I only play franchise, so I just take one of the early rosters and go with it. It was just my understanding that team ratings never changed.

I agree that a team rating should reflect the overall talent on the team.


That said, i don't think it should be the be all end all about how good a team is. IE: Good teams don't always play consistently well and lose games they shouldn't, bad teams sometimes play good and beat a team they shouldn't have.

[Exonerated]

THe way team ratings are done right now is fine. Its just how good EA thinks a team is and thats perfectly fine.


Sometimes, the sum is greater than all the individual parts (pats?) , or the sum of the team is less than the individuals (cowboys).

To be strictly attached to rating is saying that these players are robots, and if you simmed a match a team with 90 overall will beat a team with 88 overall every single time.



Ratings are purely a measure of how good EA thinks a team is, and thats fine.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Exonerated

Ratings are purely a measure of how good EA thinks a team is, and thats fine.

Okay, but then it is an entirely mythical number and means nothing towards how the teams perform on the field or how good the players actually are.

Don't get me wrong, I could care less about the team rating, but to me, it would make sense if team ratings were some sort of an average based off of the players on the team.

But to say it is just a number based on how EA feels doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Exonerated]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Okay, but then it is an entirely mythical number and means nothing towards how the teams perform on the field or how good the players actually are. Don't get me wrong, I could care less about the team rating, but to me, it would make sense if team ratings were some sort of an average based off of the players on the team. But to say it is just a number based on how EA feels doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I agree that its an entirely mythical number that means nothing. Its not really worth complaining about.

The only thing that would make team ratings meaningful is team chemistry.

If there is no team chemistry effect, then ratings will continue to mean nothing and you just got to accept that your beloved home team is only a 76 overall and not 85 as you wish they were.

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by Exonerated

I agree that its an entirely mythical number that means nothing. Its not really worth complaining about. The only thing that would make team ratings meaningful is team chemistry. If there is no team chemistry effect, then ratings will continue to mean nothing and you just got to accept that your beloved home team is only a 76 overall and not 85 as you wish they were.

Hey, I'm with you on this.

I am not one to complain about it, and it has never bothered me, as I have always understood the rating to be somewhat meaningless.

I was more or less making that statement for the hundreds of people who say, "Hey Ian, its time to raise team X's team rating, they have been good all year" or the "Hey Ian, drop team Y's rating. They suck!