Hiding the overall rating in franchise mode yea or nay ?

[krc1130]

I say get rid of an "Overall Rating" and divide it in to several other numerical/letter ratings such as,

Athleticism- His speed, agility, etc. ratings. Allows people to be "More of an athlete than anything else (Seneca Wallace for example)

Intangibles- Takes ratings that his position demands and turns it into an overall. Peyton Manning would have a 99, DJ Shockley would have like a 40(maybe not that low but you get the point)

Production- Takes players stats and compares it to others of the same position. Let's say a guy with 78ATH and 80INT, he may not look good from that but he might have 99PRO which means he puts up good numbers.

Potential- No real need to explain except that now you can have it as a number because there is no Overall rating to base it off of. Now you could have a QB with 99POT, 99ATH, 99INT but because he only ends up with a 20PRO rating, he never reaches his potential.

Size- Cant come up with a good description but, Pat White isn't the "Ideal QB size" while Stafford is. Really more cosmetic but a 190LBS RB in an I-form offense probably wouldnt last.

Injury- Strait foward.

Loyalty- How loyal the player is, determines alot after a contract year.

There is probably more I could come up with and yes alot of these are from head coach but it would help to give a hint to a players overall without giving it away.

[PantherBeast_OS]

For me it really doens't matter that much. But they should give a option to hide are not. That is most simple solution of all.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tito78

In the game, ratings are not opinions they're facts; they represent the player's actual ability, not a perception of and actual players ability. I'm not against ratings in general, just the overall one, as it tells the user who is a better player overall. The learning ratings leaves no chance for error. It'd be more realistic to wait and see how a players awareness improves to see how smart he is. If his awareness progresses and a high rate, he's picking up the system, if his awareness isn't, he's struggling. That's how you have to evaluate a player in real life.

The overall rating I will agree is about as stupid of a rating as one could have. I actually kinda liked how head coach did it, especially since you need some type of overall for the CPU teams to use to judge their players. I would like to see this hidden from users though.

As far as me saying "ratings are opinions" this is one of the big problems with ratings in any sports game. It really comes into play with things like progression and leads to crazy things like people wanting stat based progression. I for one realize that once you are in the game the ratings are actual abilities. However, what I was saying is those ratings are determined by opinions same as a learning ratings would be.

I do see the problem with a learning rating giving too much knowledge to a player in terms of how good a player can become the same way as potential can or any development based rating. I have actually described a much more realistic way of doing the ratings that would solve a lot of those problems.

The basic idea is each of a players abilities is shown as a range of possible ratings and as a coach scouts that player more, plays against that player, or has that player on his team the ranges would become more and more accurate zeroing in on the actual rating.

Physical ratings would be zeroed down pretty quickly especially when scouting like at the combine or when having the player on your team. Skill and knowledge ratings would be zeroed in on at a slower rate, and potential, learning, and other development type ratings will be zeroed in on very slowly taking probably a couple years with the player on your team to get an accurate reading on them.

That way, when you draft a guy you would know pretty much just his physical abilities and maybe have an idea of his skills. His potential, while you might know a little, you won't know much. If the player is actually playing after a few weeks, probably by mid season, you will probably know pretty much how good he is. If he isn't playing it would take probably a couple years of practice to learn that. His potential and learning however would not be probably known until he has played for 2 or 3 seasons. If he isn't playing you might never get zeroed in on his potential.

With a system like that you would actually have to guess some on free agents or stick to guys you have seen play in games against you. Top players you might learn more about from news somewhat like those of us in here know about the top players. Just through general knowledge you might learn about some guys. Also, you have stats and awards to go off of. Still, there is some real guess work that could go into picking up players and this could make trades a little tougher to pull off to make the system more realistic.

Quote:

If the potential ratings are wrong sometimes, than I have no problem with potential ratings; however, the potential ratings as they are now represent a players ceiling, and they're never inaccurate.

What needs to happen here is there should be an actual potential rating that actually caps potential and shows the player's ceiling. However, this is not what should be shown. If they are not going to go with a system like I described earlier they should at least make some room for error in the shown potential rating.

[CreatineKasey]

Given these choices, I'd like overalls completely gone.

In my perfect game I'd have everything ability based.

[Inspiration]

Make it an option. That way everyone can choose to do whatever they want. I honestly don't see why it would be any other way.

[burne]

I think I would like to have an option for three levels of transparency:

1) Show OVR and all ratings.
2) Show all ratings but no OVR.
3) Show no ratings except for benchmarks (40 time, shuttle, bench).

Along with a separate toggle for showing Potential, as that is a different argument. We, and the development team, can sit here for a looong time and argue the merits of ratings and over-design the hell out of everything, or they can just set aside a bit of development time and put these options in. I'd try to play my way (hide as much as possible) and then if I realize I've made a horrible mistake and it's a game-breaker, I can just switch it back.

Personally, I like the idea of having no ratings except for the basics. It would give the franchise a much more personal feel. If I have a low-rated rookie receiver on my team, but I feel like he's always making big plays for me, I like the idea that I would value him and keep him around and maybe move him up the depth chart, whereas he may actually have a lower OVR.

If I could just see the ratings, I would look at FA's and say "oh look there's a guy with 3 more points in Catch, let's just pick him up". That's not what happens in real life (unless you're the Redskins).



In the future (Madden 11 & beyond), I would love to see a system where player's real ratings are hidden, but they have "public perception" ratings that you can see. These would be based on the kind of stats they're accruing and their current impact on their team, but would not take into account their actual underlying ratings that are used on-the-field.

As an example, a CTH rating of 75 means you have a lower percentage chance of making each individual catch, but due to random chance a receiver could still wind up making a few great catches in a row and look like a much better receiver than he really is temporarily. Also, there are cases where decent players look much better because of their surrounding cast. I would love it if in these situations, these players' perceived ratings would go up. This would work both ways, such that you may over-rate other teams' players' abilities, but they may also over-value your players if you can make them look good.

Consider Matt Cassel in a Patriots franchise. Let's say Tom Brady goes down, and Matt Cassel is a 70 OVR. Due to a great offensive line, great receivers, great coaching, and a great defense, he performs so well that by the end of the season his public OVR jumps to 85-88, and you can trade him for a great deal of value, whereas the hidden underlying OVR may still be 70, may have progressed to 74, may have actually gone up to 88, who knows?

In that scenario, you'll just have to see how he performs going forward to decide whether you made a good trade or not, just like real life. Hell, he may stay a 70 OVR but the Chiefs put all the pieces together an win a Super Bowl and you look like a chump. Just like real life, you should never know, to an exact degree, what each player's abilities are. That's why they play the game.

[adembroski]

Hide it? No, I think there are better ways to go about it.

First off, the Head Coach system of philosophy based overalls would be a huge plus. The multiple overall categories: Intangibles, Physical, Size, Learning, Potential- would also help.

If you hide overalls, all I'm going to do is what I do in baseball and soccer games; come up with my own overall system and use a spreadsheet to give me the numbers. I don't have the time nor the energy to spend 3 hours a day in practice mode to figure out if Jim Corner or John Corner is the better man to start. Some of that stuff needs to be abstract.

Now, that said, I'm all for "fuzzy" overalls. That is to say; a rough estimate of overall that could be flat wrong if my staff isn't rated high enough.

Another option would be to have assistants give you advice, and the quality of advice is based on the quality of that assistant.

I would love to convert the whole ratings system into a scouting report with a letter grade overall, then you can ask your assistants for an opinion on the comparison between any two players at a given position. The longer a player is on your team, the better you know him, with actual playing time, clearly, giving you the best impression.

I've got a lot of ideas on this and I could go on all day. Ultimately it's about 'What will recreate the NFL best", and I think it does need to be deeper than a simple numerical rating, but at the same time, don't take it out altogether and give me nothing to go on.

[Dmacho]

Yea.