Ratings Spread

[xblake16x]

Personally I still want ratings more spread out, and to mean more during gameplay. For the most part alot of the ratings I feel are mainly for the sim engine. I started playing NCAA BBall a few days ago and the ratings are amazing in that game. Only a few 90's with tons of D1 basketball teams. It works really well. Guys in the mid 70's to low 80's still put of really good numbers, while players in the high 80's and 90's just flat out dominate

[PGaither84]

Quote: Originally Posted by sin18

I think the ratings are pretty good as of now 99s are elite players 90s are pro bowl level players 80s are solid starters, good contributors 70s are projects, young players or weaknesses 60s are small time contributor, dime backs, 3rd down back, a long term project In my online franchise i've got 3 elite players a 98 and two 99s, afew more pro bowl contributors (3 i think), a handful of 80s and alot of 70s. I've got a 70s player starting at CB 76, FS 78, SS 75, DT 76, RG 76, RT 79, TE 72, FB 79. I don't think a 60 rating player can belong on a field with 90s payers. Fitz doesn't even need to get open to make a catch, and that is still over 80 overall corners. Can you imagine a 67 overall corner trying to cover fitz? not going to happen! there isn't THAT major of a disparity in talent between actual players, madden needs to reflect that. i think they are doing pretty good. P.S. didn't they open up the ratings dramatically this year? last yearthere were only afew starters in the 70s, now atleast a 3rd of the leagues starters are 70s. the panthers have 70s starting in 9 different positions of 22. I sure as hell don't need any 60s

I agree with all of this and was going to say somthing to the same effect myself. Also, I agree when people said that part of the problem is that these ratings don't really feel like they come into play when you go in and play the game.

"Can you imagine a 67 overall corner trying to cover fitz? not going to happen!' The problem in Madden 10 is... it can and does happen. At least, I have gone into practice and sent Randy Moss on many different routes and played against the Raiders. I took Nnamdi and sent him to the bottom on the depth chart and put the slowest/worst corner on the team against Moss and told the defense to play man. The computer controlled corner could cover moss all day. It was sad.

P.S. It wasn't until I took the speed slider and set it to zero did I actually see Moss beat the CB in coverage. I would then put Nnamdi back in and Nnamdi could still cover him. I know "speed is the only rating that matters in Madden," however, in my experience even with the slider for speed set at 50, even it doesn't matter. With the slider at 50, fast players wouldn't break away from those who were much slower. Maybe 0 isn't the best setting, but at 0 you see players who are fast break away from those who are not. Now I see Patrick Willis chase down slower players and make a ton of plays while Takeo Spikes has to be in the right place to make the play or he may get burned. Makes the game feel better to me.

[xNYGx]

Guys, you gotta keep in mind how many players are in the NFL compared to the NBA.

Average is about what... 12 players on an entire NBA team? There are 11 players on the field in the NFL for a single team at any given time. 55 players, 32 teams. That means the odds of there being more good players is insanely higher.

Though, I think overall, the ratings could be a bit more spread out. But not to the degree of NBA Live.

[xblake16x]

Quote: Originally Posted by xNYGx

Guys, you gotta keep in mind how many players are in the NFL compared to the NBA. Average is about what... 12 players on an entire NBA team? There are 11 players on the field in the NFL for a single team at any given time. 55 players, 32 teams. That means the odds of there being more good players is insanely higher. Though, I think overall, the ratings could be a bit more spread out. But not to the degree of NBA Live.

It doesnt matter how many players there are, the only thing for the NFL is it would mean alot more players at the same ovr ratings, while the specific ratings would be different.

Also the odds of there being more awful players is insanely higher in the NFL as well. Every team has to fill a squad under a cap limit (not as of right now) so there has to be scrubs and bench warmers. When a starter goes down or if there is no one available to pick up, those scrubs must play.

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Quote: Originally Posted by Purple28Pedestrian

Playing NBA live I love the fact that there are 5-6 guys ONLY with and OVR +90 some starters are even in the 60's and LOTS in the 70's.... do you guys like that or do you think the huge majority of players over 90 is good in madden. It seems that most rating are bunched between 80-90, with few starters ever being in the 70s.

Quote: Originally Posted by rootofalleli

100% prefer the NBA version you're describing. I'd definitely like to see more meaningful differences in ratings. It's silly to have a system in which most of the numbers just mean "BAD PLAYER- DO NOT START". It would be more interesting to see a system in which average guys were about 50 OVR and acceptable starters were maybe 60 OVR. Some reasons why, all connected to things we see on Sunday: Some players are big match-up headaches. Great defensive linemen need to be double-teamed or chipped on almost every play. Awesome receivers need to be double covered. A system that makes a typical starter 85 OVR and a superstar 95 OVR has a harder time with this. Some players improve *drastically* in their first few years. Maybe a QB comes into the NFL and isn't ready to play, period. He'll throw picks, get slammed to the turf a lot, and stare down receivers. After a few training camps and some mentoring, he gains 40 points of AWR and a few other ratings boosts that make him worth putting on the field. Teams are often desperate for specialists to fill certain roles. Big run-stopping DTs or fast pass-rushing LBs are necessary. Simply having a certain skill set and/or body type and being decent earns these guys roster spots as situational players. They don't need to be starter-quality to have value. I'd really love to see a Madden game that emphasized smart substitutions, good role-players, and long-term player development. A greater spread of abilities would open up some space to make that a reality.

Quote: Originally Posted by rooney8

Yeah the 90's should be reserved for superstars only.

I like this alot. I read what some have said with the difference in roster size between the NFL and NBA players, but I dont buy it. There should be a wider spread in the ratings to really put into play why certain players need to be double teamed or pay a ton of attention to.

It would add alot more to the gameplan.

My vote is with the OP and others that agree.

[rootofalleli]

Quote: Originally Posted by sin18

I think the ratings are pretty good as of now 99s are elite players 90s are pro bowl level players 80s are solid starters, good contributors 70s are projects, young players or weaknesses 60s are small time contributor, dime backs, 3rd down back, a long term project In my online franchise i've got 3 elite players a 98 and two 99s, afew more pro bowl contributors (3 i think), a handful of 80s and alot of 70s. I've got a 70s player starting at CB 76, FS 78, SS 75, DT 76, RG 76, RT 79, TE 72, FB 79. I don't think a 60 rating player can belong on a field with 90s payers. Fitz doesn't even need to get open to make a catch, and that is still over 80 overall corners. Can you imagine a 67 overall corner trying to cover fitz? not going to happen! there isn't THAT major of a disparity in talent between actual players, madden needs to reflect that. i think they are doing pretty good. P.S. didn't they open up the ratings dramatically this year? last yearthere were only afew starters in the 70s, now atleast a 3rd of the leagues starters are 70s. the panthers have 70s starting in 9 different positions of 22. I sure as hell don't need any 60s

The way you outlined things might be ok if it were true past season 3 or so of a franchise. Part of the problem might be the ratings inflation around the league. I can start with a decently varied team, but after a few years, my backups are 80 OVR B potential.

Also, I'm not asking that more players get ratings that deem them eternally hopeless. But what if typical rookies in certain positions were 50-60 OVR and simply needed a year or two to acquire some NFL-level skills? What if a 60 OVR corner could still cover a 75 OVR receiver for the required amount of time on most plays? I'd be more interested by a system in which an 80+ OVR could do a lot of things pretty well or one thing incredibly well.

I don't want to see most of the players turn into scrubs who are lost on the field. I'm just questioning a system that doesn't make use of most of the numbers. Right now the rating system is sort of like kids' grades in school. Here's how franchise mode makes us look at our rosters before long:

90 - 100 = Awesome!
80 - 89 = Pretty good- keep this one if you can, but there will be many more.
70-79 = I hope you improve next year, and if this is your potential, goodbye.
0-69 = GET OUT.

Why have so many possibilities if you're not going to use them? Recalibrate the system so most of the scale actually represents something useful.

Quote: Originally Posted by xNYGx

Guys, you gotta keep in mind how many players are in the NFL compared to the NBA. Average is about what... 12 players on an entire NBA team? There are 11 players on the field in the NFL for a single team at any given time. 55 players, 32 teams. That means the odds of there being more good players is insanely higher. Though, I think overall, the ratings could be a bit more spread out. But not to the degree of NBA Live.

There isn't a reason to assume that there are more great football players than great basketball players. That seems to be the premise here, but it doesn't make sense.

And again, no one is saying that someone with a lower rating has to be hopeless. If the average were lower, there would be a lot of players who were average. The exceptional players would stand out more on the field, instead of just on paper.

[jake125]

One of two things needs to happen, either spread the ratings out more so they matter, or make the ratings count more. Either way you would have the same effect.

As of right now the system is broken, I had a game where I started a CB with a 50 OVR rating, he played like Darelle Revis, he was all over the field making plays and returned two INTs for TDs in one game! Somebody rated that low should be awful, he should be thrown at on every play and get burned constantly.

[KBLover]

I feel the whole scale should be used. Otherwise, go to a 1-30 scale where 15 is average. Why have 100 points if only 70-100 are the only ones that are going worth using or even looking at?

If 80 is average, I think that's half the problem. With only 20 points between average and NFL elite, it's going to be hard to make any kind of distinction between them without making the 60s and 70s be utterly useless.

If 60-65 was average, then you have more scaling room on the good side of the scale you can have more degrees of above average-ness without running into star/superstar territory.

I also think most OVR should be very close. There's not a great disparity in overall quality for most players - just the greats and the scrubs. Most of the D+, C, C+ type players differ mostly on what they are good at and how you'll viably be able to use them. With 80 being average and 70 being poor - it's hard to get that kind of distinction, imo.

I would certainly like the fact 60-70 could perform like the league average starter. I think it would do a lot for the game as well as for progression.