Ratings Spread

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by rootofalleli

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.

Agreed.

League average is league average - and that's what the ratings scale should be geared towards.

Doesn't matter to me if there's more talented players on the NFL field - what is the league average production and how does the player compare to it? To me, that's where the ratings scale comes in.

Everyone can't be good. If everyone was good - it wouldn't be good anymore, it would be average.

[kcarr]

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 are 53 on an NFL squad and 45 of those suit up rightand 8 inactives. There are 15 in the nba with 12 that suit up and 3 injured reserse aren't there? That means there are around 4 times as many players in the NFL as in the NBA. Also, there are 5 starters per team whereas in the nfl there are 22.

Therefore, I agree, there should be about 4 times as many in the 90s in the nfl game as in the nba game but looking at this objectively shouldn't that mean there are 4 times as many starters that should be rated in the 60s in the nfl game as the nba game? Doesn't that mean there should be 4 times the chance of a starter being rated lower than that in the NFL game?

As for the people who said that "no player in the NFL deserves a 15 compared to brady's 99" and that "if an 80 overall corner can't cover fitz I would hate to se a 67 overall corner try," what determines what a 15 overall or a 67 overall is? That is all determined within the game and by the formula that determines overall ratings.

One thing that I would really love to see them do, although I doubt they will, is to redo the formula for the overall rating so that the highest number it could figure out to would be a 99 and the lowest would be a 0. Now I know most of you think that is already the case but really just because the screen says a 99 does not mean that the formula actually came up with a 99. If you will notice at the point where a player reaches 99 overall not all of his ratings which play into his overall rating are a 99. The ratings scale for the overall right now actually goes up to like 130 or something. This means that since they only let the ratings go down to like 50 or so half of the used ratings are over 90 overall. This really needs to be fixed.

Also, in terms of overall rating they need to have different overall ratings formulas for different positional philosophies for different teams and different spots on the depth chart.

[DoubleIt5]

Quote:

Everyone can't be good. If everyone was good - it wouldn't be good anymore, it would be average.

Yes.

A bigger spread would be nice however it would take some getting used to being cool with a bunch of starters in the 70s. I also feel EA should worry about making all of the ratings matter (or eliminate those that don't) and then we can see the disparity between players more accurately. Its frustrating because this game has been around for two decades. Regardless, I'm a Kool-Aid drinker thinking Madden 11 will be the best Madden ever (which shouldn't it be every year?). This doesn't mean I am pre-ordering, or even buying it early in the season. EA has earned themselves a guaranteed rental from me, we'll see what happens next.

[Tyrant8RDFL]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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?

Excellent point. It make absolutely no sense why the have a scale going to 100.

Your idea of 1-30 sounds nice, and makes sense.

Honestly I would go as low as 1-10 with 5 being a starter, 8 being a pro bowler and 10 being a superstar elite player.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tyrant8RDFL

Excellent point. It make absolutely no sense why the have a scale going to 100. Your idea of 1-30 sounds nice, and makes sense. Honestly I would go as low as 1-10 with 5 being a starter, 8 being a pro bowler and 10 being a superstar elite player.

That 1-10 scale reminds me of the scales often used in OOTP.

Puts some mystery to exactly how good they are. For example, a 7 is a 10 point range, so a "low 7" can be significantly worse than a "high 7" and barely better than a "high 6" but you just see 6 or 7.

I've read some folks like the idea of having to see players in action to get a firmer idea of who's got game and a compact scale like this would do it as long as EA gets it right so that a 5 isn't playing as good as a 9 and bring in the same kinds of things we are already seeing.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly, if they are going to make it a 30 point spread then make it a 30 point spread but use 1-30. Why make it 70-100? The only reason I can think is people think bigger numbers look better in which case why not just use 8945374-8945404? Those would be even bigger numbers and make about as much sense.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

Exactly, if they are going to make it a 30 point spread then make it a 30 point spread but use 1-30. Why make it 70-100? The only reason I can think is people think bigger numbers look better in which case why not just use 8945374-8945404? Those would be even bigger numbers and make about as much sense.

I think that's part of it.

Like one person said - it would take getting used to for many gamers seeing a lot of 60's in the roster on players who are starters.

It's like it's looked at more like a grading scale (as in school so 80 is a "C" and 60 is an "F").