A new ratings idea...

[canes21]

Would you want it for each game? Or would you want it to change play by play or possession by possession? Or a 70 Consistency rating would mean he hits within 5 points of his max rating 70% of the game.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

Would you want it for each game? Or would you want it to change play by play or possession by possession?

I would think game by game would be better. Play by play might be too much. Possession by possession might be a compromise.

Pretty much depends, too, on how much swing there can be. If it's a narrow swing, but still impacting, play by play might work wonders.

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

Or a 70 Consistency rating would mean he hits within 5 points of his max rating 70% of the game.

What would happen the rest of the time?

That's why I like the range idea, consistency would always have it's impact and need to be considered when evaluating a player. Now maybe my range idea is too spread out, and it impacts high ratings more than lower ratings, which is a problem (the nature of %).

Perhaps it would be better if consistency was used to set the range of variance - and put it on the A - F scale like Potential is. Then you could do something like:

A consistency = range of 10
B consistency = range of 15
C consistency = range of 20
D consistency = range of 25
F consistency = range of 30

So, given a 90 rating, A consistency would be a range of 80-90 while F consistency would be a range of 60-90.

Now it's not impacted by the base rating (a 50 would be 40-50 and 20-50, respectively). Might still be too large a gap, but it depends on just how impacting each point in the ratings scale would be.

[Pringles]

i like the consitency idea but instead of player grades that limit them like they are in madden A-B-C-D-F those grades should reflect learning curve A meaning they will progress faster than F that way if you use a player to death eventually they can be a star.

[canes21]

Learning could be a completely different rating. I'm pretty sure Head Coach had it, right? So, basically, we're all asking for Head Coach added into Madden lol.

[xblake16x]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pringles

i like the consitency idea but instead of player grades that limit them like they are in madden A-B-C-D-F those grades should reflect learning curve A meaning they will progress faster than F that way if you use a player to death eventually they can be a star.

personally I believe thats what the potential rating should be. much like nba 2k10 they use the potential as how quickly someone will progress and not as a wall. I love the idea of how quickly they progress.

and also while im here, i think the OVR rating should be more of a 'value' rating, and not how good one person is. I think that would be hard to implement unless there were other ratings such as performance, playbook learning, and there were some sort of scheme system.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

and also while im here, i think the OVR rating should be more of a 'value' rating, and not how good one person is.

Really, that's about all it is. OVR, to my knowledge, doesn't impact gameplay directly, it's just a combination of all the other ratings by various weights depending on position.

What's lacking is that "value" isn't just raw skills - but also performance and health. I don't think INJ factors into OVR and performance (or Production for the HCers out there) isn't in the game at all.

And I agree with the post mentioning that potential could be better used as a "rate of growth/decline" rating instead of a max rating.

However, to keep guys from just being 99 across the board, I do think there should be some sort of capping - otherwise guys would just max out eventually, and that's not realistic either. At some point real life players DO stop getting better. That's why there's different levels of ability and performance. Everyone just doesn't keep developing until they are HoF material.