how is Emmitt behind Payton in "Legacy Score"

[tfctillidie]

Quote: Originally Posted by eival

walls of text, none of which actually on the topic of how EA's legacy score actually adds up based on the criteria in the game, which says Superbowls, Championships and Yearly Awards. of which Emmitt has more than Payton.

LOL

Poor guy. Starts a thread to ask a Madden question and this happens.


For the love of god guys, this wasn't supposed to be a Emmitt vs Walter debate, it's about the Legacy Score in Madden.


Sorry I have no answer for you though, hopefully some people clue in that they are missing the point here.

[tfctillidie]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jimi XIII

You listed each ones (Legacy) accomplishments, I would assume they than took other things into account.

Opinion certainly isn't measured in the video game. Statistically, Emmitt is superior.

So when we play the game, how do we get judged if this is how it's setup?

[Moegames]

Quote: Originally Posted by eival

clearly superbowls and division titles have a baring cause its listed, yet some how Walter Payton has 700xp more than Emmitt, who not only had the same number of Yearly Awards but won 3 superbowls and 6 division championships, oh and has the most TDs and Yards all time 2nd to only Jerry Rice how does 1 superbowl, 1 championship and 12 awards = 14k yet 3 superbowls, 6 championships and 12 awards = 13k

Emmitt better overall than Payton? Keep dreaming... Stats don't mean everything, one day you will learn that, hopefully

[ggsimmonds]

I think there are two different ways the game measures legacy scores.
There is a formula used for user players and current/future players but when it comes to the past legends I am sure EA makes "modifications" to the formula to get the proper rankings.

If two people were to create 2 new RBs and put up Smith's and Payton's exact same career numbers in CC player I am sure the player who put up Smith's legacy score would be higher.

[bucky60]

Ranking RB's, Jim Brown and Walter Payton are at the very top.

There was no part of Payton's game that was average. He did everything very well. He ran with power and finesse, was a very good receiver out of the backfield and an excellent blocker. Plus he was a good emergency QB. He could actually throw the ball well.

You could probably add Gale Sayers just under these two. Only a 6 or 7 year career and still a HOF'er. Would have had much better career stats w/o the career ending injury. I'm not sure Emmit is in my top 5 for all time.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Ranking RB's, Jim Brown and Walter Payton are at the very top. There was no part of Payton's game that was average. He did everything very well. He ran with power and finesse, was a very good receiver out of the backfield and an excellent blocker. Plus he was a good emergency QB. He could actually throw the ball well. You could probably add Gale Sayers just under these two. Only a 6 or 7 year career and still a HOF'er. Would have had much better career stats w/o the career ending injury. I'm not sure Emmit is in my top 5 for all time.

With respect, no cares where you have Emmit in your all time list of top RBs.
The issue is how legacy score is determined. And if it goes by stats (which is the only logical way such a score can be determined) Emmit should be above Payton.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

With respect, no cares where you have Emmit in your all time list of top RBs. The issue is how legacy score is determined. And if it goes by stats (which is the only logical way such a score can be determined) Emmit should be above Payton.

Stats isn't the only logical way it can be determined.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Stats isn't the only logical way it can be determined.

I have to disagree.
Personally I think Walter was a better RB, but how do I make a formula or equation and use opinion as a variable?

Remember, I am not speaking of real life; I am only speaking of how the game calculates legacy score. In game limiting yourself to stats makes sense.