In Game Attribute Changes - CCM

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan

I have to assume the in-game ratings are in fact the ones affecting play in-game and therefore the ones that matter. HOWEVER, as I indicated I'm running a west coast scheme and I have two west coast scheme WR's. One shows a positive rating bump in-game, the other a 10 point reduction. This would lead me to believe something is affecting in-game ratings other than scheme. Now if you want to argue the scheme affected ratings are the ones you see out of game, then what is their value, if players during the heat of battle perform to 'natural' non-scheme affected ratings? This IS convoluted.

The only rating that changes is overall. The individual ratings remain the same. It has no impact on how the player performs. Scheme and overall ratings are only there to help in player signing logic and let you know whether or not a player fits your scheme.
But it does not affect their on field performance.

The ratings you see from the in game depth chart do not take scheme into effect; they are the baseline player ratings from the front end, with a few changes due to hot and cold streaks.

In all other situations within CC, that is the non game ratings(e.g. FA screen, trades, etc), ratings are adjusted for scheme.

[Old School SD Fan]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

The only rating that changes is overall. The individual ratings remain the same. It has no impact on how the player performs. Scheme and overall ratings are only there to help in player signing logic and let you know whether or not a player fits your scheme. But it does not affect their on field performance. The ratings you see from the in game depth chart do not take scheme into effect; they are the baseline player ratings from the front end, with a few changes due to hot and cold streaks. In all other situations within CC, that is the non game ratings(e.g. FA screen, trades, etc), ratings are adjusted for scheme.

I believe if I sign an 80 overall FA he shows as 80 in out of the game screens. So I'm not sure your theory holds water. BTW, since you can't get scheme changes to save properly, testing theories is pretty tough.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sturzinator

While we're on the subject, I have also wondered what the weighted effect of player type versus scheme is. I haven't investigated this closely - still trying to get this coaster to play a descent game of football - but it seems that player type weighs more heavily than does the scheme in the ratings. In other words, using the proper player type out of scheme yields better ratings than the inverse situation.

If I remember correctly, scheme has little use other than influencing FA signings. In the past I have heard that if the player's scheme and player type match yours then they receive more XP, but I cannot say with certainty that this is the case.

Player type on the other hand is far more meaningful. Try throwing deep to possession receivers will be met with failure because that is not what they excel at. But you can use possession WRs in a west coast offense just fine, even though ideally that is not their scheme of choice. But there is also a lot of overlap. Take Anquan Boldin of the Ravens. He is a possession WR right? No, he is a red zone threat according to the game. So many times player type is not clear cut.

Typically I use scheme and player type interchangeably and that may lead to confusion. For example scheme = west coast offense, player type = quick route runner WR. But I will refer to quick route runner as scheme for simplicity. Now as far as I know, scheme does not influence the overall ratings -- only player type does (but again, in my previous post I used scheme instead of saying player type and if that creates confusion I apologize).

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan

I believe if I sign an 80 overall FA he shows as 80 in out of the game screens. So I'm not sure your theory holds water. BTW, since you can't get scheme changes to save properly, testing theories is pretty tough.

No that proves my theory if I understand you correctly.
Here is what I understand you to say:
1. You go to FA screen and sign a 80 overall player
2. After singing him he is listed as a 80 overall player on the roster management screen or out of game depth chart. Is this correct?
3. In game his rating should be different. The other two scenarios took player type into account, but the in game depth chart does not.

you can test this. Look at your player ratings. Say you have a 84 ovr WR and you have your WR player type set to quick route runner. Play a game.The WR should now have a different overall rating. Lets say it reads as a 78. Exit the game and change your player type to red zone threat. Go back to your roster screen. The same WR will now have a new rating (say a 71). Start a game again and check his rating from the depth chart. It should still read as a 78.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sturzinator

To elaborate further on this convoluted subject, maybe some of you have researched the answer to these ratings questions: 1. what rating is being shown when you look at someone on the resigning screen - in scheme or out? 2. what rating is being shown when you bid for someone in the opening FA signing period - in scheme or out? 3. how about when you pull up the trade screen - in or out? EA botched the presentation with this IMO. If my depth chart outside of the game is scheme based, but the one inside is not, how am I supposed to make the best decision on who to put in the game in case of injury? I don't think there are many people memorizing their out of game depth chart nor are there people carrying around a printed sheet with the differences. You run your scheme in game, no? So why show me the out of scheme ratings? Using two different baselines to view and set the depth chart is unnecessarily confusing any way you slice it. Yes, you would have set your depth already outside the game, but that doesn't account for in game hot/cold streaks. Furthermore, the in game depth chart has more flexibility than the out of game depth chart does with regard to position subs. For example, out of the game, I cannot place my RT on the depth chart for the G position - he doesn't show up - but in game you can. The flexibility in game for this is nice, but it's rather useless when you don't know the in scheme rating for the position you're moving. I don't know who's right here, but one thing's for sure: the presentation for this, either way you look at it, is wrong.

To answer your questions, the answer to all of them is that it is the in scheme rating. The only time you will see overall that is not adjusted for scheme/player type is within the in game depth chart.

This is because from a programming standpoint, the game engine is the same for CC and play now. Play now does not use schemes so the depth chart in a CC game does not use schemes.

[shttymcgee]

I think that the in-game ratings screen is botched anyway. Look at an OL. There are no pbk and rbk attributes. Only the old rbk/pbk strength and footwork. And those attributes are listed as 0. Makes me think that the in-game ratings are using an older equation for calculating the ratings.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's player type that impacts the out-of-game ratings the most. Change your player types and look at how much individual ratings change. It's easiest to see when you change the TE type to blocking, if you have a vertical threat type.

[Sturzinator]

Quote: Originally Posted by Old School SD Fan

I have to assume the in-game ratings are in fact the ones affecting play in-game and therefore the ones that matter. HOWEVER, as I indicated I'm running a west coast scheme and I have two west coast scheme WR's. One shows a positive rating bump in-game, the other a 10 point reduction. This would lead me to believe something is affecting in-game ratings other than scheme. Now if you want to argue the scheme affected ratings are the ones you see out of game, then what is their value, if players during the heat of battle perform to 'natural' non-scheme affected ratings? This IS convoluted.

So the consensus garnered from this thread is that the player type must not fit your selected player type in the strategy section, ergo the drop in attributes you are seeing.

Apparently scheme is much less important and factors mostly into FAs willingness to sign with your team.

EA still botched this in an epic manner IMO.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sturzinator

So the consensus garnered from this thread is that the player type must not fit your selected player type in the strategy section, ergo the drop in attributes you are seeing. Apparently scheme is much less important and factors mostly into FAs willingness to sign with your team. EA still botched this in an epic manner IMO.

No. No attributes drop due to schemes not fitting. Only the overall drops and this is only due to different player types putting a different weight on some of the attributes (e.g. speed has a lower importance for possession guys than it does for deep threat).

I don't think EA botched this at all. I love that they added it and think the overall implementation was well done.