Albums |
Screenshots |
Videos |
Communicate |
Friends |
Chalkboard |
Scheme Overall Ratings question
This is a discussion on Scheme Overall Ratings question within the Madden NFL Old Gen forums.
|
||||||
MLB The Show 24 Review: Another Solid Hit for the Series | |
New Star GP Review: Old-School Arcade Fun | |
Where Are Our College Basketball Video Game Rumors? |
|
Thread Tools |
04-15-2013, 02:20 PM | #9 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rookie
|
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
To argue against my own statement, though, I'll say that it would be awesome if EA would simply create an "Xs & Os" edition or something that wouldn't be a completely different game (like NFL Head Coach was), but simply a different version of Madden that would give users more minute control of the off-field elements of the NFL. Being able to set situational depth charts, create plays, build coaching staffs complete with positional coaches and scouting departments, simulating holdouts/suspensions/etc for "troubled" players, and things like that. They took a step in the right direction when they gave us the chance to create gameplans with weighted preferences for each play, but we need to be able to have the game automatically sub in a bigger RB in short yardage situations, move the best corner inside in certain situations, etc. These aren't things that require years of actual coaching experience to know how to do, but they ARE beyond the scope of what a lot of casual gamers care about. I understand wanting to keep the game easy to pick up and play without a steep learning curve, but I don't understand why they can't give the smaller subset of gamers (which is still a ton of customers) a more immersive and realistic experience. I seem to recall that a recent version of Sony's MLB The Show giving users the options of front-loaded, back-loaded, or evenly spaced contracts when signing players. Even something as small as that would be a nice little trinket to give us, but I'm not holding my breath... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
04-15-2013, 03:46 PM | #10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Banned
|
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
I can see elite veterans like Brady, Manning, etc. mainly because they play the most important position and are consistent year in and year out. Look at Randy Moss, I have him rated 80, hes old, far past his prime and not worth $2.5m yet thats what he wants in FA during the 2013 off-season. To me, contract demands should be based on overall rating, position and age/years pro. To me, thats fair. What happens if you have a backup with a higher production rating than the starter in front of him and the backup wants more money yet isnt rated as high as the starter? To me, thats a flaw. Very rarely do you see a backup getting paid more money than the starter in front of him. I dont know how anyone else plays but I prefer my depth chart in order of the overall ratings. In other words, my 5th WR is the 5th highest rated WR on my team. I never ever have a lower rated player starting ahead of a higher rated player because if thats the case, then their ratings should be flipped. I get the idea that players know what they're are worth but then again, see James Harrison.
Its amazing how for example, Tannehill drops in rating on the menus and usually gets replaced in the off-season despite the fact that if anything, his overall rating should increase considering the fact that his OC was his college HC, they run the same offense and he was drafted by the Dolphins because of this. That right there shows that schemes is flawed badly. Also, how kickers and punters have anything to do with schemes whatsoever is also a flaw. Kickers and punters are interchangable and anyone who knows football knows this. For my team (49ers), TE Vernon Davis drops to 90 (or lower) from is in-game rating of 95. He's listed as a vertical threat. The default TE scheme is set as vertical threat yet he declines? Seriously, how does that make any sense whatsoever? If anything, his overall rating should increase because his scheme style matches what the team is listed as at TE. As for the Rams, I get that they sign those two players because they fit the scheme but at the same time, its fake and unrealistic because after all, they already have players at that position plus Waters is retired and was on the Patriots reserved list for 2012. Here's the main problem, check in-game of their overall ratings...the backups will be rated higher than the starters because of this problem. I have stopped checking other team's depth charts in-game because it aggravates and frustrates me to no end. And not being able to fix it myself doesnt help matters. Seriously, if you check in-game, you'll be surprised to see how many backups (and worse) are starters when the actual players who should be starters are backups. As for your Cowboys example with Ware...I agree because he's a pass rusher. The OLB's in a 3-4 basically replace the DE's in a 4-3 base. In a 4-3, its the DE's that are the pass rushers where as in a 3-4, its the two OLB's. Ware shouldnt be dropping into coverage in the 3-4 or 4-3. Neither should Aldon Smith. If you were to switch them to DE outside of CCM, Smith goes to 99 and Ware probably does the same because of their attributes and strengths and while I get that the scheme setup is trying to emulate that, it fails miserably in doing so because again, it turns backups into starters and starters into backups. There's a reason why playing PLAY NOW is actually a better challenge and better game than inside CCM. That reason is because schemes doesnt exist. Its all based on the overall ratings of the players which is what it should be. After all, thats why starters are starters and backups are backups. No backup should be rated higher than a starter in game unless its because of an injury and the injured player's attributes and overall rating decline... (I know Madden doesnt do this but 2K5 did and was actually based on the type of injury - Owens had a leg injury once and while his catching stayed the same, his route running, speed and agility attributes decreased to reflect the actual injury...this is the lone exception in my opinion) ...in the end, the overall ratings not matching up screws up a lot of things in CCM and causes a lot of problems which is why I hate the scheme setup. I understand what their objective was but they didnt accomplish it and caused a lot of problems in the process. Everyone can look at it their own way and build their team based on it if they want but here's a question - If you sign a FA who's 85 because he fits your scheme but in-game, he's 80 for example and you have a player who's rated higher than him in-game, why would you have the lower rated player higher on your depth chart when in-game, he's obviously and clearly not the better player?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
04-15-2013, 09:53 PM | #11 |
Rookie
|
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
A quick answer to view non-scheme specific OVR, check the depth chart when you are playing a game. It will give you their "actual" OVR rating, as if you were looking at the rosters from My Madden outside of CCM.
|
Advertisements - Register to remove | ||
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
«
Operation Sports Forums
> Football
> Madden NFL Football
> Madden NFL Old Gen
»
Thread Tools | |
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 AM.
Top -
|