Scheme Overall Ratings question

[USNAggie44]

How can I make the overall ratings that are shown for a player their actual ratings instead of how they'd fit in the scheme I'm running?

[Zenrer]

Iljnlnnnmnl

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by USNAggie44

How can I make the overall ratings that are shown for a player their actual ratings instead of how they'd fit in the scheme I'm running?

The closest answer to your question will be to pick the most "neutral" option for every position scheme (Balanced QB, Balanced RB, etc.) but even that won't quite do it because there are new components to the CCM OVR formula regardless of setting - notably, Size rating (affected by scheme setting), Durability rating (affected by STA, INJ, TGH), and Production rating (affected by career stats). Bottom line, there isn't a way to 100% accurately mimic the out-of-the-box OVR calculation.

That said, the out-of-the-box OVR rating calculation isn't anything more than a weighted average based on general factors, just as the scheme setting based OVR ratings are only weighted averages but based on more specific factors. If you are evaluating players based primarily on out-of-the-box OVR rating, I would argue you aren't going deep enough to have a full understanding of your roster. There's no need for the out-of-the-box OVR rating within CCM.

The last point on this topic - within a game (and possibly a practice? I don't remember), the OVR rating calculations shown in your team's depth chart are NOT the CCM calculations, they are the old calculations. Thus, the out-of-the-box OVR rating for all players on your roster may be accessed in this manner.

[tarek]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

The last point on this topic - within a game (and possibly a practice? I don't remember), the OVR rating calculations shown in your team's depth chart are NOT the CCM calculations, they are the old calculations. Thus, the out-of-the-box OVR rating for all players on your roster may be accessed in this manner.

I did not know that. That does explain why a guy like Ellerbe is rated slightly better from the in-game depth chart than McClain. McClain fits the scheme whilst Ellerbe is a prototype so doesn't, and in the out of game roster screen McClain is rated better even though they are roughly (maybe Ellerbe is slightly better) equal.

Thanks for that!

[daniel77733]

I hate the player scheme setup for players. Its horrible and the sad part is that majority here dont even know why. Once you start seeing starters as backups and backups as starters, you'll understand why I hate player schemes. There should be offensive and defensive schemes that affects re-signings and FA signings in regards to those players interest in signing with you. Thats it.

Go by the IN GAME overall rating, not the menu OVR rating. Seriously, if I went by menu rating, RG Leonard Davis would be starting over Alex Boone. Yeah right. Like im really going to do that. Also, the player schemes really screw up player contracts when it comes to re-signing your own players. I can re-sign DT Ricky Jean Francois (75 overall in game) to a 6 year/$4.8m contract with no signing bonus. $800k a season average for a 75 rated player who just finished his fourth season. UGH.

If this stays in M25, I'll be staying with M13 and thats it for me.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by daniel77733

Go by the IN GAME overall rating, not the menu OVR rating. Seriously, if I went by menu rating, RG Leonard Davis would be starting over Alex Boone. Yeah right. Like im really going to do that. Also, the player schemes really screw up player contracts when it comes to re-signing your own players.

I'm guessing you have your guard settings set to Big Mauler.

In my experience, the OVR calculation for that setting is very dependent on the Size sub-overall rating, which isn't affected by any of the ratings whatsoever as far as I can tell and is purely a height-weight thing, neither of which I believe affect the game whatsoever (I tend to think the ratings drive everything).

In general, the Size rating for every position appears to have the effect of a sort of GM fudge factor to the end of roster management.

[daniel77733]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I'm guessing you have your guard settings set to Big Mauler. In my experience, the OVR calculation for that setting is very dependent on the Size sub-overall rating, which isn't affected by any of the ratings whatsoever as far as I can tell and is purely a height-weight thing, neither of which I believe affect the game whatsoever (I tend to think the ratings drive everything). In general, the Size rating for every position appears to have the effect of a sort of GM fudge factor to the end of roster management.

Yes, I do. I know I can change it to what each individual player is listed as to increase the ratings but at the same time, its a waste because it screws up EVERYTHING IN GAME which is my greater concern. I can change FS from prototype to playmaker to match Goldson but he only increases a point overall and does nothing to his contract demands so I dont bother.

The only thing I do in regards to schemes is that I switch LOLB and ROLB because I flipped Aldon Smith and Ahmad Brooks and yes, I know that they're on the wrong side but since Madden is glitchy and buggy as hell and always gives the LEFT side the majority of sacks, seeing Ahmad Brooks with double or triple the amount of sacks compared to Aldon, I had to flip them.

I tried switching NT to Balanced for Jean Francois and while his overall rating increased 5 points in the menus, his contract demands stayed the same. I'm hoping that making the scheme switch for Aldon will actually affect his contract demands but I doubt it.

CPU wise, the schemes are beyond HORRIBLE and here's an example - the Rams would always sign C Erik Cook and RG Brian Waters (who's hidden in CCM as is deceased MLB Jevon Belcher) to replace their starting C and RG. I had to increase them as well as EVERY starter in the game on EVERY team because of schemes. If I didnt, CCM would be even more screwed up than it already is. I have EVERY starter rated 80 or higher in my roster file that I use which is based on EA's January 4th update.

While this is fake and unrealistic, the game itself is fake and unrealistic so it evens out. Its bad enough that players gets flipped from left to right and vice versa because of the flawed, buggy and glitchy depth chart but seeing backups as starters or 4th stringers starting in favor of 2nd stringers is horrible. If Steven Jackson gets injured, he gets replaced not by Richardson or Pead but by their 4th string RB who's name I cant even remember which should tell you something.

Not being able to control 32 teams makes this even worse because you cant fix this problem for the CPU. Add in the horrible off-season logic due to the schemes and this game is broken and doesnt even get tested yet it gets great reviews simply because of the name on the cover, period. When I see the Dolphins who have Tannehill (and rated 80 in game mind you) sign Warner out of retirement, Alex Smith (who I released) AND still drafted a QB in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft, that's a HUGE flaw.

The truly sad part is that the majority of flaws that I have come across are so easily fixable but yet, it never happens. Sorry, I know you love Madden and EA but I personally believe that they dont even text out their games because if they did, they would see what im seeing and fix it. Either that or they see it but dont care about fixing it which is also a possiblity. Whats worse is when I read website reviews, I just love how the majority of negatives are completely ignored and not even mentioned.

The ONLY way the Madden franchise will ever truly be great is for those who truly love the game and franchise to be honest when reviewing the game so Tiburon and EA will actually take notice and work harder on fixing the major problems and yes, there are a LOT of major problems and in the end, schemes just makes them worse.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by daniel77733

I can change FS from prototype to playmaker to match Goldson but he only increases a point overall and does nothing to his contract demands so I dont bother.

Quote:

I tried switching NT to Balanced for Jean Francois and while his overall rating increased 5 points in the menus, his contract demands stayed the same. I'm hoping that making the scheme switch for Aldon will actually affect his contract demands but I doubt it.

It's my impression that the Production rating plays a significant role in determining contract demands. I notice that even as older veteran players with high Production ratings decline, their contract demands in offseason free agency do not decrease very quickly year-over-year. It would make some sense along that line of thought that a player's contract demands would not change regardless what your team values, because he has an idea of how good he is at what he does based upon his historical performance.

Quote:

The only thing I do in regards to schemes is that I switch LOLB and ROLB because I flipped Aldon Smith and Ahmad Brooks and yes, I know that they're on the wrong side but since Madden is glitchy and buggy as hell and always gives the LEFT side the majority of sacks, seeing Ahmad Brooks with double or triple the amount of sacks compared to Aldon, I had to flip them.

A legacy issue with Madden, indeed. I haven't had a chance to test this out yet, but I read somewhere on this forum that for whatever reason the amount of pass rush over the right tackle is affected by the Offsides penalty slider, and that that slider should be set between 0 and 25 to minimize the apparent "boost" that players rushing over right tackle receive. It's worth a shot, since the Offsides slider doesn't really affect the frequency of Offsides penalties anyway, though I can't vouch for if it works. It's certainly strange, if true.

Quote:

CPU wise, the schemes are beyond HORRIBLE and here's an example - the Rams would always sign C Erik Cook and RG Brian Waters (who's hidden in CCM as is deceased MLB Jevon Belcher) to replace their starting C and RG. I had to increase them as well as EVERY starter in the game on EVERY team because of schemes. If I didnt, CCM would be even more screwed up than it already is. I have EVERY starter rated 80 or higher in my roster file that I use which is based on EA's January 4th update.

Philosophical question - why is the OVR rating in the front end "more correct" than the options presented in CCM? The OVR rating is merely a generic weighted average of all possible skills a given player at a given position can have. Scheme-specific OVR ratings are also just weighted averages, but they allow teams to value different attribute groups more highly; a Zone Coverage CB will value the ZCV rating more highly in the OVR rating calculation than the frontend OVR rating, for example. Why shouldn't CPU teams evaluate players differently depending on what sort of team they wish to build?

Example: I wouldn't want to use DeMarcus Ware as a 4-3 Will in a Cover 2 scheme, for example, regardless of his elite frontend OVR rating; all his great skills are in pass rushing, and his coverage skills are poor (MCV / ZCV in the 40s). The scheme-specific OVR rating accounts for this and produces a separate weighted average more appropriate for teams building a 4-3 defense. I don't see how this "screws everything up"; it in-fact helps me build my team more appropriately for what I want to do.

(Yes, ideally the game would let me convert Ware to a 4-3 DE from a 3-4 OLB. That's not an available option in the game. It absolutely should be. For now, let's acknowledge the limits of the system and work within them.)

As to your example: the default settings for the Rams have them valuing Big Mauler OL along the entire offensive line. Cook is a Big Mauler C (if I recall correctly; I had him in my Redskins CCM), and as such he fits what the CPU Rams want to do, thus why they sign him. It's what they value. Having played with the Redskins, Cook gets an OVR boost with the scheme setting set to Big Mauler because his Size rating balloons under that setting, as previously explained.

Quote:

Not being able to control 32 teams makes this even worse because you cant fix this problem for the CPU.

Hoping for 32-team control to return as well, mainly to allow me to to play CCM with my friends offline.

Quote:

Sorry, I know you love Madden and EA but I personally believe that they dont even text out their games because if they did, they would see what im seeing and fix it.

To be clear - I enjoy Madden, and I'm neutral on EA other than that I enjoy their games by-and-large. However, neither the game nor the company are above criticism from myself.