Player rating/traits and confusion...

[californ14]

As it is I believe player ratings are way too high; only the elites should have overalls in the 90's...A few more players in the 80's, and then the majority of normal players in the 60's and 70's overall range....

Right now it is like pitting 2 pro bowl teams against each other....The ratings between players with even 10 points in overall rating is barely a difference...

The major difference most likely would be noticed between skill position players; but for OL and DL there is hardly and variation, even between players with overalls in the 40's and 50's...

The whole rating system needs to be fixed....

[Trick13]

Quote: Originally Posted by californ14

As it is I believe player ratings are way too high; only the elites should have overalls in the 90's...A few more players in the 80's, and then the majority of normal players in the 60's and 70's overall range.... Right now it is like pitting 2 pro bowl teams against each other....The ratings between players with even 10 points in overall rating is barely a difference... The major difference most likely would be noticed between skill position players; but for OL and DL there is hardly and variation, even between players with overalls in the 40's and 50's... The whole rating system needs to be fixed....

It's like they need to double or triple the scale on which ratings affect the gameplay, but just leave the physical attributes scale as is and triple the scale for the other stuff;
AWR TAK SAC MAC DAC CAR and so on.

If they started having starters rated in the 70s people would cry and whine, even the players themselves would cry foul, so EA can avoid that by expanding the scale on which non-physical attributes are "spread out" under the hood....

[juggalotusx]

I think we have all thought of this more than EA has,lol.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trick13

If they started having starters rated in the 70s people would cry and whine, even the players themselves would cry foul, so EA can avoid that by expanding the scale on which non-physical attributes are "spread out" under the hood....

That's a great idea. Or apply the "50 = Average" scale to the mental/technique ratings and leave physical on the existing scale.

Hopefully, the traits can continue to be fleshed out and impacting. Then it would help create this even if not in the literal number ratings.

This is also why it sucks that, at least for me, autosubs don't work because fatigue did a lot in M12 to create this sort of effect. STA ratings varied, so as players tired, some more than others - helped create disparity in subtle ways that was also situational/organic to the flow of the game.

Speaking of M12 stuff, would roles coming back help this, especially if there's also more negative roles?

[Grey_Osprey]

I'm beginning to lean toward most of the ratings not having much meaning or very little at best. They exist simply to give the so-called ratings czar, Donnie Moore, the flexibility to mess with various ratings in an attempt to manipulate the OVR of players.

Shortly after M13 came out, I saw two youtube videos that made me question if ratings really mean anything. One was of a created LT player who was 5' tall and I believe around 150 lbs, 0 STR, 0 PBK, 0 RBK, can't remember the speed. At any rate, he was put up against the Ravens D-line and blocked Suggs on every play. Another video was of someone who put 5 QB's on his offensive line. They were able to block the dline.

I think Rootofalleli nailed it with - "... If EA could tell us what each thing does, that would dispel the perception that (1) they don't know or (2) some variables have no effect..."

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Grey_Osprey

Shortly after M13 came out, I saw two youtube videos that made me question if ratings really mean anything. One was of a created LT player who was 5' tall and I believe around 150 lbs, 0 STR, 0 PBK, 0 RBK, can't remember the speed. At any rate, he was put up against the Ravens D-line and blocked Suggs on every play. Another video was of someone who put 5 QB's on his offensive line. They were able to block the dline.

Well height/weight don't matter for blocking, but we knew that already. Until there's a TRUE physics system, not just better hitboxes, best we might hope for is Size rating making a more meaningful difference.

As far has the 0's, there's probably a minimal success rate that's not 0%. So there would still be a chance for those guys to hold up. It could also trigger some kind of weird calculation like in Disgaea where a lv 99 enemy gave 3x the experience as Lv 100+ enemies. After all, I doubt EA thought anyone would put 5 QBs on the LOS.

I think a better test would be to see if say whatever the lowest OL strength is vs 99 STR DL. That would be a more intended positional difference. Same for RBK - lowest offensive player's RBK vs 99 BSH. And of course in reverse, lowest defender BSH vs 99 RBK, etc.

[rootofalleli]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

That's a great idea. Or apply the "50 = Average" scale to the mental/technique ratings and leave physical on the existing scale.

Quote: Originally Posted by Grey_Osprey

Shortly after M13 came out, I saw two youtube videos that made me question if ratings really mean anything. One was of a created LT player who was 5' tall and I believe around 150 lbs, 0 STR, 0 PBK, 0 RBK, can't remember the speed. At any rate, he was put up against the Ravens D-line and blocked Suggs on every play. Another video was of someone who put 5 QB's on his offensive line. They were able to block the dline.

Blocking is one area where a greater spread in ratings and more reliance on physics would be ideal. It should be impossible for light guys to block heavy guys. It's one thing for a RB to set up and throw himself at a blitzer to buy the QB a second. It's another for a man to line up across from someone 150 pounds heavier.

If animations were driven by physics, it would be OK, for example, for a heavy, strong guy with mediocre technique to line up at guard. He might need some help more often, especially against elite DTs. He might struggle to turn his man in the run game or adjust to stunts and blitzes in the passing game. There'd be a reason to develop great blockers and reward them with big contracts. If you went cheap, it would affect your playcalling in ways you could really feel.

Right now many people here seem to feel highly rated blockers are a waste, and chasing after a slider set that makes differences apparent is a real quest. I don't think we'll see progress here when the difference between great and mediocre is 15-20 points and when animations don't exist for big men pushing little men out of the way.

[Trick13]

Quote: Originally Posted by rootofalleli

Blocking is one area where a greater spread in ratings and more reliance on physics would be ideal. It should be impossible for light guys to block heavy guys. It's one thing for a RB to set up and throw himself at a blitzer to buy the QB a second. It's another for a man to line up across from someone 150 pounds heavier. If animations were driven by physics, it would be OK, for example, for a heavy, strong guy with mediocre technique to line up at guard. He might need some help more often, especially against elite DTs. He might struggle to turn his man in the run game or adjust to stunts and blitzes in the passing game. There'd be a reason to develop great blockers and reward them with big contracts. If you went cheap, it would affect your playcalling in ways you could really feel. Right now many people here seem to feel highly rated blockers are a waste, and chasing after a slider set that makes differences apparent is a real quest. I don't think we'll see progress here when the difference between great and mediocre is 15-20 points and when animations don't exist for big men pushing little men out of the way.

I agree, for the most part, but D. Ware is barely 260 lbs and most LTs weigh north of 300 so he is giving up 40+ lbs every down. "Pure physics" without regard to leverage, angles, and so forth won't really fix the main issues. The system is going to have to be fleshed out and designed completely differently than it is now...