How to fix the ratings for 2012
This is a discussion on How to fix the ratings for 2012 within the NCAA Football Wishlist Forum forums.
|FIFA 21 Review|
|Tennis World Tour 2 Review|
|Doug Flutie's Maximum Football 2020 Review|
|Poll: Which next-gen console are you going to purchase? (Click to vote)|
|07-25-2010, 03:48 PM||#1|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In a van down by the river!!!
How to fix the ratings for 2012
As some of you may know by now that the ratings of players on the original roster file and the ratings of incoming recruits are very different. Some of you may not care but some do. I have given this a lot of thought over the years of playing EA's NCAA Football series, since 98. Then after playing sports game made by other companies this is what I have come up with.
1) The first issue is EA has always put to much importance on the overall rating and not enough on the ratings that matter for each position. They have also put to much weight on star ratings for recruits.
The Fix: Here is how you fix that. You can leave the overall rating in but make it have very little importance. In its place the most weight should be placed on a players potential grade and the key ratings for his position. If anyone has played Choops2k8 they will know what I'm talking about. The potential grade will be the measure on how much the player will progress. A player with a A+ potential grade will improve at least 10 points over a 4 year career. Then a player with an F(the lowest) potential grade will improve 1 point max (but only if they are at a big school playing for a great coach). These potential grades will not effect a players overall. They will only be a measure to know how much a player will improve over a career.
Next up is the ratings themselves. Most positions already have ratings that effect only that position. The one that needs improving on is the QB. We need what Madden has with a short, mid, and long passing accuracy. The real fix here is just drop how much each rating factors into the value of an overall rating. If you have played choops2k8 then you know you can play with a small school and have a guard that may be a 63ovr has ratings of 85close, 76mid, 81three's. Just because his over all is low does not make him useless in the game. In EA's games that player at a 63ovr would be useless.
2) The next fix is star rating value. The way it is now a 5* player will end up way better then a 3*. This is not always the case in real life and should not be that way in the game. Demarcus Ware is one of the best players in the NFL and he was not recruited at all by big schools because he was from a small high school and some scout didn't give him a high star rating. I have to say I did see some lower overalls for the 5* guys in the game this year but the bust seems like it may not be there and the low rated guy who turns into a 1st rounder.
The fix: This is where the potential grades will come into play. Some 5* guys max out in high school and never get any better. Some 2* & 3* guys are over looked due to small school/ small area. What we need is more 2* & 3* recruits with a higher potential. I'm not talking about an extreme but some here and there. Also need some 4* and 5* guys that have a low potential grade and don't get better. Basically more "diamonds in the rough" and "bust" kind of players.
-Make the potential grade for the out of the box rosters where we can edit it.
-If all of this is to hard then just allow for us to edit ratings in dynasty mode. This way we can make the game how we want it.
Please post your thoughts like I have to ask.
|Advertisements - Register to remove|
|07-25-2010, 07:03 PM||#2|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Re: How to fix the ratings for 2012
i posted this in the impression thread this was my solution.i wanna talk about progression a little. there are some programs that aren't good at recruiting but develop talent.(boise *, Tcu, Uconn) there are some that can recruit but the talent dissapoints. (recent florida state, recent michigan, recent georgia) then there are some programs who can do both well. (Texas, Florida, Oklahoma).
Progression should be made off these factors: play time, production, and coaching staff. Coaches should have recruiting ratings, Development ratings, and the coaching rating. Also bring in assistant coaches with the same thing.
Head coaches should have 2 development rankings 1 for their area of expertise and another for overall the overall team.
For example Butch Davis rating - recruiting A, Development B+, Coaching C+not an x&o's guy. Area of expertise defense/dl.
Another Ex. Charlie Weis - recruiting A, development C, doaching B+. even though his overall development is a C his area of expertise is the quaterback/offense so that positon still will develop well. so on and so forth with positional coaches. since notre dames defense was average while weis was there the positonal coaches that are responsible for defense should have a development rating reflects the production.
though that shouldn't be the end all be all even if development rating is a c if this is someone that got good play time/production they should still progress well. there are some good players on bad offense/defenses.
also positional coaches should be able to take up to 2 positions. for ex DEF. coordinator/ D-line, Wr/Te. they also can be promoted/ demoted. hired be another team or i could take another teams guy if i want.
last but not least the amount they increase +10 rare (most common in 1* & 2*but will happen for 3*, 4* guys) increase that are over 10 will not happen twice in their careers. the higher the overall the lower the % of progression majority off the time.(not the case for superstars)
also these large increases should happen after their freshman or sophmore years. majority of the time they make the biggest strides rarely the jr's or sr's. tim tebow didnt really improve much from his jr to sr year there are guys like brian orakpo and chris long who put it all together sr year but overall progression is more-so in the younger guys.
north carolina de robert quinn freshman year 34 tackles 6.5 tfl 2 sacks (limited pt) based of production lets say 80 overall
his sophmore year 52 tackles 19 tfl 11 sacks now based off production 90 overall
So his offseason training must've put him up atleast + 10
also look at reggie bush sophmore year he was pretty good about 87 - 91 overall
his jr year heisman winner he's atleast a 97 overall at the minimum he progressed 6-10 points
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 AM.