What's the difference between EA's player ratings and your own player ratings?

[Sublime12089]

I agree, there is MAYBE 1 player on my team that deserves a 90, and only probably 2 others that deserve upper 80s. I really would like to see the full scale used


<20=bad
20-39 =below average
40-59= Average
60-70= above average
71-79= good / All Conference in non BCS
80-89= All Conference (BCS mostly, with exceptions)
90+ = All Americans

[gator3guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Playmakers

I couldn't find the ratings for NCAA 02 but i did go back and observe them for NCAA 06 and sure enough it appeared EA actually spent quality time on the ratings. They didn't have as many players with a 90+ overal that's for sure.... Now i'm a huge supporter of this years game and still think it's going to be great. I just don't think there are that many players in college football today that should treated as if they are future HOF's already. Seriously a guy can play one year and be 88 overall.................. People would hate my rosters if it was me releasing them for the game because that same guy would be lucky to even reach 88 by his SR let alone his SO year of college football......unless he was freaking Peyton Manning or John Elway material that guy would be just scratching the surface of his potential not maxing it out by his So Season

Just off the top of my head, in NCAA 2002 they only had 2 or 3 QB's above 90 and overall I think the highest rated player was a 97 who happened to be Julius Peppers. And any College Hoops 2k fans would be familiar with these types of ratings. One year the highest overall rating in there game was an 88 I believe.

[Colorado Cooler]

Quote: Originally Posted by BIGFOOT999

I agree, there is MAYBE 1 player on my team that deserves a 90, and only probably 2 others that deserve upper 80s. I really would like to see the full scale used <20=bad 20-39 =below average 40-59= Average 60-70= above average 71-79= good / All Conference in non BCS 80-89= All Conference (BCS mostly, with exceptions) 90+ = All Americans

I like that scale. The current system is especially penal for low-end teams. For example, Ark St has only 7 players rated in the 70's and nearly half the players on the roster are below 65. Simply stated, that team is BCS cannon-fodder.

What makes matters worse, 2-star recruits rated 66 or higher are easy to land for even the lowliest teams, and thus, an Ark St dynasty player's first recruiting class of freshman makes all those 40, 50 and lower-60 ranked players on the original roster obsolete. In year two, freshman play while many upperclass players who survive the first cut are deadweight, waiting to matriculate out of the system or to be cut on the second go around.

[Cubs017]

I prefer to rate players on their actual raw, physical ability. Tim Tebow was not the most talented Quarterback in college football, but EA had to give him the best ratings because he was the most successful. In their games Tebow had to have the best throwing stats so he could put up the best numbers, Alabama's players have to be jacked up so they have the top defense overall, etc.

[ActLikeYouCrow]

its a combination of being brainwashed by ea's ratings of the past few years and being homers, then there is the idea that its easier just to go along with the bad ratings overall and make my team accurate relative to the horrible ratings curve rather than fix nearly everything.

i dont even know if you can call them extreme because like you said there are so many people that do it, but youll see posters list players within the same position grouping on one team and there is next to no differentiation between them. talking less than 5 pts or no more than 10 pts difference in every category.

the problem with the overrating so that the team performs well on the game logic is does alabama need all sec players at every position and backups to be the best on the game. frankly its very debateable if they will be the best defense considering all the people they lost. im not a roster maker myself but i find it hard to believe that you cant be reasonable and realistic when handing out ratings and not have the team perform relatively similar to how they do in real life. im absolutely not picking on alabama because theyre just a sympton of the problem and its not like they werent the only team jacked up across the board this year.

the other problem that is sure to get mentioned are lowering the ratings in ncaa probably impact the draft classes for madden a lot. which means there needs to be the kind of interaction between the two teams so that the ratings on both games are spread out and the draft classes come out accurate.

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by BIGFOOT999

I agree, there is MAYBE 1 player on my team that deserves a 90, and only probably 2 others that deserve upper 80s. I really would like to see the full scale used <20=bad 20-39 =below average 40-59= Average 60-70= above average 71-79= good / All Conference in non BCS 80-89= All Conference (BCS mostly, with exceptions) 90+ = All Americans

That is what i mean by using the entire 0-99 scale.....

Now i don't think you'll see any players rated below 50 overall but if they did start to implement the lower scale of the ratings system more then we would see a reduction of players who are rated 90+

I love your starting point for above avg players being at 60-70 overall.....

But then again lets say most starters on the default rosters are rated in the 60-70 range with only their All-American's being in the 90's do you think the casual gamer would be happy about seeing his best WR rated a 70 overall?

I would love it but i'm willing to bet most people would go crazy if their best team only had 2-3 players rated 80+ or higher

[Playmakers]

Quote: Originally Posted by ActLikeYouCrow

its a combination of being brainwashed by ea's ratings of the past few years and being homers, then there is the idea that its easier just to go along with the bad ratings overall and make my team accurate relative to the horrible ratings curve rather than fix nearly everything. i dont even know if you can call them extreme because like you said there are so many people that do it, but youll see posters list players within the same position grouping on one team and there is next to no differentiation between them. talking less than 5 pts or no more than 10 pts difference in every category. the problem with the overrating so that the team performs well on the game logic is does alabama need all sec players at every position and backups to be the best on the game. frankly its very debateable if they will be the best defense considering all the people they lost. im not a roster maker myself but i find it hard to believe that you cant be reasonable and realistic when handing out ratings and not have the team perform relatively similar to how they do in real life. im absolutely not picking on alabama because theyre just a sympton of the problem and its not like they werent the only team jacked up across the board this year. the other problem that is sure to get mentioned are lowering the ratings in ncaa probably impact the draft classes for madden a lot. which means there needs to be the kind of interaction between the two teams so that the ratings on both games are spread out and the draft classes come out accurate.

[Sublime12089]

Quote: Originally Posted by Playmakers

That is what i mean by using the entire 0-99 scale..... Now i don't think you'll see any players rated below 50 overall but if they did start to implement the lower scale of the ratings system more then we would see a reduction of players who are rated 90+ I love your starting point for above avg players being at 60-70 overall..... But then again lets say most starters on the default rosters are rated in the 60-70 range with only their All-American's being in the 90's do you think the casual gamer would be happy about seeing his best WR rated a 70 overall? I would love it but i'm willing to bet most people would go crazy if their best team only had 2-3 players rated 80+ or higher

I agree, while many here may like to see a large scale, it is more of a SIM gamer's utopian idea than something that would actually ever be implemented. I would be happy with a scale like that that went 50-100 though. Or something that AT LEAST reflected somewhat of a bell curve. But we know EA doesn't make games for the hardcore/sim crowd, frankly because we are the minority.