NCAA 12 MUST HAVE A RANGE RATING! OFFICIAL THREAD

[Raw-Cane]

Quote: Originally Posted by playguitar90

So range is a quick-acting stamina essentially? This would allow guys like Julius Peppers (aforementioned NFL example) to have 90 or so speed and high 90s acceleration to actually represent their real life quickness in, say, getting to the QB. But DL probably have low range, so they can't run downfield very fast or catch up to guys. You can implement it to offensive players too!!! For sure! Look at Ahmad Bradshaw on the Giants. One of my favorite players. He is very fast when you see him play, but he gets caught from behind alot. Its not that he doesnt have speed, he gets to the secondary in a split second. Super quick and fast, for sure. But then when he gets out there, he is caught up with. The range rating, when thought of like this, cannot be replaced by acceleration. I get it. A guy with very very high range on offense, lets say, is someone who hits the "second gear" when they hit open space. how about a high range rating is a benefit, not less of a drawback. A guy with very very high range would be able to hit his top speed in the open field and take off. Range isn't the most appropriate name for offense, but what can you do? It seems like the best fit. I get it now, its a great idea.

pretty much this... thats what i was tryin to get at but u vocalized way more clearly than i did

+1

[Raw-Cane]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

Really a lot of this could be shown by properly looking at speed and acceleration and using both in conjunction correctly. Right now people seem to look at speed as how fast a player can cover a distance and acceleration as how fast he covers the last part of the distance. EA really does this directly linking 40 times to the speed rating with recruits. Realistically though if you have 2 players who run a 4.5 40: Player 1 has 90 acceleration Player 2 has 70 acceleration Player 2 should then have much higher speed than player 1. In NCAA they are given the same speed rating and because NCAA seems to want somewhat realistic 40 times listed on recruits and also they match the current players up in a similar way it leads to a lot of players probably having too high of a speed rating for their given 40 time and acceleration. The way a side by side view of player 1 racing player 2 should look would be player 1 jumps out to a quick head start, pulling further and further away for the 1st couple seconds but then player 2 should start to catch him and by the 40 yard point they should be even. Anything beyond that unless one or the other got tired player 2 should win. With the acceleration upgrades this year although in a lot of ways they overdid the ratings I think we should see more of the players, especially in the trenches, who have higher accelerations balanced by having even less speed. This should create a player who is quick for the first 5 to 10 yards firing out of his stance and getting up to speed but hits that really quick and can't then keep up with TEs or WRs more than a few yards downfield.

good post
however they would do it.Im just happy that others identify with the problem. whether its another rating or tweaking the existing ones they have to do something. i figure making noise on a popular forum and the thread getting hot couldnt hurt

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Raw-Cane

good post however they would do it.Im just happy that others identify with the problem. whether its another rating or tweaking the existing ones they have to do something. i figure making noise on a popular forum and the thread getting hot couldnt hurt

One of the biggest things that bothers me is EA really is way too concerned about keeping everyone happy with ratings than they are with actually properly rating the players. They also then somewhat match the recruits they create to that same scale.

If you look at the initial rosters EA gave us and add the acceleration and speed ratings together I don't know how many DTs would have a higher number than the lowest any receiver has but I know its a lot. I was going to count them but quit when I got to 65. A lot of these guys are big 280-300 pound tackles and quite a few are even over 300 pounds and they are all fast enough to keep up with slower receivers probably at least 40 yards downfield.

Now if there are that many that are faster than some WRs how many are there that are fast enough to atleast stay close to quite a few receivers and then how many DEs do you think there are that could keep up with most a lot of receivers.

There are DEs in this game that are given speed and acceleration ratings that if the ratings were spread properly even just using the 40 to 99 scale should indicate a mid 4.3 40 time. I mean, lets be serious. How many DEs are really that fast for that far? There are a lot of DEs that are very fast for 10, 15, even 20 yards and therefore should have great acceleration but how many DEs ever at the combine have even hit 4.40? If these ratings were giving to players on a more accurate basis then those DEs would start to loose the guys they were covering as they got further downfield and slower DEs would really be in trouble when they got stuck in coverage.

[4solo]

I feel like it's more of what kcarr said speed is still very inflated in this game. As it stands now the fastest speed is a 4.24. Now the problem isn't that 4.24 is too fast (it may be just a little 4.30 is more accurate) but it should be extremely rare and this is not represented by the game. There are too many 99 spd players in the game. There are just not that many players if any that run a 4.24 in college football. I'm talking maybe 5-10 tops across the nation and that may be too many. IRL if you get a LB that runs a 4.52 (85 in game)he is a top recruit hands down. That is elite range IRL but in the game this is almost a average speed for LB's. Again for DE 4.6 (81 in game) is an elite range but it not hard to find a DE that has 81 spd in the game. In fact for the game thats slow. What makes this worst is that the default rosters have these guys with elite agility and acc. Not saying these guys can't be agile or have acc but B to B+ (84-91) is very common in game for LBs and DE's. Again these should be reserved for the elite players. IMO ratings need to be strecthed a bit futher and you would get the effect that you are asking for.

[UniversityofArizona]

i love the both the range and momentum ideas!

also im pretty sure the current stamina rating regards how long they stay in the game before needing to be subbed and wouldn't be suitable in applying what i believe the op wants as far as range goes

also i think someone said earlier it should be defense only and i disagree with this. it should also apply to offensive players too even lineman should sometimes tire on a pulling block and maybe not get to a linebacker or safety in time if he has poor range.

we have an agility rating to control how fast people can cut and turn

we have an acceleration rating for players speeding up

we have a top speed rating

it would be wonderful to have a range rating to determine how long they stay at top speed

it would be nice to have a rating that determines how fast they decelerate when they are hitting the end of their range (combined into or incorporated with momentum maybe?)

it would be nice to have weight relate to some of these ratings and be able to improve these ratings to a small extent by having players gain and lose weight in the off-season.

finally it would be wonderful to be able to easily edit classes of recruits by setting ratings ranges for each position and their sub specialties such as making hard hitting safeties fall into certain bell curved ranges for their ratings if we so wish so if we feel ea poorly rated recruits we could fix them without ea having to make patches which would in turn allow them to fix or dare i say improve other parts of the game.

[Raw-Cane]

RANGE = How Fast for How Far.... Exactly

[Raw-Cane]

Everybody's input has been spot on since we all agreed or commonly understood what range would translate to in game.

i think its very possible with current technology.If an FPS can calculate bullet drop and damage drop as related to in game distance calculation at real time and multiply that times thousands of shots per minute in an online match then this is possible especially when EA makes one of those games.

In actuality i believe they need to scale down the speed for 2 reasons.
Reason 1 the 40 has almost nothing to do with actual football.Its a track event.The cone drill is a much better judge of actual football "speed".It measures Lateral movement (AGI) quickness(ACC) which more relates to football than a straight line sprint.Football is more about getting where youre going quickly open field speed rarely presents itself .
Secondly everyone is too fast (someone mentioned it) no parody.And for the players who are amazingly fast in a straight line in the open the current ratings nullify that game breaking speed'
Why even put a threshold setting because in REAL life there is no setting to help the big hogs or the slower p[layers.Speed kills .

The range rating may need to be implemented or they can slow people down SPD and ACC and AGI by position.

Momentum Height and Weight are a great idea but with the current engine may be severely limited.

Great players dont only start fast they can stop Faster!If a defender(regardless of position) runs a 4.41 that shouldnt determine how well he stays in coverage or in a play...His ability CHANGE direction and re accelerate should.Same for offense.weight and height should also be factors.Ryan Broyles would BURN Usain Bolt...HOW?Body type and agility.Once he makes the catch Bolt would run him down but..... Body type BOLT=Tall longer lmbs....Broyles Shorter More agile ...
In football Lateral Speed kills Linear speed 99% of the time .....

anyways LETS DO IT EA!!!!!!