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?
-
Gig'em Aggies! -
Iljnlnnnmnl -
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
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.Comment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
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!Comment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
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.Last edited by daniel77733; 04-14-2013, 11:14 PM.Comment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
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.Comment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
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.Comment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.
Hoping for 32-team control to return as well, mainly to allow me to to play CCM with my friends offline.Not being able to control 32 teams makes this even worse because you cant fix this problem for the CPU.
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.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.Comment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
Sad, but true, although I personally think the franchise will take far too long to reach its potential (or possibly never get there), not because the reviews are dishonest or softball, but because the NFL granted them an exclusive rights contract. A monopoly is the biggest enemy of innovation, especially in the technology sector. If there was another game that was allowed to use the real players' names, real teams' logos, etc, it would either give the newcomers a chance to create a more realistic game, or give EA/Tiburon the kick in the pants needed to up their own game.
To argue against my own statement, though, I'll say that it would be awesome if EA would simply create an "Xs & Os" edition or something that wouldn't be a completely different game (like NFL Head Coach was), but simply a different version of Madden that would give users more minute control of the off-field elements of the NFL. Being able to set situational depth charts, create plays, build coaching staffs complete with positional coaches and scouting departments, simulating holdouts/suspensions/etc for "troubled" players, and things like that. They took a step in the right direction when they gave us the chance to create gameplans with weighted preferences for each play, but we need to be able to have the game automatically sub in a bigger RB in short yardage situations, move the best corner inside in certain situations, etc. These aren't things that require years of actual coaching experience to know how to do, but they ARE beyond the scope of what a lot of casual gamers care about. I understand wanting to keep the game easy to pick up and play without a steep learning curve, but I don't understand why they can't give the smaller subset of gamers (which is still a ton of customers) a more immersive and realistic experience. I seem to recall that a recent version of Sony's MLB The Show giving users the options of front-loaded, back-loaded, or evenly spaced contracts when signing players. Even something as small as that would be a nice little trinket to give us, but I'm not holding my breath...Comment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
I didnt know that but I disagree with it because it doesnt make any sense. Veteran players should never demand more money than younger in their prime players especially now when you can get a young 22 year old rookie under a cheap four year rookie contract due to the 2011 CBA. Look at James Harrison...while he's expected to sign with the Bengals this week, I highly doubt that he'll get even half of what PIT was offering him after they asked him to take a paycut.Originally posted by CM Hooe
I can see elite veterans like Brady, Manning, etc. mainly because they play the most important position and are consistent year in and year out. Look at Randy Moss, I have him rated 80, hes old, far past his prime and not worth $2.5m yet thats what he wants in FA during the 2013 off-season.
To me, contract demands should be based on overall rating, position and age/years pro. To me, thats fair. What happens if you have a backup with a higher production rating than the starter in front of him and the backup wants more money yet isnt rated as high as the starter? To me, thats a flaw. Very rarely do you see a backup getting paid more money than the starter in front of him.
I dont know how anyone else plays but I prefer my depth chart in order of the overall ratings. In other words, my 5th WR is the 5th highest rated WR on my team. I never ever have a lower rated player starting ahead of a higher rated player because if thats the case, then their ratings should be flipped.
I get the idea that players know what they're are worth but then again, see James Harrison.
I'll have to try this and see what happens. I have every penalty at 100 except for holding, face mask and roughing the passer which are at 50 because anything higher and they get called all the time to an absurd amount. I can see them being called a few times on one possession. It's nuts.Originally posted by CM Hooe
The main reason why the overall ratings on the menus should at the very least match in-game is because it screws up too much with the CPU and makes them do stuff that makes no sense whatsoever. Since you cant edit CPU schemes and even if you try using the retire character option and switch to another team, it all gets reset back to the defaults so there's no workaround whatsoever and trust me, I have tried finding one.Originally posted by CM Hooe
Its amazing how for example, Tannehill drops in rating on the menus and usually gets replaced in the off-season despite the fact that if anything, his overall rating should increase considering the fact that his OC was his college HC, they run the same offense and he was drafted by the Dolphins because of this. That right there shows that schemes is flawed badly. Also, how kickers and punters have anything to do with schemes whatsoever is also a flaw. Kickers and punters are interchangable and anyone who knows football knows this.
For my team (49ers), TE Vernon Davis drops to 90 (or lower) from is in-game rating of 95. He's listed as a vertical threat. The default TE scheme is set as vertical threat yet he declines? Seriously, how does that make any sense whatsoever? If anything, his overall rating should increase because his scheme style matches what the team is listed as at TE.
As for the Rams, I get that they sign those two players because they fit the scheme but at the same time, its fake and unrealistic because after all, they already have players at that position plus Waters is retired and was on the Patriots reserved list for 2012. Here's the main problem, check in-game of their overall ratings...the backups will be rated higher than the starters because of this problem.
I have stopped checking other team's depth charts in-game because it aggravates and frustrates me to no end. And not being able to fix it myself doesnt help matters. Seriously, if you check in-game, you'll be surprised to see how many backups (and worse) are starters when the actual players who should be starters are backups.
As for your Cowboys example with Ware...I agree because he's a pass rusher. The OLB's in a 3-4 basically replace the DE's in a 4-3 base. In a 4-3, its the DE's that are the pass rushers where as in a 3-4, its the two OLB's. Ware shouldnt be dropping into coverage in the 3-4 or 4-3. Neither should Aldon Smith. If you were to switch them to DE outside of CCM, Smith goes to 99 and Ware probably does the same because of their attributes and strengths and while I get that the scheme setup is trying to emulate that, it fails miserably in doing so because again, it turns backups into starters and starters into backups.
There's a reason why playing PLAY NOW is actually a better challenge and better game than inside CCM. That reason is because schemes doesnt exist. Its all based on the overall ratings of the players which is what it should be. After all, thats why starters are starters and backups are backups. No backup should be rated higher than a starter in game unless its because of an injury and the injured player's attributes and overall rating decline...
(I know Madden doesnt do this but 2K5 did and was actually based on the type of injury - Owens had a leg injury once and while his catching stayed the same, his route running, speed and agility attributes decreased to reflect the actual injury...this is the lone exception in my opinion)
...in the end, the overall ratings not matching up screws up a lot of things in CCM and causes a lot of problems which is why I hate the scheme setup. I understand what their objective was but they didnt accomplish it and caused a lot of problems in the process. Everyone can look at it their own way and build their team based on it if they want but here's a question -
If you sign a FA who's 85 because he fits your scheme but in-game, he's 80 for example and you have a player who's rated higher than him in-game, why would you have the lower rated player higher on your depth chart when in-game, he's obviously and clearly not the better player?
I want it just so I can use it to eliminate the problems.Originally posted by CM Hooe
Fair enough.Originally posted by CM HooeComment
-
Re: Scheme Overall Ratings question
A quick answer to view non-scheme specific OVR, check the depth chart when you are playing a game. It will give you their "actual" OVR rating, as if you were looking at the rosters from My Madden outside of CCM.Comment
Comment