Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

[ggsimmonds]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

I would like to say a few things based upon your points above:

You are correct in saying that Madden is not a scouting tool. However, Madden uses attributes and a scale for them. Scouts do the same thing. They attempt to quantify qualifiable information. Madden does the same thing. They attempt to give value to what is seen. If the goal is to replicate real life results, then why do they have ratings for attributes at all? Why not just have a YDS rating or a REC rating?

Because a yards rating or a reception rating is far too basic. By using the component attributes it allows for more depth in the game. I don't argue in favor of 100% production.

What production stat tells us how fast a player is or how tough he is? Name one that measures a player's stamina. Madden already has a framework built (albeit not perfect) that can harness scouting information. All that needs to be done is a proper application of it based on quality data. Sure, that would require matching animations (a complete overhaul, IMO), but it can be done. Will it? Who knows. All I know is that I don't expect anything soon...likely too much old code stacked up.

You are correct that no production stat tells us how fast a player is. Indeed you could go further and say using only production would make it impossible to rate rookies! But as I said, I'm not in favor of 100% production. Madden currently uses 40 times for speed (to varying levels it would seem). However the FBG advocates are not pushing for the status quo, they want more reliance on scouting than is already present.

That being said, production is the product of a multitude of things happening on any given play, seemingly infinite at that. I use the "Open Receiver" example whereas a WR gets open every play because he is so fast, agile, and technically sound that he is merely uncoverable. However, if the QB never gets to the top of his drop before being planted on the turf, that WR will never "produce". According to the production line, a WR in that offense would be TERRIBLE. The fact of the matter is, that WR is not a worse player because of his lack of production. Take that same player and place him on a competent team with a decent line and maybe his production rises as he is finally getting the ball. Is he now better because of it, or is he the same player he was, just under different circumstances?
Production is very circumstantial. How many of you had Brandon Marshall in your top 5 WRs in the league before this season? I can tell you that I caught a bit of heat on these very forums for people mocking the fact that he was rated as a top 5 WR according to the FBG Ratings. The guy set a career high in TDs and may set one in receptions; placing him likely among the top WRs in the game right now, I will add. The point is that few expected him to produce up to the level at which the scouts knew he could play at. Did he magically get better because of having Fitzpatrick throw it to him, or have the OL that the Jets have? I would posit that he is the same player that the scouts slated him to be when the year started.

Quite right about the multitude of variables and it actually points to why I am weary about going full on scouting data. I don't have confidence in Madden to be able to adequately factor in all those variables. Take for example something that scouts grade QBs on: composure. I don't think Madden can properly model that in the game.

However at least in this context production =/= stats. You disapprove of the use of PFF in rating Madden players so this is where we will disagree, but if a WR gets open and the QB fails to get him the ball it will still look upon the WR favorably.

The bottom line is that we need to rate the players based upon their POTENTIAL attribute values in EQUAL situations to see how they really differentiate from one to another.

Production follows talent, not the other way around.

I'm not opposed to using scouting data, I just think the argument is all wrong. There should not be a scouting vs production debate. Use them both, but when there is divergence (e.g. scouts say a young player should be performing well but his production lacks) more often than that production should trump what the scouts say. To throw this out there I think we absolutely need something of a "ball locating" attribute for CBs, so that would be something that falls under the scout umbrella.
What I don't want is to use scouts and then cover my ears to everything else.

What the conversation should really be about is the system. Currently there does not seem to be much of one. Right now how EA rates players it seems like he can watch a game on Sunday and write down notes in his tablet based on what he sees, but if he were to watch the same game on Tuesday when he is in a different mood the notes could be very different.

In contrast take your FBG ratings. You will never publicly reveal your methodology because with that, I could take the same input source (scouts in your case), and create an identical roster set. This is what EA needs.

We only differ in what should be the source of data. Your position is scouting data.
Mine is a combination of scouting data and advanced metrics like PFF.

[ggsimmonds]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

Here is why I don't like the big focus of production driving ratings. It becomes a little like chasing your own tail. I just don't like the overreaction feel of weekly updates based on stats personally.

It reminds me of one of my favorite games of all time, Tecmo Super Bowl. The best CB in the game was a guy on Tampa Bay named Wayne Haddix. If you know who he is then you either remember him from the game or you were a Bucs fan in 1990. Lol He had a lot of ints that's year. Was he the most talented CB in the NFL in 1990? No. He was rated in Tecmo SB the equivalent to a 99 overall. All 7 of his ints came that year.

If we want a true sim football game I want sim ratings. IMHO ratings largely based on stats are more arcade than sim. Just my opinion though.

From my experience using FBG ratings in madden 25, 15, and 16 they do a much better job replicating real life even stats wise then some assume.

People complain about how crazy accurate the CPU QB's are on default sliders or how the defense catches ints too easy or how any WR seems to be able to spec catch too much.

FBG rosters gives the desired result that is closer to real life than EA's stock rosters. I've played with them a lot. I've played with EA's a lot. FBG gives more realistic results.

And that's in an engine that should be 100% geared toward its own rosters. But, most QB's are deadly accurate because their ratings are too high.

What ever the case something needs to change. Either the engine or rosters do no replicate real NFL football as it should. The devs say they want a sim FB game so everything must be considered.

Again just my opinions

I think you are off the mark here. Avoid the temptation to phrase everything in a sim vs arcade argument. You remind me of politicians during campaign season!

I also dislike the overreactions we see with the weekly roster updates, but that is a separate issue.

The set of circumstances are different. As a WR, your production value is largely based not only on your own skills, but the skills of other players (QB, OL, DB, etc). Scouting data takes only into account the individual abilities of the player. Can he run good routes? Can he catch while under duress? Does he have solid, mundane, use of his hands? In this way, the player himself dictates his grades. The success of other players does not matter.

Ask yourself which is more likely for the WR scenario: will the number of catches a player makes likely result in him being a better route runner OR will the quality of the player's route running more likely affect his ability to catch passes?

I cannot speak for everyone, but I am definitely not supporting player ratings derived from box scores.
An illustrative scenario from an NFL game:
WR A: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 11 targets. Makes 8 catches for 122 yards.

WR B: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 5 targets. Makes 3 catches for 44 yards.

Both players get open the same number of times, but for whatever reason WR B doesn't get as many targets. From this game both players should be rated identically.

At this point Dan you may be thinking, "but gg that sounds an awfully lot like what I am arguing for with FBG ratings."
Maybe so, but there are subtle differences.

Scouts: Grades things like hips, crisp cuts in running routes, attacks the ball at its highest point,etc. Scouts ask "does he show these characteristics? From each of these component grades scouts conclude he is a skilled WR who should be able to produce in the NFL (production follows talent). In this sense it is predictive in nature.

alternatively: Does not look at technique so much as the result. Did he get open? Did he run a clean route? Did he get off the line cleanly? Thus it is not predictive but rather it is results driven.

Dan I think you know exactly what I am talking about. When a trained scout watches film they ask things like did he get off the line quickly and immediately attack the corner or did he waste time with a useless shimmy? How many steps did he take in his breakdown? In this case even if the Wr got open the scout may see that his technique was sloppy so would not expect this to be a long term trend.

Then watch film with a guy who grades players for PFF. What does this guy ask? "Did he get open." Much simpler in comparison.

In terms of overall knowledge and credibility the trained scout will be superior. But Madden does not have things like a "fluid hips" rating. It has a "route running" rating that determines whether or not a WR gets open. So the simplistic "did he get open?" works for Madden.

[roadman]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

But in doing this, you just took away the ability for each gamer to experience a "dynamic" CFM and removed the ability for each to have a life on it's own.

Because the focus of the player ratings is utilizing exact data (per say), there can be "no" deviation, otherwise, we're back to what we have now.

If ratings can't deviate away from their source being so hard data driven, then CFM becomes nothing more than "Play Now" games tethered together.

Because player "Back Stories" cause deviation to the ratings, this element must be stripped away due them being of a fantasy nature that's not in line to the real life happenings of players.

How can players be dynamic through out the course of a game?
- Hot or Cold moments

The Draft becomes useless as gamers will know who the best players are for that draft. (remember no Back Stories because they cause deviation)
- this just killed online leagues also with the data revealing who to take.

How are coach's rated, which affects AI gameplay?
- the only thing that seems logical is their records, which is performance driven.

How is player Stamina determined, as well as, how much weight is applied towards altering a players ratings?

Coach's decide what plays will be called, what players will play, yet all the focus seems to be just on the players.

Just curious how some aspects not talked about will fit into the grand scheme of things?

This is my thought process, exactly.

Thanks Khaliib, you stated better and more thoroughly than I did.

Also agree with GG's last post, post was too long to quote with Khaliib's, but both on point where my train of thought is.

And here is the rub....... I don't think either side is right or wrong. I say to each their own and think both systems could work at EA.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

But in doing this, you just took away the ability for each gamer to experience a "dynamic" CFM and removed the ability for each to have a life on it's own.

You can build variation into the model with scouting data just as well as you can with production. Players drop and fall every week according to the scouting data. Within a CFM, you can build in the proper distribution, both positive and negative, to affect not only the overall grades, but also the individual attributes. Since we have 20 years of data to draw from, we have a very large sample to build that model upon. In essence, the scouting data serves as the "base" for the ratings when you start CFM, but we can tie things like production into the model for how those ratings change. We can also use "potential" grades, fixed, and either available to the user or hidden under the hood, to control the progress, lack thereof, or rate thereof.

Because the focus of the player ratings is utilizing exact data (per say), there can be "no" deviation, otherwise, we're back to what we have now.

A historical analysis of the data shows that there is always variation. Players are always moving up and down. Guys who move up tend to have higher potential. Guys who stay the same from their rookie year, or advance very little, have lower potential grades. That grade, either revealed to the user or hidden, in itself can control progression without utilizing production. In this way, the user actually has less control over how well his players advance. Instead of simply racking up endless stats to make your player a 90, you are limited to his potential. This makes the user have to make some tough decisions.

If you have a player who you think is "maxed out" at a 70 OVR (solid starter), who also produces well for you, but come across another player in the draft who you think may have an opportunity to be better (having better potential), you could be risking what you know (in the player you currently have) for a player that may not turn out to be better. Maybe contracts come into play as well. The point is that a model can be built to control progression/regression without relying on production. Production, after all, is all relevant to the user. What qualifies good production for one user may be entirely different for another user.

If ratings can't deviate away from their source being so hard data driven, then CFM becomes nothing more than "Play Now" games tethered together.

See my comments above as to how they can deviate within CFM.

Because player "Back Stories" cause deviation to the ratings, this element must be stripped away due them being of a fantasy nature that's not in line to the real life happenings of players.

Not necessarily. We just change the model for WHAT determines the deviation in the ratings. Instead of using stats/production, we use an already predetermined potential grade with variation built into their ability to progress. For instance, if you draft a 52 OVR player with A+ potential, you know that he has the ability to be a HOF player despite his low OVR grade when drafted. Using a normal distribution model, you know that he has a 95% chance of reaching an OVR grade within 2 standard deviations of his draft grade. However, there is also a 5% change that he doesn't meet that potential and becomes a bust. The opposite also holds true. You could draft a player with a D- potential, knowing he only has a 5% chance of becoming a 90+ OVR, but he does. He would be an obvious draft gem. In all reality, this actually plays out in real life. Teams take risks on players based on the potential odds that the player will turn out. Why not add that into the game?

How can players be dynamic through out the course of a game?
- Hot or Cold moments

The Draft becomes useless as gamers will know who the best players are for that draft. (remember no Back Stories because they cause deviation)

If the potential for the player is in itself based on a normal distribution that controls the odds of which a player will succeed or not (a probability model), then you are taking a risk with every player. The higher the grade of the player, the higher the risk, obviously. Combine that with his potential grade, also based upon his probability to progress, and you just squared the number of possibilities for that player. There are two factors you now need to consider: the player's draft grade (and likelihood on where he will be drafted) affecting the risk, and the player's potential affecting the likelihood that he will progress. When you combine both, the progression of the player could be quite dynamic. If you then throw in a third part where progression is based upon production, you now cubed the possibilities. That is a LOT of variation built into the model.

- this just killed online leagues also with the data revealing who to take.

How are coach's rated, which affects AI gameplay?

Let's throw in a 4th variable that controls progression: coaching abilities. Some are good at developing talent, others are not.

- the only thing that seems logical is their records, which is performance driven.

How is player Stamina determined, as well as, how much weight is applied towards altering a players ratings?

Every attribute has a mean and standard deviation as well as a model for how it can or won't progress tied into the potential of the player.

Coach's decide what plays will be called, what players will play, yet all the focus seems to be just on the players.

Then, add coaching ability into the progression "soup" to progress players.

Just curious how some aspects not talked about will fit into the grand scheme of things?

See my responses in bold above.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

Because a yards rating or a reception rating is far too basic. By using the component attributes it allows for more depth in the game. I don't argue in favor of 100% production.


You are correct that no production stat tells us how fast a player is. Indeed you could go further and say using only production would make it impossible to rate rookies! But as I said, I'm not in favor of 100% production. Madden currently uses 40 times for speed (to varying levels it would seem). However the FBG advocates are not pushing for the status quo, they want more reliance on scouting than is already present.

The whole 40 time = speed is another thing that needs to be redone. Alas, that is another topic for another thread. I think that the big thing to me is that they need to include real attributes that scouts really look at when rating players, and throw out the ones that they don't use. Find one scouting report with a SPC attribute or a STA attribute please. I posit that the attributes themselves need an overhaul to more closely mimic reality.


Quite right about the multitude of variables and it actually points to why I am weary about going full on scouting data. I don't have confidence in Madden to be able to adequately factor in all those variables. Take for example something that scouts grade QBs on: composure. I don't think Madden can properly model that in the game.

Ah, but if you have 20 years of data to show how composure varies as a player progresses throughout his career, you can build a data distribution with a probability model that accurately follows the historical data. When a scout qualifies composure, he mentions things like his swagger, his ability to lead, his inability to fold under pressure, to stand into the pocket in the face of the rush to deliver a ball, and to keep his eyes downfield while being rushed out of the pocket.

I can think of about a dozen animations that would be GREAT to see affected by a player's "Composure/Poise" grade.

However at least in this context production =/= stats. You disapprove of the use of PFF in rating Madden players so this is where we will disagree, but if a WR gets open and the QB fails to get him the ball it will still look upon the WR favorably.

Very true, which it must, of course. In the scenario where his QB get's sacked, the WR's production was zero. However, on the tape, his grade would be positive. That's what I want. Let the player's grade be dependent upon his own performance, not the performance of others.

I'm not opposed to using scouting data, I just think the argument is all wrong. There should not be a scouting vs production debate. Use them both, but when there is divergence (e.g. scouts say a young player should be performing well but his production lacks) more often than that production should trump what the scouts say. To throw this out there I think we absolutely need something of a "ball locating" attribute for CBs, so that would be something that falls under the scout umbrella.
What I don't want is to use scouts and then cover my ears to everything else.

What the conversation should really be about is the system. Currently there does not seem to be much of one. Right now how EA rates players it seems like he can watch a game on Sunday and write down notes in his tablet based on what he sees, but if he were to watch the same game on Tuesday when he is in a different mood the notes could be very different.

Well Dustin said he has a system: "game tape and PFF" to paraphrase.

In contrast take your FBG ratings. You will never publicly reveal your methodology because with that, I could take the same input source (scouts in your case), and create an identical roster set. This is what EA needs.

Correct. That is what gives me a leg up on any competition. The NDA to the data, and the methodology with over a half decade of research, trial, and error behind it. I would prefer to use this data for the live updates during the season (for the online and play-now games) but rely on a hybrid of potential, risk, production, and coaching to allow us to reveal a player's fate while in CFM.

We only differ in what should be the source of data. Your position is scouting data.
Mine is a combination of scouting data and advanced metrics like PFF.

Let me be clear in stating that I think PFF does serve a purpose for player evaluation, but it is NOT in the attributes. Rather, PFF would be PERFECT for getting an accurate reading on, and EXPANDING UPON traits. PFF measures abilities that align more with Madden's traits than they do with their attributes, IMO. Let's use PFF for that.

BTW, FBG Ratings, if you haven't seen, will be rating traits for next season...and guess what we are using to do it...

Please see my responses in bold above.

[charter04]

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

I think you are off the mark here. Avoid the temptation to phrase everything in a sim vs arcade argument. You remind me of politicians during campaign season!

I also dislike the overreactions we see with the weekly roster updates, but that is a separate issue.


I cannot speak for everyone, but I am definitely not supporting player ratings derived from box scores.
An illustrative scenario from an NFL game:
WR A: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 11 targets. Makes 8 catches for 122 yards.

WR B: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 5 targets. Makes 3 catches for 44 yards.

Both players get open the same number of times, but for whatever reason WR B doesn't get as many targets. From this game both players should be rated identically.

At this point Dan you may be thinking, "but gg that sounds an awfully lot like what I am arguing for with FBG ratings."
Maybe so, but there are subtle differences.

Scouts: Grades things like hips, crisp cuts in running routes, attacks the ball at its highest point,etc. Scouts ask "does he show these characteristics? From each of these component grades scouts conclude he is a skilled WR who should be able to produce in the NFL (production follows talent). In this sense it is predictive in nature.

alternatively: Does not look at technique so much as the result. Did he get open? Did he run a clean route? Did he get off the line cleanly? Thus it is not predictive but rather it is results driven.

Dan I think you know exactly what I am talking about. When a trained scout watches film they ask things like did he get off the line quickly and immediately attack the corner or did he waste time with a useless shimmy? How many steps did he take in his breakdown? In this case even if the Wr got open the scout may see that his technique was sloppy so would not expect this to be a long term trend.

Then watch film with a guy who grades players for PFF. What does this guy ask? "Did he get open." Much simpler in comparison.

In terms of overall knowledge and credibility the trained scout will be superior. But Madden does not have things like a "fluid hips" rating. It has a "route running" rating that determines whether or not a WR gets open. So the simplistic "did he get open?" works for Madden.

We will have to agree to disagree on the sim v arcade point. Madden always has and still has an arcade lean. IMO. Not sure why that word has to be so negative to people anyway. TSB is my favorite FB game ever and it's a arcade gameplay type game. It's fun. Anyway back on topic.

What I'm wanting is an overhaul. From animations to code. It may take years to fully implement but, with Dans ideas it would change Madden for the better.

Just read his last comment. He has data for all the variables that could be plugged into cfm. So the changes are based on data and not just numbers thrown in.

He has data for rookies to. It would make rookie draft classes the most realistic ever.

Everything from progression to regression would be much more realistic because of 20 years of real data.

How could those things not make those aspects of the game and cfm better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

I think you are off the mark here. Avoid the temptation to phrase everything in a sim vs arcade argument. You remind me of politicians during campaign season!

I also dislike the overreactions we see with the weekly roster updates, but that is a separate issue.

I have stated several times around here that the most often I have ever seen one player get updated, either positively or negatively in the data is monthly. Now, they aren't regrading every player every week either because the scouts know that one week is too short of a period to draw major conclusions upon, ie: change the grades. They only change the grades when enough evidence is present to change them. In other words, they aren't looking for the RB to gain 200+ yards to change his grade. Instead, they are looking to see if any of his abilities during that 200+ yard game improved to validate the changing of the grade. Production is thrown right out the window.


I cannot speak for everyone, but I am definitely not supporting player ratings derived from box scores.
An illustrative scenario from an NFL game:
WR A: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 11 targets. Makes 8 catches for 122 yards.

WR B: Constantly beats his man to get open. Gets off the line cleanly with a proper release. Makes crisp cuts in his routes and attacks the ball to make the catch. Finishes the game with 5 targets. Makes 3 catches for 44 yards.

Both players get open the same number of times, but for whatever reason WR B doesn't get as many targets. From this game both players should be rated identically.

At this point Dan you may be thinking, "but gg that sounds an awfully lot like what I am arguing for with FBG ratings."
Maybe so, but there are subtle differences.

Yup, and at this point while reading I was thinking "and I know exactly where he is going with this: the result of the play, ie: PFF"

For those who don't know, PFF only looks at the outcome of the play. More about that later.

Scouts: Grades things like hips, crisp cuts in running routes, attacks the ball at its highest point,etc. Scouts ask "does he show these characteristics? From each of these component grades scouts conclude he is a skilled WR who should be able to produce in the NFL (production follows talent). In this sense it is predictive in nature.

Spot on!

alternatively: Does not look at technique so much as the result. Did he get open? Did he run a clean route? Did he get off the line cleanly? Thus it is not predictive but rather it is results driven.

PFF!

Dan I think you know exactly what I am talking about. When a trained scout watches film they ask things like did he get off the line quickly and immediately attack the corner or did he waste time with a useless shimmy? How many steps did he take in his breakdown? In this case even if the Wr got open the scout may see that his technique was sloppy so would not expect this to be a long term trend.

Then watch film with a guy who grades players for PFF. What does this guy ask? "Did he get open." Much simpler in comparison.

Indeed.

In terms of overall knowledge and credibility the trained scout will be superior. But Madden does not have things like a "fluid hips" rating. It has a "route running" rating that determines whether or not a WR gets open. So the simplistic "did he get open?" works for Madden.

Scouts also do not have a "fluid hips" grade for grading WRs. They have a Route/Patterns grade that is based upon a myriad of qualities summed up into one overarching grade. To me, a next-gen game should be able to have animations tied into those ratings. In your example, using PFF, both players would have the same route-running grade because they both got open the same amount of times. However, they may have done it in different ways that can be expounded upon in the animations. If WR A is 6'4", 225 he likely got a good release because he out muscled the DB. If WR B is 5'9", 185 he likely beat a jam because he out maneuvered the DB. The results say that they did the same thing, but reality can show that they both incorporated different techniques/animations to do it. The other thing you have to factor in is the quality of the defender. Did both players do this against Richard Sherman or Morris Claiborne (sorry Charter!)? The quality of the defender also has bearing upon the success rate.

What I would prefer to see is a series of attributes reliant upon predictive measures, not reactionary ones. Then, have variance built into the effectiveness of those attributes BEFORE the players even touch the video-game-field. Stack those individual player variances up on top of one another in a game with an infinite number of possibilities and you have a pretty wide range of possible results.

Please see the BOLD above.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

We will have to agree to disagree on the sim v arcade point. Madden always has and still has an arcade lean. IMO. Not sure why that word has to be so negative to people anyway. TSB is my favorite FB game ever and it's a arcade gameplay type game. It's fun. Anyway back on topic.

What I'm wanting is an overhaul. From animations to code. It may take years to fully implement but, with Dans ideas it would change Madden for the better.

Just read his last comment. He has data for all the variables that could be plugged into cfm. So the changes are based on data and not just numbers thrown in.

He has data for rookies to. It would make rookie draft classes the most realistic ever.

Everything from progression to regression would be much more realistic because of 20 years of real data.

How could those things not make those aspects of the game and cfm better?

I already have the data ready to go. I could do the modelling one week, and have them write the code the next.

Let's use the updates of the real data to update the rosters every week for online and play-now games. Then, let's use the historical data to build a model for player progression within CFM based upon a combination of risk, probability, production, and coaching.

It can be done. Will it though? That is another question.

[khaliib]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

Without getting too detailed about Madden's coding, which I would be getting into trouble here doing so, much of the methodology to achieve the noted aspects you wrote in response to my post...

well, lets just say that too much focus might be put on what's being done on the "macro" level (i.e. Rating changes in roster updates), because there would be no disagreements about what's going on at the "micro" level, and the only real issue here is "Sourcing and Credit".

I'll bow out of the conversation with this, who's to say that "data and production" methodology aren't being utilized right now!!!

I have a feeling Rex & Co are going to give some "$2 haircuts" to all their critics with Madden 17.
Heads going to be all messed up!!!

[ggsimmonds]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

Please see my responses in bold above.

On the subject of 40 time and speed, I'm aware of your position and agree with it. But that aside, even in the current "system" they manage to double down on being wrong. They tie speed to the final 40 time, but then if the player performs better he often becomes faster according to EA. I don't think the entire attribute system needs an overhaul. Perhaps an expansion and some tuning, but I am fine with things like SPC. It is much easier for the game to model that.

Regarding something like composure and matching animations, here we encounter a problem. We don't even get different animations for the varying levels of route running skill. This is why I'm not on board with FBG in Madden. It would require a massive increase in animations and underlying code. I don't think it is realistic, the best you may get is a watered down version. Maybe that is a defeatist attitude. I do think that animations are Rex's "5th pillar" though so maybe my mind will be changed on that front.

We seem to be on the same page as far as traits go. I too think they should be expanded. For many of them I do not like having them as dichotomous. Make it a 0-99 scale that just doesn't affect overall calculations.

We will have to agree to disagree on the sim v arcade point. Madden always has and still has an arcade lean. IMO. Not sure why that word has to be so negative to people anyway. TSB is my favorite FB game ever and it's a arcade gameplay type game. It's fun. Anyway back on topic.

What I'm wanting is an overhaul. From animations to code. It may take years to fully implement but, with Dans ideas it would change Madden for the better.

Just read his last comment. He has data for all the variables that could be plugged into cfm. So the changes are based on data and not just numbers thrown in.

He has data for rookies to. It would make rookie draft classes the most realistic ever.

Everything from progression to regression would be much more realistic because of 20 years of real data.

How could those things not make those aspects of the game and cfm better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We want the same thing as far as wanting a sim game goes. The difference appears to be that I believe a sim experience can be arrived at using a rating system that is not much different from the current one. FBG can also give a sim experience, but I don't think FBg is necessary for the sim experience.

Please see the BOLD above.

I fully agree on the frequency of ratings changes being an issue, and one that is larger under a production based rating system. But while using scouts is a solution, it is not the only one. EA could just show a little bit of restraint in this area.

I knew that scouts didn't have "fluid hips" (thats a 3 AM phrase btw lol) but I thought most of them broke down route running into multiple attributes.

But we return to the issue of animations. If EA shows a commitment to improving and expanding the number of animations I may change my stance. Right now my opposition to FBG ratings has little to do with FBG itself but instead what I feel is EA's mindset. I think they view it as too much work for not enough payoff. My suspicion is that if your ratings get into the game it will be done so in a half-assed manner. I'd rather keep the current system instead of that.

[ggsimmonds]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

I want to clarify something, when I speak of a production/results driven ratings system I am not referring to progression or potential! I do not want progression to be controlled by in game production; the last thing I want to see is guys cheesing the AI in order to build a team of 90+ stars.

I am only referring to the front end roster ratings for current NFL players.

[DCEBB2001]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

If EA shows a commitment to improving and expanding the number of animations I may change my stance. Right now my opposition to FBG ratings has little to do with FBG itself but instead what I feel is EA's mindset. I think they view it as too much work for not enough payoff. My suspicion is that if your ratings get into the game it will be done so in a half-assed manner. I'd rather keep the current system instead of that.

I am dying to comment on this above...but I don't think I can yet...on the record that is.

The expectation is that if FBG contributors are involved with EA, there are a certain set of circumstances that have to be met. Having a voice into the implementation of the ratings on actual gameplay is one of them. Simply changing the ratings is not sufficient. That is a "half-assed", as you put it, way to do it. I am not interested in "half-assing" these ratings into the game.

We all know that plugging and playing the ratings works for some people, and doesn't for others. To those who enjoyed the rosters we did this year, you are welcome. My team and I are glad you enjoy them. To those who didn't and are skeptical until they see more, just be patient. The onus is on EA. They have to see the benefit versus the cost. Yes, it may not be worth the cost to overhaul this game, but they are exploring it.

More on that at a later date.

[Gman 18]

Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

I am dying to comment on this above...but I don't think I can yet...on the record that is.

The expectation is that if FBG contributors are involved with EA, there are a certain set of circumstances that have to be met. Having a voice into the implementation of the ratings on actual gameplay is one of them. Simply changing the ratings is not sufficient. That is a "half-assed", as you put it, way to do it. I am not interested in "half-assing" these ratings into the game.

We all know that plugging and playing the ratings works for some people, and doesn't for others. To those who enjoyed the rosters we did this year, you are welcome. My team and I are glad you enjoy them. To those who didn't and are skeptical until they see more, just be patient. The onus is on EA. They have to see the benefit versus the cost. Yes, it may not be worth the cost to overhaul this game, but they are exploring it.

More on that at a later date.

Bottom line, some of the guys at EA ( Rex Dickson included ) have very good intentions for this game, but at the same time the implementation of your ratings would pretty much require a complete overhaul of the overall rating system. EA bases much of their advertising in months leading up to madden's release on player ratings. If they decided to go with your system, people ( mainly casual fans of the series ) would complain that their favorite player is rated too low, despite not actually taking a look at that player's individual attributes. If EA held back on some of that advertising and just the overall marketing the player ratings, there would be a better ( still not that good ) chance the ratings system would BENEFIT EA. The ratings certainly benefit us, but i'm not sure they would really benefit EA, especially pertaining to the aforementioned things written above.

Honestly, I believe EA relies TOO HEAVILY on appealing to the casual gamer. They know if they show some flashy new feature through TV or youtube advertisement, mainly MUT or now Draft Champions, it will attract more kinds of people to the game. Hell, look at what they did with some elements of the gauntlet and the goal-based system in CFM. That stuff is directed toward RPG gamers, not long-time sim gamers who know football inside and out. Like I said before, there are good intentions for this game and always have been, but implementation hasn't consistently been good with the madden series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[roadman]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

Bottom line, some of the guys at EA ( Rex Dickson included ) have very good intentions for this game, but at the same time the implementation of your ratings would pretty much require a complete overhaul of the overall rating system. EA bases much of their advertising in months leading up to madden's release on player ratings. If they decided to go with your system, people ( mainly casual fans of the series ) would complain that their favorite player is rated too low, despite not actually taking a look at that player's individual attributes. If EA held back on some of that advertising, there would be a better ( still not that good ) chance the ratings system would BENEFIT EA. The ratings certainly benefit us, but i'm not sure they would really benefit EA, especially pertaining to the aforementioned things written above.

Honestly, I believe EA relies TOO HEAVILY on appealing to the casual gamer. They know if they show some flashy new feature through TV or youtube advertisement, mainly MUT or now Draft Champions, it will attract more kinds of people to the game. Hell, look at what they did with some elements of the gauntlet and the goal-based system in CFM. That stuff is directed toward RPG gamers, not long-time sim gamers who know football inside and out. Like I said before, there are good intentions for this game and always have been, but implementation hasn't consistently been good with the madden series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Causal gamer sells. They need to rely on the casual gamer for business reasons.

It all comes down to dollar and cents and I think that was what you are alluding to.

[charter04]

Re: Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

Causal gamer sells. They need to rely on the casual gamer for business reasons.



It all comes down to dollar and cents and I think that was what you are alluding to.

I think we can have both. Just keep MUT and draft champions as they are but, move CFM into a different sim gamer direction. That is the type of gamer that invests in CFM anyway. I doubt tournament players or causals ever play CFM.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk