Madden NFL 11 News Post

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

01:46 PM - January 24, 2011 by RaychelSnr

I recentely sat down for a talk with FBGRatings.com's Dan Berens to discuss his site's vision and what's going on over there today. The site is currently working on getting accurate ratings for every player using real hard data converted into the Madden ratings universe. Dan claims that when these numbers are plugged into the game, it plays much better and much closer to real life. Check out the interview below and also check out Dan's website to see what he's got going on!

Interview with Berens on the OS Radio Show on BlogTalkRadio

Game: Madden NFL 11Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 96 - View All

Madden NFL 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 21 notque @ 01/25/11 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	You can use them however you like, but after looking at your attribute descriptions both systems will not be fully compatible with one another.

Right, you are Madden centric, so there are some attribute descriptions that aren't compatible, but it isn't that far off.

There are much larger problems on my end I'd have to worry about, like the fact we use a 0-100 scale, and Madden for the most part doesn't (that I've seen.)

So we actually have a lot more players on the low end of the scale. How are you doing distributions like that?

# 22 DCEBB2001 @ 01/25/11 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notque


	If you FBGRatings can post distributions of data, distributions of the ratings, I will use those ratings for the online text football sim. I am always looking for more data. This would be awesome, and you could see the data play out in the games.

You are more than welcome to use what you find on the site, but the actual distributions and rating formulas are not on the site. A magician never reveals the secrets to his tricks.

# 23 DCEBB2001 @ 01/25/11 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdon2k


	Nice work, but as has been said, this game needs more than just ratings to fix madden in it's current state. NCAA's player momentum/interactions are head and shoulders above madden and that ruins the game for me. Madden just looks "weird" while NCAA is coming close to simulating realistic player movements. That said, your site may influence Donny a bit and that could be good for the game so all is not lost.

Wanna know something cool? The head guy who powers my site is a close friend of John Madden's and has connections to his daughter, who is the acting head of the Madden name brand. This could influence how ratings are done in the long run should it get enough attention garnered by the guys at Tiburon and EA. That is the goal, anyway...do what they do...but better.

# 24 notque @ 01/25/11 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	You are more than welcome to use what you find on the site, but the actual distributions and rating formulas are not on the site. A magician never reveals the secrets to his tricks.

Yeah, if you're unwilling to share any distribution or formula data then that's a no go on working together.

Was thinking of some sort of link back exchange, and work together on this stuff. I wouldn't release any of the data you share, and it would just be used to implement in the game I run.

Eh, it was a good idea.

# 25 DCEBB2001 @ 01/25/11 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notque


	Right, you are Madden centric, so there are some attribute descriptions that aren't compatible, but it isn't that far off. There are much larger problems on my end I'd have to worry about, like the fact we use a 0-100 scale, and Madden for the most part doesn't (that I've seen.) So we actually have a lot more players on the low end of the scale. How are you doing distributions like that?

Madden uses a 12-99 for attributes, but we use 40-99 for overall ratings. The distribution of attributes is based upon the standard distribution of all player data since 1998. The overalls are based upon an exponential distribution, so we have far more players at the 40 OVR end than the 99 OVR end.

# 26 DCEBB2001 @ 01/25/11 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notque


	Yeah, if you're unwilling to share any distribution or formula data then that's a no go on working together. Was thinking of some sort of link back exchange, and work together on this stuff. I wouldn't release any of the data you share, and it would just be used to implement in the game I run. Eh, it was a good idea.

I have to do it out of cornering my own market. If I am going to do something differently than the competition, I cannot let the competition know exactly how I am doing it. I would be open to letting you in on how some of it works, but I can't just give everything away. Feel free to send me a PM to discuss it. Perhaps we can get some agreement drawn up from there.

# 27 PGaither84 @ 01/25/11 01:55 PM

The site is a joke. Always has been. They don't even have their ratings listed, only OVR with no justification.

# 28 DCEBB2001 @ 01/25/11 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGaither84


	The sight is a joke. Always has been. They don't even have their ratings listed, only OVR with no justification.

Perhaps you meant "site" and not "sight".

Why do you say it is a joke? Did you read the post about why the attributes are not included yet? Ever try to fill in 17000 players' worth of data into a website via an SQL server? It takes a ton of time and a huge attention to detail. If it is such a joke, I strongly challenge you to either: A) create a site that is better, or B) ask for some justification.

Perhaps you would have a greater appreciation for the operation if you understood (or at least tried to understand) what goes into such a massive undertaking. I, in turn, would ask you also what justification you would like to see. Or perhaps you are simply an angry 49ers fan who doesn't like seeing his team rated poorly.

# 29 KingV2k3 @ 01/25/11 03:24 PM

I am kind of shocked at how many guys asked questions and made assumptions on this topic / site that coupld have easily been answered by simply reading the preceeding posts in this thread...

That being said, I applaud your efforts, and the fact that it could actually get it's "day in court" at the game's developers, is an exciting possiblity...

Here's my "two cents"...

AWR is a mess in this game...

Rookies often come in so low, that they will never be able to get up to an AWR rating in this game that will eventually make them "starter material"...

Esp. at the QB position...low AWR rated guys play waaaaay stupid...

I suggest that instead of giving them super low AWR and decent passing attributes, you balance all the relevant rookie ratings out so that they have a chance to develop...

Same thing with OL...they come in with decent blocking attributes, but it's not worth much if they always pick the wrong guy / wrong angle, due to really low AWR...

IMHO there should be a much smaller "range" with this attribute...

Regards!

# 30 DCEBB2001 @ 01/25/11 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingV2k3


	I am kind of shocked at how many guys asked questions and made assumptions on this topic / site that coupld have easily been answered by simply reading the preceeding posts in this thread... That being said, I applaud your efforts, and the fact that it could actually get it's "day in court" at the game's developers, is an exciting possiblity... Here's my "two cents"... AWR is a mess in this game... Rookies often come in so low, that they will never be able to get up to an AWR rating in this game that will eventually make them "starter material"... Esp. at the QB position...low AWR rated guys play waaaaay stupid... I suggest that instead of giving them super low AWR and decent passing attributes, you balance all the relevant rookie ratings out so that they have a chance to develop... Same thing with OL...they come in with decent blocking attributes, but it's not worth much if they always pick the wrong guy / wrong angle, due to really low AWR... IMHO there should be a much smaller "range" with this attribute... Regards!

I can't agree more about the readers not READING the posts. It's unfortunate.

As for AWR I also realized this as a huge issue. AWR has a stunning positive correlation to the OVR of a player. It also has a positive correlation to the EXP of a player...statistically speaking.

What I came up with was a way to use both to determine the AWR of a player. Simply making a rookie's AWR equal to OVR-10+EXP allows the correlation to OVR to remain. After each year completed, 1 AWR point is added to that equation. So if a rookie is a 70 his AWR is 60 in his first season. If after his first year he jumps up to 75, his awr is now 66 (OVR-10+EXP) since he gained 1 year of EXP. What ends up happening is you get guys who have been in the league the longest getting more AWR.

It also sets a minimum for the AWR rating. The lowest a player can be rated is a 40 OVR, and as a rookie, his EXP can be a minimum of 0. Therefore, the lowest AWR is 30. However, as a player matures that number will go up with EXP, even if the player is still rated as a 40 OVR.

Thoughts?

# 31 sniperhare @ 01/25/11 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I can't agree more about the readers not READING the posts. It's unfortunate. As for AWR I also realized this as a huge issue. AWR has a stunning positive correlation to the OVR of a player. It also has a positive correlation to the EXP of a player...statistically speaking. What I came up with was a way to use both to determine the AWR of a player. Simply making a rookie's AWR equal to OVR-10+EXP allows the correlation to OVR to remain. After each year completed, 1 AWR point is added to that equation. So if a rookie is a 70 his AWR is 60 in his first season. If after his first year he jumps up to 75, his awr is now 66 (OVR-10+EXP) since he gained 1 year of EXP. What ends up happening is you get guys who have been in the league the longest getting more AWR. It also sets a minimum for the AWR rating. The lowest a player can be rated is a 40 OVR, and as a rookie, his EXP can be a minimum of 0. Therefore, the lowest AWR is 30. However, as a player matures that number will go up with EXP, even if the player is still rated as a 40 OVR. Thoughts?

I think they should do IQ instead of AWR and have the playbook knowledge from HC be the new AWR. It starts low as a rookie, and will take a hit if you play out of position or change positions, but greatly improves after the rookie season.

# 32 DCEBB2001 @ 01/25/11 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniperhare


	I think they should do IQ instead of AWR and have the playbook knowledge from HC be the new AWR. It starts low as a rookie, and will take a hit if you play out of position or change positions, but greatly improves after the rookie season.

I think that's a great idea, but until they do that we are stuck with their system. The point of the site is to simply re-do HOW they rate players in THEIR system...not change the whole system itself. That would be too easy to consider and yet impossible to impose.

# 33 KingV2k3 @ 01/25/11 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	I can't agree more about the readers not READING the posts. It's unfortunate. As for AWR I also realized this as a huge issue. AWR has a stunning positive correlation to the OVR of a player. It also has a positive correlation to the EXP of a player...statistically speaking. What I came up with was a way to use both to determine the AWR of a player. Simply making a rookie's AWR equal to OVR-10+EXP allows the correlation to OVR to remain. After each year completed, 1 AWR point is added to that equation. So if a rookie is a 70 his AWR is 60 in his first season. If after his first year he jumps up to 75, his awr is now 66 (OVR-10+EXP) since he gained 1 year of EXP. What ends up happening is you get guys who have been in the league the longest getting more AWR. It also sets a minimum for the AWR rating. The lowest a player can be rated is a 40 OVR, and as a rookie, his EXP can be a minimum of 0. Therefore, the lowest AWR is 30. However, as a player matures that number will go up with EXP, even if the player is still rated as a 40 OVR. Thoughts?

Your system makes sense to me...can't really think of a better way to work within the constraints of the exisiting framework of the game...

If you want to get "fancy" with it, you could add an arbitrary initial point or two to:

1) Guys who play in a "pro" system in college (quicker adaption curve)

2) Guys who score through the roof on the Wonderlic

3) Guys who are known "scholar athletes"

4) Stay and play for the full 4 years in college

In this example, you'd be giving A. Luck an AWR that is (for example) 75 OVR - 10 = 65 AWR plus three for getting a point for hitting 3 for 4 on the above criteria, to equal 68, which is pretty reasonable (IMO)...

You could also deduct from guys who:

1) Are playing a new position for the first time in the pros (converted QBs)

2) Score really low on the Wonderlic

3) Play a skill position in a offence that is unique to college, like Triple Option, Spread Option, etc...

4) Leave early for pros, giving them less experience in a top level of competition

5) Are suspended for academic reasons

It would be a lot of research, and possibly a huge pain for little return, but it would make your system a little more "fluid"...

# 34 KingV2k3 @ 01/25/11 07:37 PM

On a related note, I highly reccomend you take alook at this thread, Dan:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...them-play.html

Even though it deals with NCAA, as opposed to Madden, many of the base principals are the same...

'Skillz and some of the other guys who contributed to that thread are most certainly on to something...

# 35 loloben @ 01/25/11 09:19 PM

I think Madden needs a tiny bit of rating tweaking, but it mostly needs overhauls in franchise and superstar

# 36 huskerwr38 @ 01/26/11 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loloben


	I think Madden needs a tiny bit of rating tweaking, but it mostly needs overhauls in franchise and superstar

Ian has been eluding to the fact that they be adding a roster editing tool for franchise mode. He has been asking the community on how should it be implemented in the game. So that's good news.

# 37 BlackRome @ 01/26/11 08:54 AM

Far as game play. Madden has to stop allowing passes to the RB's and crossing routes be the only passes 90% of the people throw online.

You shouldn't allow people to be competitive when all they throw is two routes a game.

It's not football. It's stick the RB and watch the crossing route.

.

# 38 DCEBB2001 @ 01/26/11 09:00 AM

Thanks for the input guys.

The big thing that needs to be done differently, IMO, is how the players are rated...which is why I am bringing attention to the site. Have you all seen the arguments in the EA forums about certain players' speed ratings before? How rookies come in way faster and more athletic than guys already in the game? How they seem to ignore things like 40 times, etc. and get fast guys playing slow? That is the stuff that needs to change. How about rating inflation where you have half the league over 90 OVR after a few seasons!? That is the stuff that this site in particular is trying to fix. No more BS ratings developed by guys who have probably never played football, coached, or scouted at any level.

# 39 guaps @ 01/26/11 10:19 AM

While I applaud Dan's hard work for doing what Tiburon should have done in the first place, I personally feel it's a waist of time. Ratings that reflect "hard data" won't necessarily translate into more realistic gameplay unless we have a complete understanding of how ratings affect gameplay. As it is now I don't think anyone, including the developers really, have that overview.

The best "ratings" system I've seen so far in football video games has been the "no-ratings" approach by 2k. If Tiburon really want to make their game "Simpler, Deeper, Quicker" they'll have to take a long, hard look at that approach, because 50+ ratings with little to no transparency makes it, IMO, very hard to distinguish weaknesses from strengths in Madden regardless of "hard data" or not.

# 40 PanthersGM305 @ 01/26/11 10:39 AM

Dan , This is a Quick one if lets say use the ratings for ex. Big Ben is OVR 85 , The Champ Aaron Rogers has a OVR 95 if they we're to play in Madden edit the ratings to whats on FBGratings I'd say Rogers would out play Big Ben with those ratings. Should he be rate higher like 94 the guy has won 2 rings.

« Previous 123 4 5 6 7 8 9…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game