FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[Big FN Deal]

@PGaither84, DCEBB has already stated before, somewhere in this thread possibly, that FGB is not about assigning ratings according to how Madden plays but according to a standard for converting real world data into numeric ratings. So in a nutshell, he is trying to create a universal conversion scale/formulas for transferring real data into the ratings in the game. I think this is the way EA Tiburon should be doing it and then finding a way to align the program/video game with that data, not vice versa.

For example, IF Tiburon decided that 40 times would be the standard for the SPD rating, then that rating in game needs to be programmed accordingly, if that makes sense. To use the zone coverage that you are talking about as another example, if a formula calculates the average zone coverage of LBs in the 65-70 range, then the zone coverage in Madden should be programmed to perform "average" within those ranges.

I think again this is a fundamental disconnect with the creation of Madden, that they do not focus on trying to program the video game to emulate real life as close as possible. Instead they seem to want to do things different because it's a video game, without even trying, it seems, to emulate real life. For example, "yeah, we know longer animations are more REALISTIC but they diminish User control and aren't as fun". That type mindset carries over to other things like why can all players access many of the exact same animations, like ball hawk, regardless of their ratings.

Now, all that said, I think FBG ratings consequently can and do improve some game play aspects of Madden because even though the game is not programmed to emulate real life data, converting that data into Madden still creates universal balance. So people can disagree about, for example, Wallace and Brown having the same Route Running rating but the formula used to arrive at that is universal, creating a standard for that rating. You won't have Wallace and Brown with the same route running, then another player with the exact same real life data used to calculate that rating +/-20 route running on another team.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMP

Yeah, there's an open source build your own football game site that's working with collaborative designers to customize a full 3D, RTF experience, but it takes a lot of money to do that independently. That kind of scenario would be the ideal place to input data like this since the premise is to build a customized experience where physics govern outcomes. With Madden you have to hope that there's some kind of reasonable correspondence between external data and the game's internal logic. I did some messing around last year and could tell that, whatever the specific rating for a WR CATCH was, a slider value of 75 or higher unlocked the animation set necessary to get WR to compete for the ball at the point. It's a very strange thing. To the point of the project, though, I think it would be great to see the difference between players like a Richardson, who runs with power, often stiff arming and using massive leg drive, vs. someone like Foster, whose runs are defined by that 30 yard burst ability and great vision. I like the idea of long striders who will pass you at 15 yards and dust you vs. those who will get on top of you right at 15 yards but will have maxed out their speed and so won't win the long race. Lots of other examples, but Madden does need to differentiate players better, no doubt.

The whole ACC vs. SPD thing is being worked on presently. I have brought in a Master's Student in the department of Physics at the University of Minnesota who specializes with human motion, specifically with sports. He and I are now working on developing a good way to determine maximum velocity and acceleration for each player. Basically every player has their own acceleration curve and top velocity before the velocity tails off due to the stamina rating.

After analyzing the game frame-for-frame acceleration of players at various speeds and accelerations we have developed the proper acceleration/velocity curves for each rating. Old generation Madden had a constant acceleration and a constant velocity. This is no longer the case, so we have had to adjust. The good news is that it is physically and mathematically possible to get realistic results for the game. Right now we are just putting it all together in an application that can be used for the site in conjunction with all of the data we have.

Should be pretty cool to see where some of these players grade out in ACC and SPD once the project is complete.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

@PGaither84, DCEBB has already stated before, somewhere in this thread possibly, that FGB is not about assigning ratings according to how Madden plays but according to a standard for converting real world data into numeric ratings. So in a nutshell, he is trying to create a universal conversion scale/formulas for transferring real data into the ratings in the game. I think this is the way EA Tiburon should be doing it and then finding a way to align the program/video game with that data, not vice versa. For example, IF Tiburon decided that 40 times would be the standard for the SPD rating, then that rating in game needs to be programmed accordingly, if that makes sense. To use the zone coverage that you are talking about as another example, if a formula calculates the average zone coverage of LBs in the 65-70 range, then the zone coverage in Madden should be programmed to perform "average" within those ranges. I think again this is a fundamental disconnect with the creation of Madden, that they do not focus on trying to program the video game to emulate real life as close as possible. Instead they seem to want to do things different because it's a video game, without even trying, it seems, to emulate real life. For example, "yeah, we know longer animations are more REALISTIC but they diminish User control and aren't as fun". That type mindset carries over to other things like why can all players access many of the exact same animations, like ball hawk, regardless of their ratings. Now, all that said, I think FBG ratings consequently can and do improve some game play aspects of Madden because even though the game is not programmed to emulate real life data, converting that data into Madden still creates universal balance. So people can disagree about, for example, Wallace and Brown having the same Route Running rating but the formula used to arrive at that is universal, creating a standard for that rating. You won't have Wallace and Brown with the same route running, then another player with the exact same real life data used to calculate that rating +/-20 route running on another team.

And this to me is the best part. Since the data already normalizes the information and puts it on a constant scale for all players with that grade, you can then determine that if 2 players grade out the same at a skill, then they should be rated the same in Madden. Take RTE like you suggested. If on the 5 point scale two players grade out at 4.2/5.0 for route running ability, you would expect that their RTE should be the same in the game.

The other thing I did was define "average" as 70 for the universal raw attributes (SPD, ACC, AGI, JMP, and STR) so you can compare players regardless of position. It also gets rid of the positional speed boots you find with a WR who ran a 4.7 but still has a SPD of 88 because he is a WR with no other justification. The opposite also holds true whereas a TE with a 4.4 should have near-elite speed, but instead is at an 80 becuase he is a TE.

I will be taking it even a step further by truly developing player specific raw attribtues based on measurables which will debut after the draft in 2013 (if we are all still here).

One other goal was to get rid of the ratings inflation for OVR and attributes, where it seems like everyone needs to be 85+ in relevant ratings in order to be in the game, and stretch them out to get more variance in the "feel" of players in the game.

However, the thing I keep running into, once again, is the darn draft classes that use EA's inflated way of rating players. Being able to edit players in CCM would help solve this issue, but I don't know what we can fully edit yet in CCM.

I wonder often if I should just use EAs ratings range and my data to differentiate so people can use these ratings in CCM with EA's draft classes...but that would go against how I think players should be more accurately represented. BigFN you have any thoughts on this?

[Big FN Deal]

@DCEBB, nah I honestly don't because as much as I usually enjoy this topic, discussing it in context of how they choose to create Madden is frustrating and ends up giving me a headache, lol. People have been asking for a universal ratings editor for the longest, to no avail and even that wouldn't help the issue with little to no animation differential between players, according to ratings. I of course commend you for your perseverance and hope it all pays off one day, in the form of a paid position doing this or at least some way to apply them completely in Madden.

I look at so many of the topics discussed around OS about realism in an alleged NFL simulation video game, that seem to be spot on but alas, only make for good discussion, not change. I think devs and programmers read threads like these and somehow come away with the notion this confirms it's all subjective anyway, so it doesn't matter how they do it. That really irks me, just like this constant mantra of "no game is perfect", both make no sense in the context of doing something better or the best you can. Yes translating ratings into a video game is subjective, in the sense of the formula used but that doesn't mean one way isn't better than another for emulating real life.

It seems like to me Tiburon often already declares emulating real life as too difficult to achieve so why bother trying and they don't.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

The whole ACC vs. SPD thing is being worked on presently. I have brought in a Master's Student in the department of Physics at the University of Minnesota who specializes with human motion, specifically with sports. He and I are now working on developing a good way to determine maximum velocity and acceleration for each player. Basically every player has their own acceleration curve and top velocity before the velocity tails off due to the stamina rating. After analyzing the game frame-for-frame acceleration of players at various speeds and accelerations we have developed the proper acceleration/velocity curves for each rating. Old generation Madden had a constant acceleration and a constant velocity. This is no longer the case, so we have had to adjust. The good news is that it is physically and mathematically possible to get realistic results for the game. Right now we are just putting it all together in an application that can be used for the site in conjunction with all of the data we have. Should be pretty cool to see where some of these players grade out in ACC and SPD once the project is complete.

This is one area where FGB ratings can make an undisputed contribution and change the way the game plays, as speed and acceleration are much easier values to work with. They don't link to animations and so can be rendered using any player.

It would be SO fun to see different levels of backs: watching Shonne Greene, you can tell he runs with almost no burst; watching Trent Richardson, you can see that he has strong short burst; watching Arian Foster, you can see that he has the kind of "long" burst that Emmitt Smith had--not gonna break 80 yard runs typically, but will break off 40 combining burst and vision.

You know what else would be great to see is some real distinctions between guys who are quick laterally, but not necessarily fast and not necessarily big burst guys. PR are often this way, able to make 2-3 very quick lateral moves, then accelerate at a decent rate, but they don't have to be top-end guys in acceleration or speed to be effective. The best ones are, for sure, but there are a few positions where you see guys like that on the field, and I'd love to see that in my game.

That's another set of values/data that I think FGB can plug in and get an immediate benefit since there are relatively fewer variables involved than in other football moves.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

@DCEBB, nah I honestly don't because as much as I usually enjoy this topic, discussing it in context of how they choose to create Madden is frustrating and ends up giving me a headache, lol. People have been asking for a universal ratings editor for the longest, to no avail and even that wouldn't help the issue with little to no animation differential between players, according to ratings. I of course commend you for your perseverance and hope it all pays off one day, in the form of a paid position doing this or at least some way to apply them completely in Madden. I look at so many of the topics discussed around OS about realism in an alleged NFL simulation video game, that seem to be spot on but alas, only make for good discussion, not change. I think devs and programmers read threads like these and somehow come away with the notion this confirms it's all subjective anyway, so it doesn't matter how they do it. That really irks me, just like this constant mantra of "no game is perfect", both make no sense in the context of doing something better or the best you can. Yes translating ratings into a video game is subjective, in the sense of the formula used but that doesn't mean one way isn't better than another for emulating real life. It seems like to me Tiburon often already declares emulating real life as too difficult to achieve so why bother trying and they don't.

That frustration is equally shared around here it seems. Just try typing in "Frustration" in a thread search for Madden on this site and you may break your browser.

What really frustrates me is having all this cool data that if properly implimented could yield, hypthetically, realistic results in the video game. However, the fact that the game is broken itself really limits the practical implimentation of any such system unless we do have that ability to customize and edit the game ourselves.

As much as I want to use them in a CCM with customized draft classes, I can't because of the lack of ability to edit in the game. Madden 08 for the PC was honestly the last time I truly enjoyed the game because of the ability to import draft classes for any system I like. I could use the old FBG ratings when Brian Hitterman ran the site and import my draft classes based on his way of rating players. If EA brought it back for the PC and we could edit again in mass with external editors I would buy the game and enjoy it once again. Until one of those things happens, however, I will always be left wanting.

[buckey00]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

There are certain ratings that do not work alone. When running, the SPD and ACC ratings do work symbiotically up until 45 yards. At 45 yards, the SPD rating takes over until the STA determines how long the maximum velocity is effective. For SPM/JKM moves, the AGI and ACC ratings play a very large role in getting into and out of the move effectively. For instance, a RB with a JKM of 90 with ACC of 90 will get out of the move quicker than a RB with a JKM of 90 and ACC of 80. So when you look at the ratings on the site, don't sinle out any one attribute. Instead, look at how they may affect one another. The only "true" way to see how each player performs is to actually try it out. I do not have a timetable for how long it will take to do the OVR calculations for M13 presently. It really depends on how much we CAN edit for CCM. If EA allows us to edit everything in a roster before starting a CCM, then it would be worth all the time it takes to get the calculations correct. If we can't edit as much as we would like, then I may have to skip that for this year and hope that full editing is back next year. I would also like to see if we can edit in CCM, especially draft classes. The one thing I am constantly fighting is the urge to simply rate players the same way EA does, but with the better info. For instance, all attributes have a designated "average" rating as well as a max and min. This average for all raw attributes is 70. So an "average" vertical jump of 34.5 inches (the average since 1998) would yield a JMP rating of 70. However, in Madden the average JMP is 68. The average SPD is 74, ACC is 81, and AGI is 74, and STR is 71. So as you can see, the average would change if I were to rate players the way EA does. However, I would still utilize a normal distribution based on the data. I would love to hear from some of the guys who are regulars to this thread about this in detail. The upside to using the same way EA rates players is that you can use rookies produced in CCM. The downside is that you get more ratings inflation toward the upper bound. Thoughts?

I'm obviously new here, but I have been playing Madden since 03. I personally like the wide span of ratings you have right now. It will make fore a more natural and realistic game. Even in ccm the inflation of talent seems to be so gradual the ratings would be worth doing. Im in year 2016 of my ccm and the average amount of draft class player starters per team seems to be 2 for more established teams and 4 for teams that were rebuilding through the draft. Now this may give teams that have more/higher draft picks an advantage. But, like I said it the more inflated talent seems to be infused gradually with the draft classes and the exp progression of current players. The progression of current players could also cancel out the inflated ratings in the draft class. I guess that depends on how intelligently the computer spends their xp. Now I have no idea how much work it is or if this is an ignorant question but if the draft classes are to much of a worry, there could be two sets of ratings: the ones rated on ea's scale and the current ones, and then the madden players could choose which set they would want to used based on their wants.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMP

This is one area where FGB ratings can make an undisputed contribution and change the way the game plays, as speed and acceleration are much easier values to work with. They don't link to animations and so can be rendered using any player. It would be SO fun to see different levels of backs: watching Shonne Greene, you can tell he runs with almost no burst; watching Trent Richardson, you can see that he has strong short burst; watching Arian Foster, you can see that he has the kind of "long" burst that Emmitt Smith had--not gonna break 80 yard runs typically, but will break off 40 combining burst and vision. You know what else would be great to see is some real distinctions between guys who are quick laterally, but not necessarily fast and not necessarily big burst guys. PR are often this way, able to make 2-3 very quick lateral moves, then accelerate at a decent rate, but they don't have to be top-end guys in acceleration or speed to be effective. The best ones are, for sure, but there are a few positions where you see guys like that on the field, and I'd love to see that in my game. That's another set of values/data that I think FGB can plug in and get an immediate benefit since there are relatively fewer variables involved than in other football moves.

THIS^^^...

...Has to be one of my favorite posts in this entire thread. That is exactly what I am trying to do...take a new approach to how players are rated. You can thank caballero and PGaither for getting on my case about that. The whole thing that limited it in the first place was the lack of data to show a true acceleration curve and top velocity. However, once I found out that ALL players in Madden regardless of SPD/ACC stop accelerating at 45 yards I found that I was able to use the split times for each player to measure the change in velocity (ACC) and predict the top instantaneous velocity (SPD) at 45 yards using a cubic function. Now it is just a matter of finding an easy way of doing it for some 20000 players, which should take a few weeks to complete.

The other thing is the whole AGI rating as you pointed out. EA basically dictates that fast SPD/ACC means a fast AGI. That is not always the case. In fact, they also make it seem like a high AGI must mean a high JKM/SPM. I don't believe that is always the case either. I have known some pretty darn good RBs in my day (some I have scouted, coached, or played with) who lacked hip movement to run with agility, but had GREAT jump cuts or an ability to stick their foot in the ground and change direction by employing a move rather than being agile.

A guy like Adrian Peterson had a very average 3-cone time for RB. He is great at getting North/South with good explosion and open field speed. However, he has a very good jump cut and great ability to stick his foot in the ground to get north and south. So although he may not have the most loose hips, he employs a great SKILL (move) in combination with great ability (SPD and ACC) to be effective. So in all reality you can have a great learned skill with a lesser physical ability.

The opposite holds true for a guy with great body lean and agility like Clay Matthews (who ran a sub-7.00 3-cone time) but will most likely never perfect the JKM/SPM as a ball carrier because his position doesn't require it.

EA needs to further realize the differences between raw athletic ability, which can be measured, and a learned SKILL which needs to be better observed, recorded, and qualified, such as how scouts do it...in my opinion anyway.