Madden NFL 15: Top Rookies

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Stronger no, even if they bench press the same it still would be much easier for the guard to move the 200lb CB than it would be to move the 300lb DT. Weight does mean something (in real life).

If their strength is the same, why wouldn't it mean the same thing? What would be the point of having the STR rating at all?

What you describe is also already captured by ratings, with the blocker's STR + RBS + RBF + IBL ratings against the defender's STR + BSH ratings. From Clint Oldenburg's blogs last year we know that STR affects the engagement duration of a block, RBS affects the blocker's ability to "lock up" a defender, RBF affects the blocker's ability to move a defender, and IBL affects the ability of the blocker to "pancake" a defender. These are checked against the defender's STR and BSH ratings to determine the success / fail of a block, the engagement time, and whether the defender gets flattened.

It would strike me that making weight an influencing factor in the ratings could potentially cause a whole lot of unnecessary confusion, and further the "ratings don't matter" conversation. If weight should be a factor, how much of a factor is it? How much does weight override ratings?

[24]

Quote: Originally Posted by NDAlum

So disheartening that HT/WT don't matter. Sent from my iPhone 5

Very Disappointing to say the least. You would Hope that a 6'5 Receiver with 90 catching would have more of a redzone impact than a 5'11 Receiver with 90 catching.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

It would strike me that making weight an influencing factor in the ratings could potentially cause a whole lot of unnecessary confusion, and further the "ratings don't matter" conversation. If weight should be a factor, how much of a factor is it? How much does weight override ratings?

To my mind, weight cannot and should not be a factor in Madden at present because taking weight into account would imply that the game is physics-based when in fact it is not.

I'm not bemoaning that fact, just observing that factoring in height and weight would be utterly inconsistent with the present philosophy of the game and would likely create more problems than solutions.

If Madden were to decide in the future to go with a physics-based approach, then height, weight, momentum, leverage, etc., all would be good things to consider, but as it stands they aren't relevant considerations.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

If their strength is the same, why wouldn't it mean the same thing? What would be the point of having the STR rating at all? What you describe is also already captured by ratings, with the blocker's STR + RBS + RBF + IBL ratings against the defender's STR + BSH ratings. From Clint Oldenburg's blogs last year we know that STR affects the engagement duration of a block, RBS affects the blocker's ability to "lock up" a defender, RBF affects the blocker's ability to move a defender, and IBL affects the ability of the blocker to "pancake" a defender. These are checked against the defender's STR and BSH ratings to determine the success / fail of a block, the engagement time, and whether the defender gets flattened. It would strike me that making weight an influencing factor in the ratings could potentially cause a whole lot of unnecessary confusion, and further the "ratings don't matter" conversation. If weight should be a factor, how much of a factor is it? How much does weight override ratings?

Clint said not that long ago that the run/pass strength and footwork don't do anything in played games.

[Robrain]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I thought this was already pretty well known, that the ratings drive everything and that height / weight are purely cosmetic. I suppose not...? Which to me makes some sense. Why should a 300-lb player with 99 STR be stronger than a 200-lb player with 99 STR? They both have 99 STR, that should mean the same thing across all players. If the 300-lb player should be stronger, how much stronger? It just strikes me as a unwieldy game balancing can of worms best left closed.

Running a 210 lb HB into a 300 lb mountain of man is still hitting a 300 lb mountain of man, regardless if that man is made of steel or jello.

We end up with scenarios where 5'9" / 203 lbs DuJuan Harris can stiff-arm a 350-lb nose tackle to the ground while running up the middle.

Or just play Superman:

[Robrain]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

If their strength is the same, why wouldn't it mean the same thing? What would be the point of having the STR rating at all? What you describe is also already captured by ratings, with the blocker's STR + RBS + RBF + IBL ratings against the defender's STR + BSH ratings. From Clint Oldenburg's blogs last year we know that STR affects the engagement duration of a block, RBS affects the blocker's ability to "lock up" a defender, RBF affects the blocker's ability to move a defender, and IBL affects the ability of the blocker to "pancake" a defender. These are checked against the defender's STR and BSH ratings to determine the success / fail of a block, the engagement time, and whether the defender gets flattened. It would strike me that making weight an influencing factor in the ratings could potentially cause a whole lot of unnecessary confusion, and further the "ratings don't matter" conversation. If weight should be a factor, how much of a factor is it? How much does weight override ratings?

How much of a factor? Enough of a factor where the obvious scenarios simply don't play out. A small guy should not be able to run over a significantly larger guy. It should pass the eye test, it doesn't have to be overly complicated.

If I ran into Dontari Poe full speed in real life, I'd expect that 99.99% of the time, I'd fall flat on my back afterwards. Unless he was sleepwalking. Then I might have a 0.01% chance.

Because, you know, physics and other magical stuff.

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

Clint said not that long ago that the run/pass strength and footwork don't do anything in played games.

That's literally the exact opposite of what the released blogs said last year and also the exact opposite of what Ian Cummings posted on this forum in 2008. (if the URL doesn't work, copy-paste this:

http://www.operationsports.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2038462682&postcount=18

) Do you have a source for that?

If anything I would believe that the RBK / PBK ratings do nothing in played games, those being the legacy ratings.

More links: here here

EDIT: seems like there was never an OL blog released, I misremembered that. To that end the most recent info I have is that forum post by Ian Cummings.

[bcruise]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

That's literally the exact opposite of what the released blogs said last year and also the exact opposite of what Ian Cummings posted on this forum in 2008. (if the URL doesn't work, copy-paste this: http://www.operationsports.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2038462682&postcount=18 ) Do you have a source for that? If anything I would believe that the RBK / PBK ratings do nothing in played games, those being the legacy ratings. More links: here here EDIT: seems like there was never an OL blog released, I misremembered that. To that end the most recent info I have is that forum post by Ian Cummings.

Back then when Ian was in charge, it probably did. But those ratings don't show up in the frontend anymore - they're more or less dummied out of everything except play now games. They definitely don't show up in CFM as they're untrainable. They're legacy, like you said.