EA Sports Season Opener: Football Titles

[seriousluboy83]

football isn't based around percentages...baseball is...there's no need to lock down ratings with percentages...except for the qb's, punter's, and kicker's everyone else should have free range ratings

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by seriousluboy83

football isn't based around percentages...baseball is...there's no need to lock down ratings with percentages...except for the qb's, punter's, and kicker's everyone else should have free range ratings

Just because basic football stats doesn't express stats as percentages doesn't mean players don't succeed a PERCENTAGE of the time. WR catch the ball a percentage of the time. HB break tackles a percentage of the time. OL win their blocks a percentage of the time. That's just part of the game. Simply because the stats don't say "AP broke tackles x% of the time" in his stat line doesn't mean he succeeded at 0 or 100%. That doesn't make sense.

The ratings simply should make those percentages express themselves...you know...like in baseball games - how do you think The Show can make players succeed at different rates? Rating vs Rating = % success.

How else is a computer game going to do it?

[reo]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Just because basic football stats doesn't express stats as percentages doesn't mean players don't succeed a PERCENTAGE of the time. WR catch the ball a percentage of the time. HB break tackles a percentage of the time. OL win their blocks a percentage of the time. That's just part of the game. Simply because the stats don't say "AP broke tackles x% of the time" in his stat line doesn't mean he succeeded at 0 or 100%. That doesn't make sense. The ratings simply should make those percentages express themselves...you know...like in baseball games - how do you think The Show can make players succeed at different rates? Rating vs Rating = % success.

+1

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

How else is a computer game going to do it?

If I remember correctly from an earlier thread, this guy along with another believed physics and numbers do not coincide in some sort of way.

[seriousluboy83]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Just because basic football stats doesn't express stats as percentages doesn't mean players don't succeed a PERCENTAGE of the time. WR catch the ball a percentage of the time. HB break tackles a percentage of the time. OL win their blocks a percentage of the time. That's just part of the game. Simply because the stats don't say "AP broke tackles x% of the time" in his stat line doesn't mean he succeeded at 0 or 100%. That doesn't make sense. The ratings simply should make those percentages express themselves...you know...like in baseball games - how do you think The Show can make players succeed at different rates? Rating vs Rating = % success. How else is a computer game going to do it?

ea isn't working this system like "the show"...ea's locking all players into a certain % instead of the player's having a individual %

[Tye_803]

madden 11 looks like the same ol washed up madden from previous years. but NCAA 11 looks GREAT i had a hard time telling if it wer real or an actual real life photo. i havent bought ncaa the past few years i think i'll break that trend this year.

[sportugy]

I really don't care about anything other than realistic line play and smarter AI. Give me realism! something the ****** ********* got away from since they got the exclusive NFL rights!

[Nav]

I'd like to see them fix all of the glitches the game contains online. I've played so many guys online that knew nothing about football but ran PA and threw it to the flats EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even if I put my corners in flat zone, they coast to the inside away from the RB or TE they see coming to they're coverage area. The defensive AI is just ********. I'm not that excited about Madden 11 just yet, when they announced fixtures for the games AI on offense and defense, I'll be jumping for joy.

[Flamehead]

I appreciate the feedback angle that EA is taking, but am concerned that they're painting the word with a very broad brush implying one meaning to the consumer, but practicing another. Here's what I mean:

1) Moore comes out and says "we take fan feedback seriously". He cites examples are voting on a cover athlete, voting on demo teams, voting on player attributes (which, thankfully, it's been clarified the "votes" won't have as much of an impact as thought).

This is not taking fan feedback seriously. It's attempting to involve the consumer in their marketing strategy, trying to get the fan-base excited by telling them, "hey, you're involved!". Taking it seriously, IMO, would be fleshing out the franchise, effective QA, i.e., much of the game-specific issues raised in these forums.

It's marketing slight-of-hand.

2) Strauser's example of feedback is the pass rushing fix via patches. I appreciate what he's trying to convey, but what concerns me is the implication the consumer base is basically a group of paying QA testers. IMHO, that is tantamount to releasing a beta in August, then releasing the final build in December via patches after they've collected testing results.

Did they really need our "feedback" to know that the pass rush last year was anemic? Did then really need our "feedback" last year to know that franchise stats were unrealistic? I appreciate they fixed these things (it's better than not having been fixed), but at what point is "feedback" being used for things that should already have been done, as opposed to using it to simply enhance the game?

"Feedback" sounds like a very positive noble thing, but there is a bit of implied embellishment, IMHO.