FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by LHSLax_D24

http://www.ea.com/madden-nfl/blog/dy...mance-features New feature for Madden 12.

As of right now, no I will not be adding these but I think it would be something to look forward to for 2012.

[Argooos]

Hey, quick question: Are you still on-target for your previously stated timeline? You said back in January that you'd be working on Phase 2 in late July, but most (if not all) players still say New 2010 OVERALLS Coming Soon: Offseason at the bottom of the page. So are you still in phase 1, or have you moved on to phase 2?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Argooos

Hey, quick question: Are you still on-target for your previously stated timeline? You said back in January that you'd be working on Phase 2 in late July, but most (if not all) players still say New 2010 OVERALLS Coming Soon: Offseason at the bottom of the page. So are you still in phase 1, or have you moved on to phase 2?

All players still have their offseason ratings. They will be updated to "Preseason" once the preseason is nearly complete. From there, the ratings will be implemented for Week 1 of the regular season and the players will be tagged with "W1" as their date.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

As of right now, no I will not be adding these but I think it would be something to look forward to for 2012.

I'm guessing same goes for consistency and whatnot? These are big changes and make the game much more fluid (for the better) and make players much more than their statistics.

I guess I still am kinda unsure why you undertook this effort, couldn't Madden change how important strength or speed or something is in the engine and just ruin all of this? Suddenly the lowest stats are 10, highest are 85 and only exceptional/streaking players can hit 100? Couldn't they have done something like that (though less dramatic than the example) already and we just don't know it? Or the reverse, strength isn't factored in enough during gameplay, and speed is too fast, leading these stats to skew the problems even further?

Either way, with streaks, consistency, and the roles, the baseline stats will then be considerably devalued in Madden 12.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

I'm guessing same goes for consistency and whatnot? These are big changes and make the game much more fluid (for the better) and make players much more than their statistics. I guess I still am kinda unsure why you undertook this effort, couldn't Madden change how important strength or speed or something is in the engine and just ruin all of this? Suddenly the lowest stats are 10, highest are 85 and only exceptional/streaking players can hit 100? Couldn't they have done something like that (though less dramatic than the example) already and we just don't know it? Or the reverse, strength isn't factored in enough during gameplay, and speed is too fast, leading these stats to skew the problems even further? Either way, with streaks, consistency, and the roles, the baseline stats will then be considerably devalued in Madden 12.

Madden will still need ratings. Getting the formulas to figure in the OVR ratings is easy. Stretching the ratings to what EA does is simple too. The hard part is just entering in all the data and correlating the scouting data to numerical data. But, since that is mostly done for the players currently in the database, it is not as big of a project anymore. It was hard to get it to that point though.

[TearsOfPurple]

This is a great undertaking. But I don't know if I can take some of these ratings seriously. Really, no disrespect to you, but when Chris Cook is rated 54 while Frank Walker is a 74 is just insane. Some of the ratings are way off, but that's just my opinion from a Viking's fan standpoint. Maybe I'm just missing something and the OVR doesn't mean much...

[at23steelers]

Quote: Originally Posted by TearsOfPurple

This is a great undertaking. But I don't know if I can take some of these ratings seriously. Really, no disrespect to you, but when Chris Cook is rated 54 while Frank Walker is a 74 is just insane. Some of the ratings are way off, but that's just my opinion from a Viking's fan standpoint. Maybe I'm just missing something and the OVR doesn't mean much...

As you can see in the post above, these ratings are from the offseason. DCEBB said when the preseason is about over, he will assign new overalls. The attributes will be close to what they will be, but the overalls will change.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by TearsOfPurple

This is a great undertaking. But I don't know if I can take some of these ratings seriously. Really, no disrespect to you, but when Chris Cook is rated 54 while Frank Walker is a 74 is just insane. Some of the ratings are way off, but that's just my opinion from a Viking's fan standpoint. Maybe I'm just missing something and the OVR doesn't mean much...

The reason Cook is rated a 54 is because he ended up suffering tears in both his left and right meniscus during the course of the season and underwent arthroscopic surgeries. He was also placed on IR. If you would have read the entire thread you have seen that INJURIES AFFECT THE OVR RATING. Look at the other attributes to give yourself a better idea of where he will be rated.

I don't know about anyone else here, but it seems that it is hard to take some of these posters seriously when they ask questions that have been answered a million times beforehand in the same thread.

Although I can see why you are clamoring for a rookie who was injured...he is a Viking after all and you need all the help you can get.