Madden NFL 15: Top Rookies

[RogueHominid]

One thing I would like to see vis-a-vis player ratings is a version of the video stream we got the other day on gameplay that really focuses on the philosophy of the ratings system in Madden and spells out their objectives with various ratings, their methodology for arriving at ratings, etc.

I have a lot of respect for Rex's and RG's philosophies behind the gameplay stuff we saw, and I think that if Madden tried to articulate a cogent ratings philosophy for public consumption, we would get one of two results, either of which could be good in its way. Either we would learn that there isn't really a coherent philosophy or set of objectives, methodologies, etc., and that would hopefully lead to the development of a cogent philosophy, or we would learn that there is a philosophy in place, we would learn what it is, and then we could live with it and either agree or agree to disagree.

I would also love to hear something specific about how the game links certain numerical ratings to animation sets. For example, if Khalil Mack has 80 tackle, what does that allow him to do in-game that a player with 70 tackle can't? Or if he has an 84 block shed, what does that allow him to do that a guy with 75 block shed can't do?

Coming at it that way might enable us to move beyond basic disagreements about numbers to a more function-driven discussion that focuses on how the game renders the data in the gameplay engine. That, to me, is as big a topic of discussion as the raw data discussions that DCEBB pursues.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by The JareBear

Something tells me that whoever fifth on the list is tomorrow is going to cause a big debate. I am sure most everyone can agree that Manning, Rodgers, Brady, and Brees are the top four (in any order you want to put them) but that fifth spot is pretty up for grabs IMO. As for the rookies, it looks like Mack is going to be a Von Miller type within no time in CFM mode. I am glad I don't play in a lot of ranked matches where default rosters are mandatory, these ratings really aren't close at all

I think it should be Rivers. We'll see who they have. Probably Newton since they love running QB's

[marvinCB21]

Am i the only one that feels like Sammy Watkins speed should be 95 or better?

[marvinCB21]

As far a rookie ratings i have no problem with them coming in and some being high. When playing madden and sorting out depth charts i hardly pay any attention to overall anyway bcuz all it mean is that individual probably has very low awareness. If an DB has great cover skills and low awareness i may still put them in the nickel or dime no matter wat the overall may be. But then again that may change in this years madden if player sense and all that good stuff is really taken into account. But all in all its not impossible for rookies to come in and be great. Football is football and if you have elite talent it will show

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing that the reason the ratings are so high on here for rookies is most likely so that they progress correctly over time in CFM modes. Yes, it isn't a perfect system, but it does make sense. If they lower the technical skills to where you want them since they are unproven, then they might not develop correctly in CFM compared to other players. I'm not defending EA's ratings, as many of you are right, Clowney has too high of PMV, Robinson may have a bit too high of RBK, and there are more, but saying so-and-so has too high of an OVR is too quick to judge. You can't say that until you have seen what other players at the position are rated. Some of these guys are overrated, but some are also underrated, EA realizes that and just tries to take a moderate approach in terms of OVR. Look at Sheldon Richardson, taken number 26 last year. Had he been rated even 85 in the first ratings, most people would be freaking out, talking about inflation of rookies. However, he played as one of the better 3-4 ends in the league, justifying a rating that high. He was rated mid-high 70's I believe in the initial ratings. A few of these rookies even make the pro bowl some years, thus, I don't believe it is right to say EA over-rates rookies every year, even though some of them are under-rated based on the way they perform.

I don't think they are too high in the Madden system. I just hate the total overrating of all players madden does. If you just go by how they compare to the other overrated players then I agree it's about right. It's just hard to get sim games when 50% of the league is 90 overall or higher and if 90 speed is average for a skill player. That is one of the big reason Madden is to fast as far as gameplay goes. IMO

[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by charter04

I don't think they are too high in the Madden system. I just hate the total overrating of all players madden does. If you just go by how they compare to the other overrated players then I agree it's about right. It's just hard to get sim games when 50% of the league is 90 overall or higher and if 90 speed is average for a skill player. That is one of the big reason Madden is to fast as far as gameplay goes. IMO

While yes I can agree that it is a total overrating as far as numbers seem to go. However, the numbers they use seem to go fairly in line with what a player could do in real life in terms of speed. It seems like they travel 40 yards in the right amount of time as compared to 40s for the most part. Yes, some of the technical skills are overrated across the board, but physically, I think Madden is pretty close on most players.

[charter04]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trojan Man

One thing I would like to see vis-a-vis player ratings is a version of the video stream we got the other day on gameplay that really focuses on the philosophy of the ratings system in Madden and spells out their objectives with various ratings, their methodology for arriving at ratings, etc. I have a lot of respect for Rex's and RG's philosophies behind the gameplay stuff we saw, and I think that if Madden tried to articulate a cogent ratings philosophy for public consumption, we would get one of two results, either of which could be good in its way. Either we would learn that there isn't really a coherent philosophy or set of objectives, methodologies, etc., and that would hopefully lead to the development of a cogent philosophy, or we would learn that there is a philosophy in place, we would learn what it is, and then we could live with it and either agree or agree to disagree. I would also love to hear something specific about how the game links certain numerical ratings to animation sets. For example, if Khalil Mack has 80 tackle, what does that allow him to do in-game that a player with 70 tackle can't? Or if he has an 84 block shed, what does that allow him to do that a guy with 75 block shed can't do? Coming at it that way might enable us to move beyond basic disagreements about numbers to a more function-driven discussion that focuses on how the game renders the data in the gameplay engine. That, to me, is as big a topic of discussion as the raw data discussions that DCEBB pursues.

I would love that so much. I also want to see them breakdown of sliders too. I just hope they even know the answers. I'm not trying to be funny. I really wonder how much they know about what does what. It seems some ratings do nothing in game. Maybe some are for simmed games. I know it was just confirmed that Pass block strength and footwork and the same in the run block ones don't do anything in game. Clint O said it on twitter.

[trey2k198003]

Losing faith we will ever get franchise mode news don't think the updated at all