FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

This might provide different gameplay, but there are still issues. You don't find a problem that Jadeveon Clowney, somebody who has never played more than a couple plays a game, should have better coverage ratings than Joe Haden and better at catching than Steve Smith? I know agility plays a part in how well a guy does in stopping routes, but Clowney shouldn't be better at breaking on the ball than Haden. Or that Larry Fitzgerald is better at juking than Lesean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, and Jamaal Charles? And don't give me the agility comment, as Fitzgerald has higher AGI than Peterson and 3 less than McCoy despite being 7 points higher in juke. Or that Tamba Hali is a perfect player? With 99 AWR, 99 power move, 99 finesse move, 99 pursuit, 99 play recognition, and 99 hit power? Especially when JJ Watt, a year away from a 20.5 sack season has 69 power move and 71 finesse move? I can go on and on with examples like this, where random players are better at things than the best players at the position that actually uses the skill.

Is there a "breaking on the ball" attribute in Madden? Nope. If you want to replicate "breaking on the ball" you must use a combination of attributes. Take a CB that is rated 99 in MCV and 99 in AGI and cover a WR. Now take a player that is 99 in MCV and 1 in AGI and cover the same receiver. Let me know if there is a difference.

The point is you cannot focus on one attribute being the be-all, end-all to describing how a player behaves. A CB is not successful based solely on his MCV/ZCV ability! He must have the physical tools as well the proper technique.

You keep ignoring the fact that you must include the other attributes. AGI and ACC affect how well a player will juke and spin. This is proven. Test it out for yourself.

BTW, if Hali was a "perfect" player, why isn't his OVR at 99? Wouldn't that equate to perfection? I think you are off here. What makes a player great is not being great at one thing, but being very good at multiple things used in a combination that allows the player to exploit what the guy opposite of him CANNOT do.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

What constitutes a 40 OVR is way too low compared to how a player would play in a real game. What would constitute as a 40 OVR on a scouting scale, translates to something like a 65 on madden, because that is the formula they use for OVR in order to make that player behave the same. There is no right or wrong number for the OVR of a player. It is just two different ways of interpreting the data, that should not be combined without accounting for the difference.

Please present the data that allows you to make this assumption. This sounds like pure opinion without any empirical evidence to the contrary.

[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

SMH. You totally missed the point on #3. The point is that an ILB rated an 80 OVR is theoretically the same caliber of a player as a OLB rated at 80 OVR. The difference in the formulas while changing positions does not matter. You already have qualified one player as being ILB and another as OLB. If they are both an 80, then they should be the same caliber of player despite that their attributes may differ and their formulas for obtaining the OVR differ.

Well, if I make the guy at one MLB an 81 in every category, he is now better at every single thing on the football field, making him a better player. However, because he is classified as a MLB and not a ROLB, his OVR is lower, which doesn't make sense, as the MLB is the better player of the two. If I move that MLB to ROLB, he'd be a higher OVR, making him a better player than the ROLB that is an 80 in every category (who was rated higher than the 81 in every category MLB). I'm saying the madden OVR rating scale is not to be used for comparing players at different positions.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

I'm not making rosters, especially considering I wouldn't be able to use them in online H2H. I'm just trying to help fix glaring errors in these rosters that would harm the realistic gameplay. I mean think about it. Jadeveon Clowney having a better catch rating than Steve Smith? He's never caught a pass in a college game, let alone NFL. Smith has 836 receptions in his career. That just doesn't make sense

So because a player has never caught a pass means that he cannot catch? Hmmm....I don't like dealing in absolutes so that again sounds like conjecture. I guess we won't know until Clowney is allowed to catch a pass. So should he have a CTH of 0 then? What would the data, that you must obviously have, state his CTH rating should be? Just curious...

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

No, because according to EA's scale, in order to get a 40 OVR at a position like WR, the player in gameplay would run a 40 time over 5 and would probably drop 25%-30% of his passes. No player in the NFL, no matter how poorly they compare to the rest of the league at their position, even comes close to what that would be. The worst at a position are faster and better at catching than that, the worst speed would probably be around a 4.7 or so at WR, maybe a bit lower in some extreme example, and the highest drop percentage for a player with more than 30 targets was 14.3%, which was a RB. The lowest for a WR over 30 targets was 12.5 %.

Hmm...I have this player rated below 40. Did he run a 40 over 5.00?

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/pr...hp?pyid=130646

Or maybe it was some of his "other" traits that made his OVR so low?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

I'm just trying to help fix glaring errors in these rosters that would harm the realistic gameplay.

NEWS FLASH:

I am NOT going to change anything about how the players are rated based on your opinion. I only follow the data. Your attempts to "fix" the "glaring errors" are not doing anything in regards to changing the source data.

[michiganfan8620]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Is there a "breaking on the ball" attribute in Madden? Nope. If you want to replicate "breaking on the ball" you must use a combination of attributes. Take a CB that is rated 99 in MCV and 99 in AGI and cover a WR. Now take a player that is 99 in MCV and 1 in AGI and cover the same receiver. Let me know if there is a difference. The point is you cannot focus on one attribute being the be-all, end-all to describing how a player behaves. A CB is not successful based solely on his MCV/ZCV ability! He must have the physical tools as well the proper technique. You keep ignoring the fact that you must include the other attributes. AGI and ACC affect how well a player will juke and spin. This is proven. Test it out for yourself. BTW, if Hali was a "perfect" player, why isn't his OVR at 99? Wouldn't that equate to perfection? I think you are off here. What makes a player great is not being great at one thing, but being very good at multiple things used in a combination that allows the player to exploit what the guy opposite of him CANNOT do.

My bad, you have Hali as perfect in almost every technique category, not physical skills. Which still is not right based on the way Hali plays in real life. You have Tamba Hali as the tied for best player in the league, even though he has never been an MVP and never made 1st team all-pro. There is no defensive player within 8 OVR of Hali, and no LB within 14 OVR of Hali, which makes it not even close on your scale.

And you have been too focused on your ratings system to read interviews with the gameplay developers. Here is a quote from the gameplay developers.


"Zone Coverage ratings now have a bigger impact on how quickly defenders break on throws. Defenders with higher ratings in Zone Coverage will react much quicker to throws."

"Man Coverage ratings have also been tweaked to impact how much separation receivers are able to get on cuts in their routes, resulting in improved behavior of the defender."

And like I said, I am including other attributes in the juke thing. Fitzgerald is 7 greater than McCoy at juking. McCoy is 3 greater than Fitzgerald at AGI. Advantage- Fitzgerald, even though in real life, if you actually watch football, it isn't even close.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by michiganfan8620

How? He won't play different from the ratings. A guy with 78 agility and 99 juke will be better at juking than a guy with 81 agility and 92 juke. Ignore names, and think about that.

Your hypothesis is incorrect. AGI does affect how well a player jukes. Perhaps Charter04 can upload a video as an example. I will even break down the amount of distance covered in the JKM for each by counting the frames.