Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by StefJoeHalt

Ok trying to have open mind about this..(only thinking user vs CPU) but why have different skill then? If they want ratings to be "balance" so it's competitive..then do away with skill level and sliders (tongue and cheek)... JP u seemed extremely shocked by this...this something different then what u been told? Or implied to u? Also Dan do they realize ur ratings don't break the game but in fact improve the play? I would hope they could see that by playing it themselves....

It seemed to me that they were skeptical about how well the game plays with these ratings, so I'm pretty sure that they haven't tried them yet. They seemed convinced that they would break the game and some things would be exploited by users - that was a big concern. Not sure about all that myself, but I don't recall getting too many impressions from users about it breaking their games.

[jpdavis82]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Right there with you. Before today I put the odds at 20%. Not sure how I feel now. Maybe a little less? The funny thing was the first thing Rex said was "I understand that you had conversations with us in 2011. Mind if I ask what happened then?" I told them that we had a difference in philosophy and I didn't want to attach my name to something that compromised my methodology and hard work. I also told them that I felt all they were trying to do was pump me for information on how I do stuff...some of it I couldn't answer because of the NDA or intellectual property. I think that this conversation today was more constructive. Rex told me that he was impressed with my knowledge. That is a start. However, this is all talk at this point and it is important to reiterate that this was only the beginning of the dialogue. Asking me what role I see playing in all of this says something too. Some mixed messages, but at least they are opening a dialogue and seeking out people (who at least claim to be) in the know. Another thing that is concerning (and I know it may piss some people off here) is that they may go to community based ratings. Just what we need, another popularity contest. They may as well put every player on every team at 99 in everything because that is what it will get to eventually. The biggest resistance my system will face is from casual gamers who are shocked an appalled at seeing starters in the 60s regularly. Some will write those ratings off immediately. Then, throw in the heat from the players themselves and we have a giant s--t storm in the making. As good the dialogue so far is, those are the things that make me think that having real grades and real ratings based on data will ever work for this franchise. Everyone is too used to having 90+ for every player in everything. It's quite sad that the real NFL isn't anything like that. Why else do you think that the average player is out in 2-3 years? The average player is not anywhere near elite. To me, it's a start. If they bring me in, great! If not, I just hope they go to something based on data and don't open it up to idiots to vote on. You can kiss any semblance of sim goodbye if they do that. Just my honest opinion.

Yeah this is my concern too, I can see it now "QB Tom Brady is a 84 in Madden 16, 2nd highest rated QB" and then Pats fans go ballistic because they think he should be a 98 or 99. That's my biggest fear with the way they may react to your ratings, but that is the reality of it, they've been trained to see ratings a certain way and using your ratings may "break the game" to them.

[StefJoeHalt]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

It seemed to me that they were skeptical about how well the game plays with these ratings, so I'm pretty sure that they haven't tried them yet. They seemed convinced that they would break the game and some things would be exploited by users - that was a big concern. Not sure about all that myself, but I don't recall getting too many impressions from users about it breaking their games.

disclaimer to the below statements: I'm mainly play CFM offline user vs CPU..however when friends come over I do play head to head but normally avoid online play as much as possible.

Exploited? See that is the issue..if anything when playing with ur ratings its actually help cover up issues within the game...I also notice less glitch plays and money plays..even when playing HUMvsHUM..but that is me maybe i have imported ur super special ratings lol..they really need to take a week and play with ur ratings then come back to u..my two cents


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StefJoeHalt]

Quote: Originally Posted by jpdavis82

Yeah this is my concern too, I can see it now "QB Tom Brady is a 84 in Madden 16, 2nd highest rated QB" and then Pats fans go ballistic because they think he should be a 98 or 99. That's my biggest fear with the way they may react to your ratings, but that is the reality of it, they've been trained to see ratings a certain way and using your ratings may "break the game" to them.

Simple solutions to that..recalculate what causes a 99 overall..overall ratings all together...no? That isn't the perfect answer but maybe something that can be done to make everyone happy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[khaliib]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

What I would like to see, and Dan you may know the answer to this, is their ratings ordinal or interval? Is the difference in gameplay the same between 70-75 as it is between 90-95? Or does the difference increase exponentially?

In it's current state, actual gameplay differences (animations wise) are based off of tier/levels of "10".
It's 50, 60, 70 etc... with 90 for whatever reason being their (EA) threshold to trigger some of the defined animations, especially by the AI, with greater frequency (not that lower ratings don't drive such animations to occur).

In between values simply let you know how far to the next tier/level pts must be gained (ie Exp Points which play into building a player over multiple seasons).

One of the main problems is not knowing the weights they've applied to each rating.
Some have heavier weights (per Xbox 360 game install data) applied to them than others which affects animation triggering between two apposing ratings...

- Tackle vs Elusiveness with more weight given to the tackle rating to drive more tackle animations rather than the elusiveness rating to cause AI players to avoid potential tacklers with greater occurrence (M15 marketing was about "Defense")

The Avg tackle rating of defensive players in CFM draft classes (players are pre-defined, not generated anymore) is above 80 (not including corners that avg at 65), where as, the Elusive rating for ball carriers is near 70.

Remember that EA has set 90 (per EA Gameplay Blog) as the triggering threshold for the type of tackle avoidance moves (stiff arm, spin or juke move) to occur.
So when the tackle rating is lowered, it minimizes the extra weight programmed to this rating, allowing the tackle avoidance moves to occur more.

I would say that the Elusive Rating is even positional because if you set this rating to 90+ for QB's (main reason for sack issue is that this rating is set to below 30 for them), they will climb, maneuver in the pocket like crazy.

You can also see this difference between a WR/DB on a Special Teams return compared to when a RB is utilized.
RB's tend to show more tackle avoidance due to more weight being given for there avoidance rating (naturally) than WR/DB's.

In a nutshell, these hidden weights are causing such a big mess because "one person" had the say-so on the gameplay that animated and for some reason, allowing every rating and it's counter, to have an "even" 50/50 chance to animate without weights was not desired.

This applies to the other ratings as well such as, Off Accelleration vs Def Pursuit (catch-up speed) ratings.
There's a greater weight given to Pursuit (M15 was about "Defense") allowing the angle/run-down animation to occurs more.


DC, I believe the issue is not making competitive gameplay, it's that so many ideas/hands have been applied to the ratings programming and how it's so linked to the core of driving their animations, doing something along the lines of what you've done, would require them to build from scratch that everything meshes properly.

We know that's not going to happen!!!


Some quick Ratings notes:
Create-a-Player reveals that 65 (which means the 60's tier/level) is the actual "middle/avg" of their ratings scale, not 50 on the 0-99 scale.

Most positional ratings (except OL and some defensive ratings like Tackle, Man/Zone Coverage etc...) of Draft Clases tend to be around this mark.

Stamina is killing gameplay because of how it's been programed to impact in an regressive manner on ratings.

Because the applied weight is unknown, it makes a monkey-mess of the entire ratings system and its impact on animation triggering during gameplay.

Default of "50" places such a steep drain on ratings (and we don't know how much each rating is weighted to be impacted) during a single play, it's causing us to fight to balance between Gameplay and Sub-Out functionality.

Thus, the higher you raise the Stamina Slider, the more "ratings are adjusted".
Where as, the lower the slider, the less ratings are adjusted, but also the less Sub-out will occur (even with adjusting the Sub-out sliders).

So it's continued "Animations" over the course of the game vs "Sub-outs" over the course of the game.

Go figure!!!
At least Ratings discussion is at the forefront not like in past times.

Sorry for the long post on a reply.

[StefJoeHalt]

Quote: Originally Posted by jpdavis82

I'm not shocked, just confused, trying to understand how this all fits into the simulation game that they are trying to create. Rex preaches it all the time, not just on camera, and I'm just trying to figure it all out. I wasn't really sure what to expect, now the part about creating a wider separation between average and elite players, that sounds more like it.

Unfortunately JP...its them trying to fit simulation into tourney..and make one game..which in the end does not make simulation...they give us some stuff but not everything...but to fix that would be allow total free editing...we could use Dan's and be able to play for "Madden years.." While the tourney community would get there even play..and random NFL player will not boycott the game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by StefJoeHalt

Simple solutions to that..recalculate what causes a 99 overall..overall ratings all together...no? That isn't the perfect answer but maybe something that can be done to make everyone happy

One thing I mentioned in another post was how I would have each player's profile look:

10: 1.69
20: 2.77
40: 4.71
Vertical: 34.5
Broad: 110
Shuttle: 4.32
Cone: 7.12
Bench: 340
Squat: 400
Clean: 280

Overall Grade: 9.47
Arm Strength: 2.9
Footwork/Scrambling: 1.2
0-10 Accuracy: 2.6
10-25 Accuracy: 3.3
>25 Accuracy: 3.2
Toughness/Leadership: 3.9
Reads: 2.9
Timely Release: 2.2
Ball Security: 1.3
Special Teams:
Injury: 0.3


This would force gamers to get used to a new system, the same as how this particular scouting groups would rate their players and do away with the 0-100 scale. It would be strange at first, but in all honesty, if scouts (who essentially grade or rate these players) don't use a 0-100 scale, why should a video game? Just because it has been done like that forever? That doesn't seem to be a good reason to keep it as is even though that is what people are used to.

Not saying this is a parallel, but the concept is the same: even Einstein's theory of relativity took decades to be accepted by the mainstream, and we are now better off in understanding our universe because of it. Why not change our Madden universe in this way if it makes the game more realistic, or at least give us the option to use it for the hardcore armchair GMs out there.

[StefJoeHalt]

Quote: Originally Posted by khaliib

In it's current state, actual gameplay differences (animations wise) are based off of tier/levels of "10". It's 50, 60, 70 etc... with 90 for whatever reason being their (EA) threshold to trigger some of the defined animations, especially by the AI, with greater frequency (not that lower ratings don't drive such animations to occur). In between values simply let you know how far to the next tier/level pts must be gained (ie Exp Points which play into building a player over multiple seasons). One of the main problems is not knowing the weights they've applied to each rating. Some have heavier weights (per Xbox 360 game install data) applied to them than others which affects animation triggering between two apposing ratings... - Tackle vs Elusiveness with more weight given to the tackle rating to drive more tackle animations rather than the elusiveness rating to cause AI players to avoid potential tacklers with greater occurrence (M15 marketing was about "Defense") The Avg tackle rating of defensive players in CFM draft classes (players are pre-defined, not generated anymore) is above 80 (not including corners that avg at 65), where as, the Elusive rating for ball carriers is near 70. Remember that EA has set 90 (per EA Gameplay Blog) as the triggering threshold for the type of tackle avoidance moves (stiff arm, spin or juke move) to occur. So when the tackle rating is lowered, it minimizes the extra weight programmed to this rating, allowing the tackle avoidance moves to occur more. I would say that the Elusive Rating is even positional because if you set this rating to 90+ for QB's (main reason for sack issue is that this rating is set to below 30 for them), they will climb, maneuver in the pocket like crazy. You can also see this difference between a WR/DB on a Special Teams return compared to when a RB is utilized. RB's tend to show more tackle avoidance due to more weight being given for there avoidance rating (naturally) than WR/DB's. In a nutshell, these hidden weights are causing such a big mess because "one person" had the say-so on the gameplay that animated and for some reason, allowing every rating and it's counter, to have an "even" 50/50 chance to animate without weights was not desired. This applies to the other ratings as well such as, Off Accelleration vs Def Pursuit (catch-up speed) ratings. There's a greater weight given to Pursuit (M15 was about "Defense") allowing the angle/run-down animation to occurs more. DC, I believe the issue is not making competitive gameplay, it's that so many ideas/hands have been applied to the ratings programming and how it's so linked to the core of driving their animations, doing something along the lines of what you've done, would require them to build from scratch that everything meshes properly. We know that's not going to happen!!! Some quick Ratings notes: Create-a-Player reveals that 65 (which means the 60's tier/level) is the actual "middle/avg" of their ratings scale, not 50 on the 0-99 scale. Most positional ratings (except OL and some defensive ratings like Tackle, Man/Zone Coverage etc...) of Draft Clases tend to be around this mark. Stamina is killing gameplay because of how it's been programed to impact in an regressive manner on ratings. Because the applied weight is unknown, it makes a monkey-mess of the entire ratings system and its impact on animation triggering during gameplay. Default of "50" places such a steep drain on ratings (and we don't know how much each rating is weighted to be impacted) during a single play, it's causing us to fight to balance between Gameplay and Sub-Out functionality. Thus, the higher you raise the Stamina Slider, the more "ratings are adjusted". Where as, the lower the slider, the less ratings are adjusted, but also the less Sub-out will occur (even with adjusting the Sub-out sliders). So it's continued "Animations" over the course of the game vs "Sub-outs" over the course of the game. Go figure!!! At least Ratings discussion is at the forefront not like in past times. Sorry for the long post on a reply.

Even more reason to allow the community to edit "fix" after game is released..I have already this post 3 times and still learning from one post thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk