My solution to the perennial ratings problem

[18Alex18]

First of all I'd like to apologise for posting this in two different places - I realised I'd probably posted it in the wrong place, so I'm reposting it in the general forum

I notice every year when the ratings come out for the new madden game that there are lots of complaints; "why isn't he rated higher than him?", "why is he rated so low?" etc, etc.

My favourite ever ratings system for a game was/is Pro Evolution Soccer. When I last played it [around 2 years ago] they didn't have "overall" ratings. Instead, every player had ratings for the individual attributes and then it was up to the player to decide who they should start.

Compare this to Pro Evolution Soccer's rival, Fifa. On Fifa, you'll load up a head to head against your friend and you'll then both go through your squad picking the 11 best players (based on overall ratings) and put them into your team, playing them out of position etc, as long as you can get them into the starting 11 somehow. This is a horrible method as it discourages individual styles. Maybe I want to play with 2 really quick wingers or a big powerful striker, but the ratings system discourages that.

The benefit of the Pro Evolution Soccer ratings system is that it encourages you to make decisions on what type of player you want in each position, as no player is definitively better than another. It encourages you to build and mould a squad to play to a style rather than build a squad based around the 11 best players on the game.

In Madden, EA are forced to develop player attributes to create a satisfactory overall rating. To use an example, maybe Wes Welker is only an 80 skill player in terms of attributes. He's not a complete, perfectly rounded player. However, he is a very effective player. Give Welker his true to life attributes (make him agile, quick off the mark etc.) and he could still be very dominant in Madden, regardless of his overall rating. However, the Madden developers have to beef Welker's stats in other areas to try to give him a really good overall rating because people use that as a direct comparison between players. If Welker was only rated as an 80 people would continually say "how is Welker worse than....[enter undperforming player]". How 'good' a player is perceived to be should be based on how effective the user is with that player.

For example, I'm much better when using speedy receivers rather than possession receivers. So if I had Welker and Desean Jackson then I'd probably be more effective than if I had Wayne and Brandon Marshall.

When I'm doing a franchise I want to be encouraged to pick my players based on individual attributes rather than an overall rating. I want to be encouraged to pick players to fit my system rather than the top rated players.

It would also create more healthy debate between users on who was the best player in each position.

I think it would benefit the game as a whole if there was no definite overall ratings for players.

However, I think removing any sort of overall rating would be bad for franchises. It's nice to know how your recently drafted rookies are progressing compared with the league's elite and best performers, but as I've emphasised before, ratings should be more influenced by how effective the players are in the hands of the user.

I'd like to propose a ratings system (only for franchises etc - not for play now games) whereby ratings are more dynamic and changeable to form. Overall ratings should just be a guideline for who are the best performing players in the league.

I think each position should have a formula, which creates a rating based on the recent statistics of a player in the franchise. For example, all vital Quarterback stats should be used to calculate an /100 rating for that player. For the first season of each franchise the system probably wouldn't work as there wouldn't be enough statistics to base the ratings on - a player could have a great game on the opening weekend and suddenly be a 99.

I believe only the previous 3 seasons should be relevant to the overall rating of a player as anything before then is fairly irrelevant to the current ability of a player.

I'd propose a system whereby the previous season counts for say, 55% of a players overall rating. 25% is related to two seasons previously. 10% related to 3 seasons previously and the final 10% related to their performances this season.

By this system only a player that has played perfectly for 3 seasons (+ the current season) could be 100 overall - (therefore nobody).

I understand that this system isn't perfect but I believe the Overall Rating should barely exist at all, this is only used as a guideline for a player's performance during a franchise.

The best part of my overall rating system for franchises would be that it could be factored into the trade value of a player. Again, let's use Wes Welker as our example. I love small, speedy receivers so I'd love to have Welker in my team. Let's say Welker wasn't producing for the Patriots and over 3 years his rating went down to about a 60. Then I make a trade for him and get myself a little bit of a bargain because the Patriots are thinking that he's lost it. So now I have myself a 60 rated Wes Welker, but his stats play to my style very well, so I put him in as my starter, and after a year I could have him back up to about an 80/85, maybe. This emphasises the way that different players are more or less effective in different systems.

To summarise, I think Overall Ratings are bad in sports games, they stifle and discourage individuality and personality in teams. I think Madden would be a much better game if the Overall Ratings were removed. However, as I pointed out, ratings are important in franchises for gauging trade value and performances.

Thanks for reading and I'd love to hear other's opinions regarding this.

[tlc12576]

Ok Alex, I think what you are suggesting is making OVR a value rating like another poster suggested but with a twist. The twist is, in your suggestion the value would be set by the players 3 year performance instead of each individual team. I think this is a good idea beacuse other teams shouldnt be determining the value of player before he has performed on thier team. That's what stats and other data are for, IMO. Teams sign "one hit wonders" all the time because of the stats they put up in one or two good seasons.

Also, Im starting to grow on ther idea of AI scouting reports only being given to USERs for rookies and undrafted players. In real life, that's what scouts are used for because there is no NFL statistical data on these players. After they have actually performed in the NFL then teams scout players based on their NFL performance, which is measured mainly by their stats, IMO. This way, trade and contract value being linked to the OVR value rating, would leave scouting to each individual USER. The CPU teams could calculate the players value to their teams by using the OVR value rating and player position skill set ratings. This would prevent the CPU from being exploited by a USER throwing 30 times a game to one WR with low catching, route running and awareness, just to raise their OVR for trade value. The increased stats would boost the the WR OVR but their low position ratings would still factor in to prevent the CPU from getting exploited.

However, I believe all the position skill ratings, like WR CTH, CB CVG, QB THA etc., should be hidden from USERs so they have to decide each NFL players team value for themselves. Only the OVR value rating, basic player info like 40 times, bench press, vertical jump etc. and player stats should be available to them. This seems like a good balance, IMO.

[mrprice33]

I think that they mostly do a good job in the ratings. every year a couple of teams get love (like the jets this year), but you have to remember that EA has to try and predict the performance of players for the upcoming season. Sometimes these things will be a crap shoot, but by and large I think they get it right. Also, these things sometimes come down to reputation/systems. Players that are used properly by their real-life teams get higher ratings, imo, because of their production. Wes Welker was not a 90+ guy when he was with the dolphins, but because the system in NE allows him to cater to his strengths, he performs like a 90+ guy. As a player rater for EA, what do you do in a situation like that?


The complaining, IMO, comes from homers who get butthurt because their favorite player/team gets "unfairly" shafted.

[18Alex18]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

The complaining, IMO, comes from homers who get butthurt because their favorite player/team gets "unfairly" shafted.

Adversely, I'm a colts fan. We're the 2nd rated team this year behind the Saints which is fair, we were Superbowl runners up. we're the 2nd best team.

However, we all know, Madden rates its teams and players by taking the ratings and basically making an average.

Players are rated based on the key attributes for that position and I assume teams are rated based on the average overall rating of their starters (and possibly backups too).

On paper the colts are definitely not the 2nd best team in the league.

Addai is average
We have no full back of note
Garcon and Collie are productive but not elite players
Who's ever heard of any of our O-Line (except saturday)
We have no reputable DTs
We have no outside linebackers or corners of any note.

What the colts do very well is create a team. A group of players who work exceptionally well together and a group of players who fit our system perfectly. However, Madden doesn't consider the "team" element, Madden considers the individuals and therefore, to make us the 2nd best team on the game they have to horribly over-rate some of our individuals.

Obviously I've not seen all the player ratings yet, but as a start, Mathis is rated as a 95. Mathis is a very good pass rusher, but we often take him out on running downs as he's pretty ineffective and he's not even the best pass rusher on our team. 95 implies he is almost a perfect defensive end but he is far from it - he's a very good guy in certain situations, maybe an 88/89.

Basically, my point is, Ea have to stretch players ratings to try and make the team ratings what they want them to be.

I'm fine with team ratings based on ability in Play Now but in Franchise it should be based on performances.

I could make a team with Chris Johnson at Running Back and Rex Grossman at Quarterback. I could then sign an offensive line of pass blocking specialists all in the 90s and try and run a run-first offense. If my line are all pretty bad at run blocking then it isn't going to work. However, because all my players have high ratings, Madden is going to say we're maybe a 91 skill team. Whereas a team who sign players who fit their scheme and execute well (like the colts do) deserve a better rating than teams who just sign the players they think are the best.

[mrprice33]

I agree that systems dictate player ratings. However, in this game where we don't get to scout players, how would we know who to sign in offseasons? To take out ratings and rely on systems would be too complex for most users.

[18Alex18]

Quote: Originally Posted by mrprice33

I agree that systems dictate player ratings. However, in this game where we don't get to scout players, how would we know who to sign in offseasons? To take out ratings and rely on systems would be too complex for most users.

Taking out ratings is not at all what I'm proposing. What I am in fact proposing is to remove the overall rating leaving the user to only see the individual attributes - everything from speed, to awareness, to throw power to hit power etc. That way you have to assess a players ratings for yourself rather than being told how good he is.

Under the current ratings you look at Dwight Freeney - it says 97 Overall - the game tells you how good he is.

Now remove that 97. Dwight Freeney is a free agent in the off season, I look at his stats - is he still quick enough? is he the type of player I'm looking for - yes he can pass rush but is he good enough against the run for my system? If I just want a quick defensive end then should I take guy x instead who is 24 and just as quick but lacking in other areas.

At the minute all you do is go through the free agents - "I need a defensive end" - order them by overall - BAM - Dwight Freeney 97 skill, that's the best guy I can sign. I don't have to think about my signings, I don't have to consider my signings. The game does it all for me.

I understand there needs to be some sort of overall value to a player because there are 1000s of players on madden and you need something to use to sort the elite players from the average ones. Something like the value system that has been proposed or something more simple like a reputation system which would be similar to the overall system currently in the game, but would instead be based on what a player has achieved in the league rather than how good his attributes say that he is.

So Randy Moss would be a 99 reputation - in 2 years he might be pretty poor on the game (maybe 85 skill on the current system) but his reputation will still be high - 99/98 maybe - therefore I can easily find the big name free agents but then I have to assess his attributes to decide whether I think he's still worth paying a big contract to.

On the other hand I could sign a rookie receiver. Drafted in the 3rd. He could have pretty incredible stats (again, let's say he would be an 85 on the current game) but his reputation is low until he starts being effective in the league.

On the current game if I draft an 85 skill rookie then I can trade him for an established 82 skill guy instantly. In reality, to the CPU teams who haven't seen him play and train like I have he's just an average third round receiver in their eyes - but on the current madden games they'd treat him as an established 85 skill guy.

He should only develop his value to other teams once he has proven himself in the league. If he plays 3 years and does nothing then why would the cpu teams treat him like an 85 skill player?

It's a very simple, and fairly flawless idea.

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by 18Alex18

Taking out ratings is not at all what I'm proposing. What I am in fact proposing is to remove the overall rating leaving the user to only see the individual attributes - everything from speed, to awareness, to throw power to hit power etc. That way you have to assess a players ratings for yourself rather than being told how good he is......

I agree with the OVR value rating idea but not with this. I like the 3 year stats setting the OVR but I think position skill ratings must be hidden for this to be effective. Speed, jump, strength and acceleration dont have to me but the others do, IMO. If there is a OVR value rating while still continuing to display all the ratings, I dont see the benefit. However, I currently select players based on their position skill sets and current OVR not just OVR, so maybe Im in the minority.

[18Alex18]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlc12576

I agree with the OVR value rating idea but not with this. I like the 3 year stats setting the OVR but I think position skill ratings must be hidden for this to be effective. Speed, jump, strength and acceleration dont have to me but the others do, IMO. If there is a OVR value rating while still continuing to display all the ratings, I dont see the benefit. However, I currently select players based on their position skill sets and current OVR not just OVR, so maybe Im in the minority.

I agree with you that this would be the ultimate end solution. However, as a first-step, initial implementation, removing the overall ratings is definitely the first major step.

Only measurables > only attributes > the current system.

At least hiding overall ratings would be a step in the right direction. I wouldn't be completely satisfied with that, but as a first step I'd be delighted. My ultimate aim would be to have the game play like real life NFL. Randy Moss hasn't been the best receiver over the last ten years because of his combine stats. He's been the best receiver because of his performances and output on the field and until ratings are directly linked to output the game is not as realistic as it needs to be.