Player attribute wish

[mjsbugz]

Instead of a single number for player abilities, show a range. For example, instead of a quarterback having a throw power of 90, he might have a throw power of 80-95 or 88-92.
Displaying attributes this way has several advantages:
1. More options for player progression. You can bring up the low end, raise the high end, or reduce the range of the scores to improve the player.
2. Attributes can be recalculated each play, so that your brilliant, but erratic DE (85-97) will be consistently beat by the very good, consistent LT (91-94), but for a few plays each game, the DE will work some magic and blow by the LT. If recalculating each play is too processor intensive, each series would probably work, to give a feel of momentum.
3. Recruiting becomes more interesting as well -- well do you try to snag the high-potential, but inconsistent player (75-88), or a less explosive, but far more reliable player (78-83).
4. This opens the ability for coaches to use motivation during timeouts or during the week before the game, trying to raise minimums, raise maximums, or improve consistency.
5. Less arguing about player ratings on the boards. =)
6. Potentials, sliders and difficulty settings could be defined more clearly and accurately by their effect on player attributes, but I'm not as sure about this one.

Anyway, I think that by exposing this degree of uncertainty and randomness to the players, instead of hiding it within the engine, the game will more accurately point players to looking at actual performance on the field and allow the players to make more meaningful personnel decisions for their teams.

[jhawk886]

I love this idea.

[jbrew2411]

I like the idea but i had rather see grades vs numbers. Say a QB with a THP of B+ would have a number range of 87-89. Or a O-linemen with a run block of A would have a range of 94-96 but a pass block of B- wich would be a 80-83. I like the idea of the coach having a effect on how well the player plays. As for when recruiting I would not change much since we have grades as is. I would like to see a potential grade that only effects progression of a player. See College Hoops 2k8 for a great use of this. In that game you can uncover the potential rating of a player after many weekly calls and the grade allows you to determine how much a player could progress over a career. The coaches in the game effect progression so bad coaches don't have players progresss like good ones do. Just some thing missing from the NCAA series. I hate random progression like we have now and have had for ever.

[mjsbugz]

My only concern with a letter grade is that you lose the effect of the range. I like the ambiguity a letter grade introduces, but I think it still suffers from having the limitations of a single score.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjsbugz

My only concern with a letter grade is that you lose the effect of the range. I like the ambiguity a letter grade introduces, but I think it still suffers from having the limitations of a single score.

How is a player with a ratings of a A any different from the same player with a rating of 93-95? I don't think the NCAA team could ever get this right. I have never been a fan of the hard number rating. I think if the NCAA team could pull this off then it would have to be with a letter grade vs a number range.

[mjsbugz]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

How is a player with a ratings of a A any different from the same player with a rating of 93-95? I don't think the NCAA team could ever get this right. I have never been a fan of the hard number rating. I think if the NCAA team could pull this off then it would have to be with a letter grade vs a number range.

The distinction would come when you have one player rated 93-95 versus another player rated 85-95. The 93-95 player would be far more consistent, but both would have the same maximum ability. A single letter grade doesn't give that. If the players all have the same range on each attribute, a lot of the value of this suggestion goes away.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjsbugz

The distinction would come when you have one player rated 93-95 versus another player rated 85-95. The 93-95 player would be far more consistent, but both would have the same maximum ability. A single letter grade doesn't give that. If the players all have the same range on each attribute, a lot of the value of this suggestion goes away.

I see what you are saying. I guess I didn't notice you giving such a large range. The big thing here is that not all players play up to their ratings every game or every play. I'm not sure how EA could get this right. Since the NCAA team is all about extreams. They either make every player a stud or they make them so bad that the game is non-enjoyable.