Re-Rated All The Teams

[TarHeelPhenom]

I re-rated every team regarding poll rankings, offense, defense and overall. One thing EA did that I felt needed to be changed(what else is new) is they rated teams on the offensive and defensive sides of the ball too high. 97% of the teams were rated between A-C on both offense and defense no matter how bad they really are/were. They gave the lower tier team the lowest ratings...nevermind the fact that a team like Louisiana Tech was tops in the country in offense. Speaking of Lousiana Tech, they are the eprfect example of what I did. They led the nation in total offense and were butt naked last in total defense. So, their Offense Rating is A+ and their Defense Rating is F. My rating scale was 99-1 with 99 being the highest of course. So you see a lot of teams with a mixture. Very rarely do you see a team with high marks in all 3 categories. I also gave "0" to all teams in QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB, DB, ST ratings as well(got that from Matt I believe).


I must say(in my opinion no placebo) it has a direct affect on the game. I watched CPU vs CPU a few games and teams with bad offenses struggled on offense and teams with bad defense struggled on D...and vice versa. I'm working this weekend so I won't be able to spend much time with the game until Monday.

Anybody else done this?

[rkwittem]

Quote: Originally Posted by TarHeelPhenom

I re-rated every team regarding poll rankings, offense, defense and overall. One thing EA did that I felt needed to be changed(what else is new) is they rated teams on the offensive and defensive sides of the ball too high. 97% of the teams were rated between A-C on both offense and defense no matter how bad they really are/were. They gave the lower tier team the lowest ratings...nevermind the fact that a team like Louisiana Tech was tops in the country in offense. Speaking of Lousiana Tech, they are the eprfect example of what I did. They led the nation in total offense and were butt naked last in total defense. So, their Offense Rating is A+ and their Defense Rating is F. My rating scale was 99-1 with 99 being the highest of course. So you see a lot of teams with a mixture. Very rarely do you see a team with high marks in all 3 categories. I also gave "0" to all teams in QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB, DB, ST ratings as well(got that from Matt I believe). I must say(in my opinion no placebo) it has a direct affect on the game. I watched CPU vs CPU a few games and teams with bad offenses struggled on offense and teams with bad defense struggled on D...and vice versa. I'm working this weekend so I won't be able to spend much time with the game until Monday. Anybody else done this?

Not with every team, but I have modified a number of teams based on the season. Mostly cosmetic stuff like Manziel's accessories, etc. I mostly do it for teams I have tried to play with on offline dynasty mode.

Your idea is an interesting one, but its methodology is flawed, I think. The notion that a team is better on offense merely because they put up more yards and points is subject to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, tempo, dependence on the passing game, individual player's talents, quality of defenses faced, playcalling skill, among all. Unfortunately, football is such a complex game that it's going to be nigh impossible to create a perfect simulation. So yes, La. Tech had a considerably more productive offense than a team like Oklahoma, but not many people would agree with saying they're a A+ quality team. That would basically mean they're 2008 Oklahoma or 2001 Miami. Those teams had big-time talent and big-time production. But LT only has big-time production. NCAA 13 issues its "grade" for a team's offense and defense based on that team's individual player talents and depth. That's why Texas is A+ in defense and Florida isn't, for example.

My other issue I have with your idea is the A+ to F scale using a 1-99 system. It's not that cut-and-dry. Defenses are just like offenses- they're as dependent on scheme, quality of opponents, individual talent, and playcalling.

The best way to get the best results is to adequately rate each individual player. Yours is an interesting idea with a good intention, but is going about it in a manner that won't ultimately fix it. Better to just watch as many games as you can from this past season and reissue ratings to individual players that way.

[wolverines57]

Sorry if I sound dumb but how do you do this?

[dudo670]

Quote: Originally Posted by rkwittem

Not with every team, but I have modified a number of teams based on the season. Mostly cosmetic stuff like Manziel's accessories, etc. I mostly do it for teams I have tried to play with on offline dynasty mode. Your idea is an interesting one, but its methodology is flawed, I think. The notion that a team is better on offense merely because they put up more yards and points is subject to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, tempo, dependence on the passing game, individual player's talents, quality of defenses faced, playcalling skill, among all. Unfortunately, football is such a complex game that it's going to be nigh impossible to create a perfect simulation. So yes, La. Tech had a considerably more productive offense than a team like Oklahoma, but not many people would agree with saying they're a A+ quality team. That would basically mean they're 2008 Oklahoma or 2001 Miami. Those teams had big-time talent and big-time production. But LT only has big-time production. NCAA 13 issues its "grade" for a team's offense and defense based on that team's individual player talents and depth. That's why Texas is A+ in defense and Florida isn't, for example. My other issue I have with your idea is the A+ to F scale using a 1-99 system. It's not that cut-and-dry. Defenses are just like offenses- they're as dependent on scheme, quality of opponents, individual talent, and playcalling. The best way to get the best results is to adequately rate each individual player. Yours is an interesting idea with a good intention, but is going about it in a manner that won't ultimately fix it. Better to just watch as many games as you can from this past season and reissue ratings to individual players that way.

I understand what your saying. The problem is that offense systems in this game don't mean anything except what formations a team runs. In real life, coaching and the offensive system decide how well a player performs. Because this isn't in the game La Tech should be A+.

What system are u on OP?

[TarHeelPhenom]

Quote: Originally Posted by rkwittem

Not with every team, but I have modified a number of teams based on the season. Mostly cosmetic stuff like Manziel's accessories, etc. I mostly do it for teams I have tried to play with on offline dynasty mode. Your idea is an interesting one, but its methodology is flawed, I think. The notion that a team is better on offense merely because they put up more yards and points is subject to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, tempo, dependence on the passing game, individual player's talents, quality of defenses faced, playcalling skill, among all. Unfortunately, football is such a complex game that it's going to be nigh impossible to create a perfect simulation. So yes, La. Tech had a considerably more productive offense than a team like Oklahoma, but not many people would agree with saying they're a A+ quality team. That would basically mean they're 2008 Oklahoma or 2001 Miami. Those teams had big-time talent and big-time production. But LT only has big-time production. NCAA 13 issues its "grade" for a team's offense and defense based on that team's individual player talents and depth. That's why Texas is A+ in defense and Florida isn't, for example. My other issue I have with your idea is the A+ to F scale using a 1-99 system. It's not that cut-and-dry. Defenses are just like offenses- they're as dependent on scheme, quality of opponents, individual talent, and playcalling. The best way to get the best results is to adequately rate each individual player. Yours is an interesting idea with a good intention, but is going about it in a manner that won't ultimately fix it. Better to just watch as many games as you can from this past season and reissue ratings to individual players that way.

I hear you my man and understand where you are coming from. I have rated players individually as well. I've also edited each teams offensive and defensive coaching philosophies based on their stats from teamrankings.com. The problem we're faced with is the fact that EA's players ratings don't do enough individually to separate good players from scrubs...and the way they rate teams makes it hard to separate the best from the scrub. Although I rated LTech with A+ offense, they don't have a good overall rating.

But, for me in what I have found to work for me when editing this game to my liking is you have to do some extreme stuff to get a resemblence of realism. This is just another in that category of extreme. My desire is to see Bama lock somebody down and to see LTech put up huge amount of points while stinking it up on defense. The way EA rates makes that almost impossible without extreme editing.

[TarHeelPhenom]

Quote: Originally Posted by dudo670

I understand what your saying. The problem is that offense systems in this game don't mean anything except what formations a team runs. In real life, coaching and the offensive system decide how well a player performs. Because this isn't in the game La Tech should be A+. What system are u on OP?

I'm on XBox 360.

[TarHeelPhenom]

Quote: Originally Posted by wolverines57

Sorry if I sound dumb but how do you do this?

I did it using the Roster Editor.

[dudo670]

I might try this too. I think the problem is EA rates teams too high. By year 3 Western Kentucky is dominating Bama in dynasty. The sim stats sucking is the problem but I won't go into that. What I will say is there's no difference playing a mid pack SEC team than MAC team for me