Overall ratings system needs to be reworked

[sublime55]

https://realsport101.com/madden/madd...pdates-rumors/

The article really puts into words what I’ve been thinking ever since I began playing FIFA.

I mean... what’s so fun about having a Mahomes that’s already 99 ovr and offers little room for further development? The guy is only 24 and EA is saying he’s reached his ceiling?

I know the main issue is online h2h/mut players will likely want him as 99, and I’m not sure if EA will ever be willing to revamp their overall system because of this.

[Devaster]

Quote: Originally Posted by sublime55

https://realsport101.com/madden/madd...pdates-rumors/ The article really puts into words what I’ve been thinking ever since I began playing FIFA. I mean... what’s so fun about having a Mahomes that’s already 99 ovr and offers little room for further development? The guy is only 24 and EA is saying he’s reached his ceiling? I know the main issue is online h2h/mut players will likely want him as 99, and I’m not sure if EA will ever be willing to revamp their overall system because of this.

EA needs to get their CPU generated draft classes to align to real life players first. Or vice versa. And if they wanted to offer room for growth then they could offer different rosters, but that is asking for too much. Better off downloading adjusted rosters.


Mahomes is probably at or near his ceiling already anyway. He has won an MVP and a SB.

[canes21]

I would personally like a system where a 99 is basically unachievable. A 99 overall player has no weaknesses in their game and no one will ever be better than them. I'd prefer a system where we have a bell curve and being in the 50 or 60s is average.

1st ballot hall of fame players may only be 86 overall. A system where if you see an entire OL in the 70s, you know they're a solid unit. An OL with two 80+ players is elite and those guys are likely going to the hall. I'd like to see a WR rated 76 and know he can be a big difference maker in the game. I'd also like to see a 54 overall player and they actually have a place on almost every team.

I want a system where guys have weaknesses like in real life. I want a system where player rating differences shine more than anything else. A great cover backer may have coverage ratings in the 70s, but his tackling is a 60. Too many guys now, even with the more spread out system, are still too well rounded. Players have roles in the league, give me ratings that really tell the story of what a player can and cannot do. Stop making Lamar Jackson a 95 by inflating all of his ratings. He has weaknesses. Stop giving LBs high coverage ratings to raise their OVRs. A lot of backers struggle in coverage. Give me real true to life ratings where guys have strengths and weaknesses.

[Richie71]

Quote: Originally Posted by sublime55

https://realsport101.com/madden/madd...pdates-rumors/ The article really puts into words what I’ve been thinking ever since I began playing FIFA. I mean... what’s so fun about having a Mahomes that’s already 99 ovr and offers little room for further development? The guy is only 24 and EA is saying he’s reached his ceiling? I know the main issue is online h2h/mut players will likely want him as 99, and I’m not sure if EA will ever be willing to revamp their overall system because of this.

He might be 99 OVR, but unless every single rating is 99, that isn't the ceiling.

EA could change the formula calculation against the individual ratings to lower the OVR, but this would have zero impact on gameplay, so what's the point?

[sublime55]

Quote: Originally Posted by Richie71

He might be 99 OVR, but unless every single rating is 99, that isn't the ceiling. EA could change the formula calculation against the individual ratings to lower the OVR, but this would have zero impact on gameplay, so what's the point?

I think you’re missing the point. EA doesn’t need to just recalculate overall ratings. They need to take a deeper look at individual ratings like canes21 is talking about, and they need to flesh out strengths and weaknesses.

It’s not about lowering overalls. It’s about how changing the way they rate players would certainly affect gameplay if the ratings changes were a better reflection of what we see on the field every Sunday.

Why does every corner in the game have almost equal man and zone coverage ratings (the gap between the two ratings for an individual is typically no more than four or five points)? Why can’t an edge player be a great third down rush option but be awful in run defense? Any edge with good pass rushing ability has inflated ratings that make them an every down option. And, honestly, I think the answer to a lot of this is that the current ratings in madden don’t really allow for this type of nuance, which even further proves the point that a ratings revamp is needed and could have a large impact on gameplay (just look at how the new change of direction rating has already left an impression on beta players).

I get that gameplay is the priority. But let’s not dismiss the fact that the current ratings system hinders the gameplay we’re seeing right now, and try to understand that a re-examining of the system, as a whole, could really create a deeper and more realistic gameplay.

[DatsunDimer]

EA Vancouver is doing quite a few things better. FIFA and NHL both have their superstars in the 93-95 area, and I think that is a good place for them to be. Unfortunately it seems like EA Tiburon has become a marketing company first, that just happens to make a sports video game. Just feels like the franchise community as a whole is has been gas-lighted by EA.

I tend to strongly agree with those that want "specialists" incorporated into the rosters and ratings. Having players with unique skill sets or that are very scheme specific. I also think abilities should be completely independent of development traits for just that very reason, I want players that can be great at something very specific but not be great overall players.

I could transition into my viewpoints on how we should have more roster F.O.W. and how scheme ratings should be more impactful throughout roster construction. That seems like a little more off-topic.

[J.hunt1376]

I read that same article, and I completely agree. The ratings are over-inflated, and it tends to make less people stand out. The default draft classes are better spread out, and that helps for the future, but unless you're dedicating the time to play that deep into a Franchise, you'd have to do a complete roster purge (check out JohcC1977's slider post for info on that).

A potential rating would do wonders for Madden. Maybe have Mahomes be a 90-95 with a potential to hit 99 depending on stats/awards. Yes, you'd still have people spamming stats for players, just like they do with the scenario engine, but this would help make the ratings spread out more and make training useful. The thought that the 99s are for MUT is crazy, as you could have separate cards for fully potentialized players (99 Mahomes, 99 Barkley, 99 Lamar, etc).

I think the X-Factors were supposed to do something like this, but they didn't spread the ratings out enough.

[SolidSquid]

How many times have they spread out ratings only to upgrade everyone to back where they were before?

The issue is they use ratings as nothing more than a marketing tool. “Come see whose in the 99 club!” Then they do those terribly acted “99 Club swag boxes” with the players.

Best part is a 99 players really doesn’t play any different than a 79 rated player. Mike Glennon will go 25/27 with 300 yards with robo qb.

Ratings should be all time ratings. The best players ever at the position should be 99s then they should go from there. Is Christian Mccaffery Walter Payton, Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith? No but he’s close.