New player ratings system idea to improve franchise mode.

[feeq14]

In order to make coaching and team-building mechanics more immersive and impactful, the game really needs to rethink player ratings and coach ratings.

An idea i have is to do two simple things. For 1, we need to visually represent player ratings as a range. Instead of having a player rated 75, we need to say this player is a 85 to 65 player. Mind you, this is already in the game in simulation mode. RNG makes it so players can play well above or beyond their rating level. This would help reduce feelings of frustration when it feels like "ratings don't matter" when players seemingly don't play up to their rating.

Furthermore, this adds a level of complexity to team construction to really impact franchise mode.

First off players would also add new ratings/traits that relate to consistency, stuff like resilience, heart, confidence, etc. It could be like affinity settings in an rpg where pairing certain equipment with a certain character maximizes their traits even if it isn't the best equipments. Having certain types of player personalities and coaching personalities would impact player ratings which would impact on-field play. A player with a 75 over average could play at the 85 level consistently with the right team makeup and coaching traits. Conversely a player with a high rating on paper might play below their rating if they don't fit a team's culture.

This opens up franchise mode to a whole new world of challenges. Coach personalities can impact player ratings. A coach like Belichick might have a trait that makes player consistency traits go into flux less, but then he might have very weak scouting traits and/or high rated players don't play to their ratings max.

It will make it so you can't just build a team by getting the highest-rated players. It could make it so it's worth it to keep around a declining veteran player who stabilizes your team's culture. It would make the "decision engine" more impactful. Who do you identify as a team captain? What happens if there's a discipline issue? Will players play through injuries? Will players max out their ratings in the 4th quarter or fold in the 4th?

It could bring into play so many other aspects of the game that are missing since the game is basically an arcade competitive game for people now, BUT this could very easily impact MUT too because it'd just be another thing for them to spend money on to get high rated players with certain traits other than superstar abilities.

[infinite76]

Head coach was similar to this. You got a range and over time the score became more solid. It also was dependent on stuff like scheme

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Busforever]

A range would be good.
I also thought it would be great to hide the overall rating. That would push you, when signing FA/building roster, to really check the players' strengths and specific traits, to look at his past production, instead of just looking for the best overall rating. You don't prioritize that QB because he's 83 instead of the next one at 81. You compare instead who's got the strongest arm, who's more precise, etc.

There could still be a team rating in the end, so you could have an idea if your roster is better than last year or if you overvalued those big free agents. That sensation is what is missing in my opinion: in Free Agency, you know exactly what you get. That's not totally the case in reality.

[oneamongthefence]

Honestly a production rating that modifies overall would he awesome. Basically players that have really productive years gets a stat boost and players that played poorly would drop. The team that they were on would know their true rating. But free agency and making trades for players would be really interesting. And then would unlock a players true ratings after 500 downs played similar to unlocking a hidden dev rookie. You would get some players that are higher than you thought and some that are lower. Free agency would be more of a gamble. You would have guys that played really well in a contract year inflate their ratings and they sign a huge deal only for the team that signed them to be stuck with a less than desirable player.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Busforever]

Quote: Originally Posted by oneamongthefence

You would have guys that played really well in a contract year inflate their ratings and they sign a huge deal only for the team that signed them to be stuck with a less than desirable player.

That's typically the kind of experience which are missing with the overall "know what you get" rating. Not sure how, but I totally agree that Madden would be way better with that sense of uncertainty about the players outside of your organization.

[canes21]

We used to have the consistency rating which did some of what you're asking for, OP. Vick had a lower consistency rating, so one game he'd be an 88, another game might be a 64. On the flipside, Manning had a high consistency rating, so he would be a 95 at his best and an 88 at his worst making him reliable. I was a fan of the mechanic and would have liked to see it expanded on in similar ways to what you're describing, but I'm not sure it was the most popular feature.

Quote: Originally Posted by oneamongthefence

Honestly a production rating that modifies overall would he awesome. Basically players that have really productive years gets a stat boost and players that played poorly would drop. The team that they were on would know their true rating. But free agency and making trades for players would be really interesting. And then would unlock a players true ratings after 500 downs played similar to unlocking a hidden dev rookie. You would get some players that are higher than you thought and some that are lower. Free agency would be more of a gamble. You would have guys that played really well in a contract year inflate their ratings and they sign a huge deal only for the team that signed them to be stuck with a less than desirable player. Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

We had a production rating that did impact overall ratings and subsequently the value of players. It needed tuning, but it was another feature I was a fan of, but EA scrapped it quickly instead of tuning it for the better.

Out of the Park has amazing settings that allow users to adjust player values based of productivity.

You have different weigh categories, current year stats, prior year stats, and I think 2 years ago stats. You also have their scouting report. You can go in and change how each of those is weighted to your own personal preference so that players are valued how you see fit.

If you wanted players to only be valued off of their stats 2 years ago, you can do that. It would be weird, but you can weigh those categories however you want.... plus it has hundreds of other options that allow you to tune the game for the better.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[infinite76]

Quote: Originally Posted by canes21

We used to have the consistency rating which did some of what you're asking for, OP. Vick had a lower consistency rating, so one game he'd be an 88, another game might be a 64. On the flipside, Manning had a high consistency rating, so he would be a 95 at his best and an 88 at his worst making him reliable. I was a fan of the mechanic and would have liked to see it expanded on in similar ways to what you're describing, but I'm not sure it was the most popular feature. We had a production rating that did impact overall ratings and subsequently the value of players. It needed tuning, but it was another feature I was a fan of, but EA scrapped it quickly instead of tuning it for the better. Out of the Park has amazing settings that allow users to adjust player values based of productivity. You have different weigh categories, current year stats, prior year stats, and I think 2 years ago stats. You also have their scouting report. You can go in and change how each of those is weighted to your own personal preference so that players are valued how you see fit. If you wanted players to only be valued off of their stats 2 years ago, you can do that. It would be weird, but you can weigh those categories however you want.... plus it has hundreds of other options that allow you to tune the game for the better. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yeah the baseball and hockey games have definitely figured this out. It's why I don't under why ea can't use it in madden. I kind of feel like they need to take a year off and redo the game. Like give us roster and schedule up date for this year. But a better player rating system, franchise mode that functions more like head coach, and bring back the create a team/player functionality. Pair that with the strides in animation and presentation, madden will be king of all sports games again.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Tyro11]

Great post. I do think a range could solve a lot of problems. Some cool ideas could implemented with this concept. Personally, I would like to see a wider range for morale/positive momentum. Example for how this could realistically be reflected. Let's say Carson Wentz's range was between 88-73 (a rare wide range) and began the season at an 84. If he performs poorly over several weeks, that 84 drops and drops until if he had the season he did in 2020 (IRL), he would be a 73.

I believe this could be reflected like: QB - CARSON WENTZ - 73 OVR (VERY LOW) so that the true range is never actually known. If he was an 84 OVR it would be (ON PAR).

Guys like Larry Fitzgerald who stay on par but don't necessarily kill it, can elongate their good OVR. Whereas bad seasons can lower a player's range. This could also be vice versa with players who sustain a high-level of play over the years. Tom Brady would a perfect example of this. In 2005 his ceiling might have been 90 but by 2010 all the way up to 99.