Madden NFL 11 News Post

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game

02:46 PM - January 24, 2011 by RaychelSnr

I recentely sat down for a talk with FBGRatings.com's Dan Berens to discuss his site's vision and what's going on over there today. The site is currently working on getting accurate ratings for every player using real hard data converted into the Madden ratings universe. Dan claims that when these numbers are plugged into the game, it plays much better and much closer to real life. Check out the interview below and also check out Dan's website to see what he's got going on!

Interview with Berens on the OS Radio Show on BlogTalkRadio

Game: Madden NFL 11Reader Score: 6/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 96 - View All

Madden NFL 11 Videos

Member Comments

# 881 RogueHominid @ 10/09/12 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGaither84


	Now, there is a separate talk about how high a rating should be, and what a 90+ rating means, but that isn't what I want to get into just yet. I just wanted to address how the ratings on your site actually impact game play in Madden. I find the incredibly low ZCV ratings I see on your site to be detrimental to a simulation experience. Weather or not I agree with how low those ratings are is irrelevant.

This is the basic philosophical and practical issue here. I think it's interesting to see what values the secret scouting data produces, but Madden is a game where the gameplay hinges on animation triggering, and the ratings values at which new animations trigger bears no relation to real life scouting data about various aspects of gameplay.

Playmakers and Silent Nature and maybe a guy named Purple Haze (I think--it's been a long time) had actually worked these values out quite specifically. For example, a RB Vision value of 90 + would generate smart cutbacks; a truck move over 95-ish would generate CPU trucking animations that you'd never see otherwise. The same applies to WR/TE CTCH, and so on down the line.

I would ultimately like to see a point where players' actual physical data governed the outcome, but in order for that to happen, we'd have to have a 100% physics-driven game, I think, rather than an animation-driven game.

Perhaps hiring a lobbyist to pester EA Tiburon--or at least bring them Krispy Cremes every morning--would help bring change.

# 882 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGaither84


	I assume you plug these ratings into Madden and actually test the game play. After all, the title of this thread is "Change Game." Well, I was wondering about things like Zone Coverage. I am still playing Madden 12 and I use custom sliders, and even with 90-100 pass reaction time for the computer, the zone coverage by line backers was still quite lacking for my tastes. For example, I could call a simple cover 3 blitz with the players in yellow hook zones across the middle, and a LB with 64 ZCV would roll over to the wrong zone leaving his area uncovered. I also find many times when I have both MLBs assigned to hook zones over the middle, they often like to split wide leaving the middle WIDE open, an area that was supposed to be on lock down. There are countless other examples on how they cover flats or buzz zones as well [or don't for that matter. Well, I decided to take a look at the roster of Madden 12 and found that the highest ZCV rating of any line backer was Brian Urlacher with 85, and it all went down hill from there. There were only 9 line backers in the entire game with 80 or higher ZCV ratings, and of those only 3 or 4 were over the 80 mark, and one of them was in the free agent pool. So, the first thing I decided to do was edit all of the 49ers linebackers to 99 ZCV [not save] and go into practice and see how well they did their job when maxed out. Well, while they didn't always do a perfect job [programming] they did a very good job of covering their assigned area and locking down routes/receiver in those zones. Part of what I wanted to test is if the programming of the game itself was even set up to do it's job correctly, which it should with a rating of 99. Anything lower than 99 and per-programed random mistakes creep in more and more. Players start to become less perfect. So, i reloaded the roster and began an NFL wide roster edit. I chose to edit ever line backer who had a ZCV rating of 65 or higher and give them all a universal +10 to their ZCV rating. I have found over the years in Madden that 70-75 is about the cut off of effectiveness of Madden positional ratings before it doesn't matter how low your rating is. For example, the QB Cone from Madden 06 was the same size for about a 70-75 Awareness QB as it was for a 40 awareness QB. It wasn't until you started to go above 75 that the cone would actually get bigger. There are other examples of this, but the real point is that in Madden, if you want your rating to matter, it had better be over 75. Also, what this really means is that if you had below 65 ZCV [in my opinion] you didn't really need that 10 point boost. You were never going to be a coverage line backer anyway. That's how/why I set that cut off point so I wouldn't waste my time editing everyone. Well, fast forward a bit and I have really enjoyed the results of my efforts. Playing against he computer is more difficult [and realistic] as players DO THEIR JOBS. I can't over stress how important that is to me. They aren't perfect out there, but they look a lot less like high school kids and look more like pros out there. Now, there is a separate talk about how high a rating should be, and what a 90+ rating means, but that isn't what I want to get into just yet. I just wanted to address how the ratings on your site actually impact game play in Madden. I find the incredibly low ZCV ratings I see on your site to be detrimental to a simulation experience. Weather or not I agree with how low those ratings are is irrelevant.

Great post.

I have also found this to be rather troublesome with the OL/DL interactions, specifically with PMV/FMV rushes. Unfortunately, EA does have a weird way of making anything below a numeric average worthless. However, the data that I am privy to dictates that the variation in a skill like ZCV for a LB is far wider than the effective range that EA may provide us with (99-75) as you pointed out in your post.

This is another issue I take with EA. They simply don't utilize the full scale of ratings. Now I can stretch them all out as far as I like from a positional average toward the upper and lower bounds, but if they don't work in the game they are meaningless. However, I decided to stick to my guns and the data distribution in the hope that EA would change the effectiveness of their ratings range for M13. I don't have any evidence at this point to show that it has been improved but it is worth looking into.

The more we find out about how the ratings interact with the game engine the more disappointed I get with EA. The interaction is so broken that it seems almost pointless at times to even try to get around it. However, I still strongly believe that providing a new way to rate players with a wider distribution and showing EA that it is important to do so may accomplish something. Idealy, if I could find a way to get into the lion's den and push for a better process that can better marry the in-game engine to the underlying data, the game could make a change for the better. But until that happens we are stuck dreaming of a way to better represent the abilities of NFL players while stuck in a box that is far too small.

# 883 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	This is the basic philosophical and practical issue here. I think it's interesting to see what values the secret scouting data produces, but Madden is a game where the gameplay hinges on animation triggering, and the ratings values at which new animations trigger bears no relation to real life scouting data about various aspects of gameplay. Playmakers and Silent Nature and maybe a guy named Purple Haze (I think--it's been a long time) had actually worked these values out quite specifically. For example, a RB Vision value of 90 + would generate smart cutbacks; a truck move over 95-ish would generate CPU trucking animations that you'd never see otherwise. The same applies to WR/TE CTCH, and so on down the line. I would ultimately like to see a point where players' actual physical data governed the outcome, but in order for that to happen, we'd have to have a 100% physics-driven game, I think, rather than an animation-driven game. Perhaps hiring a lobbyist to pester EA Tiburon--or at least bring them Krispy Cremes every morning--would help bring change.

Another good post. It is so sad to me that things are so driven by animations that are only triggered at certain intervals. If we did have a truly physics-induced game then the ratings would only enhance the given physical ability instead of triggering a differnt animation like we have at present. At this point all I can offer is one perspective and a voice for how Madden ratings would look if given a real-world/real-data approach.

This has it's limits as pointed out previously, however. Aside from some attributes that are definetly determining factors in in-game performance (like SPD, which seems to be the ONLY one at times) we are left with animation ranges for the time being. If I had a larger team that could analyze every single animation every single year perhaps we could break it down and effectively marry the data to the animations. But that seems pointless with as many "changes" EA brings to the game every year.

# 884 PGaither84 @ 10/09/12 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	This is the basic philosophical and practical issue here. I think it's interesting to see what values the secret scouting data produces, but Madden is a game where the gameplay hinges on animation triggering, and the ratings values at which new animations trigger bears no relation to real life scouting data about various aspects of gameplay. Playmakers and Silent Nature and maybe a guy named Purple Haze (I think--it's been a long time) had actually worked these values out quite specifically. For example, a RB Vision value of 90 + would generate smart cutbacks; a truck move over 95-ish would generate CPU trucking animations that you'd never see otherwise. The same applies to WR/TE CTCH, and so on down the line. I would ultimately like to see a point where players' actual physical data governed the outcome, but in order for that to happen, we'd have to have a 100% physics-driven game, I think, rather than an animation-driven game. Perhaps hiring a lobbyist to pester EA Tiburon--or at least bring them Krispy Cremes every morning--would help bring change.

I love this reply!

There is a difference between what we all think players "should be rated," and how those ratings work in the game.

Sliders are often times just as important in adjusting when those animations trigger. For example, I can have 20 user break tackle and 30 computer tackle, and even with a +10 advantage to the computer, the user can break a lot of tackles without even trying. I had a game where Alex Smith broke 3 tackle animations late in a game with those early slider settings [that I no longer use] by simply pressing up on the left stick. I didn't press stiff arm or anything. However, with much different settings, I was unable to break a single tackle, not even with a back like Adrian Peterson against CBs with low tackle/strength ratings.

We can sit here and say "With this data, this player should be rated X." However, if you plug that into the game, I often doubt that you will get realistic results that will mirror that player you spent time editing.

# 885 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PGaither84


	We can sit here and say "With this data, this player should be rated X." However, if you plug that into the game, I often doubt that you will get realistic results that will mirror that player you spent time editing.

Well it depends on the animation. Some are far more effective to trigger than others, which is another odd thing...the fact that they are not triggered at the same rate is troublesome and tedious to determine.

SPD for instance is far easier to manipulate and determine the animations by increasing/decreasing the attribute value as opposed to something like BSH which sometimes seems random no matter what you do to it.

I still enjoy seeing how the players should be rated with the data I have at present, but I have fully understood from day one that the game engine will limit the effectiveness in the game.

# 886 RogueHominid @ 10/09/12 02:12 PM

Yeah, there's an open source build your own football game site that's working with collaborative designers to customize a full 3D, RTF experience, but it takes a lot of money to do that independently. That kind of scenario would be the ideal place to input data like this since the premise is to build a customized experience where physics govern outcomes.

With Madden you have to hope that there's some kind of reasonable correspondence between external data and the game's internal logic.

I did some messing around last year and could tell that, whatever the specific rating for a WR CATCH was, a slider value of 75 or higher unlocked the animation set necessary to get WR to compete for the ball at the point. It's a very strange thing.

To the point of the project, though, I think it would be great to see the difference between players like a Richardson, who runs with power, often stiff arming and using massive leg drive, vs. someone like Foster, whose runs are defined by that 30 yard burst ability and great vision. I like the idea of long striders who will pass you at 15 yards and dust you vs. those who will get on top of you right at 15 yards but will have maxed out their speed and so won't win the long race. Lots of other examples, but Madden does need to differentiate players better, no doubt.

# 887 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	Yeah, there's an open source build your own football game site that's working with collaborative designers to customize a full 3D, RTF experience, but it takes a lot of money to do that independently. That kind of scenario would be the ideal place to input data like this since the premise is to build a customized experience where physics govern outcomes. With Madden you have to hope that there's some kind of reasonable correspondence between external data and the game's internal logic. I did some messing around last year and could tell that, whatever the specific rating for a WR CATCH was, a slider value of 75 or higher unlocked the animation set necessary to get WR to compete for the ball at the point. It's a very strange thing. To the point of the project, though, I think it would be great to see the difference between players like a Richardson, who runs with power, often stiff arming and using massive leg drive, vs. someone like Foster, whose runs are defined by that 30 yard burst ability and great vision. I like the idea of long striders who will pass you at 15 yards and dust you vs. those who will get on top of you right at 15 yards but will have maxed out their speed and so won't win the long race. Lots of other examples, but Madden does need to differentiate players better, no doubt.

The whole ACC vs. SPD thing is being worked on presently. I have brought in a Master's Student in the department of Physics at the University of Minnesota who specializes with human motion, specifically with sports. He and I are now working on developing a good way to determine maximum velocity and acceleration for each player. Basically every player has their own acceleration curve and top velocity before the velocity tails off due to the stamina rating.

After analyzing the game frame-for-frame acceleration of players at various speeds and accelerations we have developed the proper acceleration/velocity curves for each rating. Old generation Madden had a constant acceleration and a constant velocity. This is no longer the case, so we have had to adjust. The good news is that it is physically and mathematically possible to get realistic results for the game. Right now we are just putting it all together in an application that can be used for the site in conjunction with all of the data we have.

Should be pretty cool to see where some of these players grade out in ACC and SPD once the project is complete.

# 888 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big FN Deal


	@PGaither84, DCEBB has already stated before, somewhere in this thread possibly, that FGB is not about assigning ratings according to how Madden plays but according to a standard for converting real world data into numeric ratings. So in a nutshell, he is trying to create a universal conversion scale/formulas for transferring real data into the ratings in the game. I think this is the way EA Tiburon should be doing it and then finding a way to align the program/video game with that data, not vice versa. For example, IF Tiburon decided that 40 times would be the standard for the SPD rating, then that rating in game needs to be programmed accordingly, if that makes sense. To use the zone coverage that you are talking about as another example, if a formula calculates the average zone coverage of LBs in the 65-70 range, then the zone coverage in Madden should be programmed to perform "average" within those ranges. I think again this is a fundamental disconnect with the creation of Madden, that they do not focus on trying to program the video game to emulate real life as close as possible. Instead they seem to want to do things different because it's a video game, without even trying, it seems, to emulate real life. For example, "yeah, we know longer animations are more REALISTIC but they diminish User control and aren't as fun". That type mindset carries over to other things like why can all players access many of the exact same animations, like ball hawk, regardless of their ratings. Now, all that said, I think FBG ratings consequently can and do improve some game play aspects of Madden because even though the game is not programmed to emulate real life data, converting that data into Madden still creates universal balance. So people can disagree about, for example, Wallace and Brown having the same Route Running rating but the formula used to arrive at that is universal, creating a standard for that rating. You won't have Wallace and Brown with the same route running, then another player with the exact same real life data used to calculate that rating +/-20 route running on another team.

And this to me is the best part. Since the data already normalizes the information and puts it on a constant scale for all players with that grade, you can then determine that if 2 players grade out the same at a skill, then they should be rated the same in Madden. Take RTE like you suggested. If on the 5 point scale two players grade out at 4.2/5.0 for route running ability, you would expect that their RTE should be the same in the game.

The other thing I did was define "average" as 70 for the universal raw attributes (SPD, ACC, AGI, JMP, and STR) so you can compare players regardless of position. It also gets rid of the positional speed boots you find with a WR who ran a 4.7 but still has a SPD of 88 because he is a WR with no other justification. The opposite also holds true whereas a TE with a 4.4 should have near-elite speed, but instead is at an 80 becuase he is a TE.

I will be taking it even a step further by truly developing player specific raw attribtues based on measurables which will debut after the draft in 2013 (if we are all still here).

One other goal was to get rid of the ratings inflation for OVR and attributes, where it seems like everyone needs to be 85+ in relevant ratings in order to be in the game, and stretch them out to get more variance in the "feel" of players in the game.

However, the thing I keep running into, once again, is the darn draft classes that use EA's inflated way of rating players. Being able to edit players in CCM would help solve this issue, but I don't know what we can fully edit yet in CCM.

I wonder often if I should just use EAs ratings range and my data to differentiate so people can use these ratings in CCM with EA's draft classes...but that would go against how I think players should be more accurately represented. BigFN you have any thoughts on this?

# 889 RogueHominid @ 10/09/12 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	The whole ACC vs. SPD thing is being worked on presently. I have brought in a Master's Student in the department of Physics at the University of Minnesota who specializes with human motion, specifically with sports. He and I are now working on developing a good way to determine maximum velocity and acceleration for each player. Basically every player has their own acceleration curve and top velocity before the velocity tails off due to the stamina rating. After analyzing the game frame-for-frame acceleration of players at various speeds and accelerations we have developed the proper acceleration/velocity curves for each rating. Old generation Madden had a constant acceleration and a constant velocity. This is no longer the case, so we have had to adjust. The good news is that it is physically and mathematically possible to get realistic results for the game. Right now we are just putting it all together in an application that can be used for the site in conjunction with all of the data we have. Should be pretty cool to see where some of these players grade out in ACC and SPD once the project is complete.

This is one area where FGB ratings can make an undisputed contribution and change the way the game plays, as speed and acceleration are much easier values to work with. They don't link to animations and so can be rendered using any player.

It would be SO fun to see different levels of backs: watching Shonne Greene, you can tell he runs with almost no burst; watching Trent Richardson, you can see that he has strong short burst; watching Arian Foster, you can see that he has the kind of "long" burst that Emmitt Smith had--not gonna break 80 yard runs typically, but will break off 40 combining burst and vision.

You know what else would be great to see is some real distinctions between guys who are quick laterally, but not necessarily fast and not necessarily big burst guys. PR are often this way, able to make 2-3 very quick lateral moves, then accelerate at a decent rate, but they don't have to be top-end guys in acceleration or speed to be effective. The best ones are, for sure, but there are a few positions where you see guys like that on the field, and I'd love to see that in my game.

That's another set of values/data that I think FGB can plug in and get an immediate benefit since there are relatively fewer variables involved than in other football moves.

# 890 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big FN Deal


	@DCEBB, nah I honestly don't because as much as I usually enjoy this topic, discussing it in context of how they choose to create Madden is frustrating and ends up giving me a headache, lol. People have been asking for a universal ratings editor for the longest, to no avail and even that wouldn't help the issue with little to no animation differential between players, according to ratings. I of course commend you for your perseverance and hope it all pays off one day, in the form of a paid position doing this or at least some way to apply them completely in Madden. I look at so many of the topics discussed around OS about realism in an alleged NFL simulation video game, that seem to be spot on but alas, only make for good discussion, not change. I think devs and programmers read threads like these and somehow come away with the notion this confirms it's all subjective anyway, so it doesn't matter how they do it. That really irks me, just like this constant mantra of "no game is perfect", both make no sense in the context of doing something better or the best you can. Yes translating ratings into a video game is subjective, in the sense of the formula used but that doesn't mean one way isn't better than another for emulating real life. It seems like to me Tiburon often already declares emulating real life as too difficult to achieve so why bother trying and they don't.

That frustration is equally shared around here it seems. Just try typing in "Frustration" in a thread search for Madden on this site and you may break your browser.

What really frustrates me is having all this cool data that if properly implimented could yield, hypthetically, realistic results in the video game. However, the fact that the game is broken itself really limits the practical implimentation of any such system unless we do have that ability to customize and edit the game ourselves.

As much as I want to use them in a CCM with customized draft classes, I can't because of the lack of ability to edit in the game. Madden 08 for the PC was honestly the last time I truly enjoyed the game because of the ability to import draft classes for any system I like. I could use the old FBG ratings when Brian Hitterman ran the site and import my draft classes based on his way of rating players. If EA brought it back for the PC and we could edit again in mass with external editors I would buy the game and enjoy it once again. Until one of those things happens, however, I will always be left wanting.

# 891 buckey00 @ 10/09/12 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	There are certain ratings that do not work alone. When running, the SPD and ACC ratings do work symbiotically up until 45 yards. At 45 yards, the SPD rating takes over until the STA determines how long the maximum velocity is effective. For SPM/JKM moves, the AGI and ACC ratings play a very large role in getting into and out of the move effectively. For instance, a RB with a JKM of 90 with ACC of 90 will get out of the move quicker than a RB with a JKM of 90 and ACC of 80. So when you look at the ratings on the site, don't sinle out any one attribute. Instead, look at how they may affect one another. The only "true" way to see how each player performs is to actually try it out. I do not have a timetable for how long it will take to do the OVR calculations for M13 presently. It really depends on how much we CAN edit for CCM. If EA allows us to edit everything in a roster before starting a CCM, then it would be worth all the time it takes to get the calculations correct. If we can't edit as much as we would like, then I may have to skip that for this year and hope that full editing is back next year. I would also like to see if we can edit in CCM, especially draft classes. The one thing I am constantly fighting is the urge to simply rate players the same way EA does, but with the better info. For instance, all attributes have a designated "average" rating as well as a max and min. This average for all raw attributes is 70. So an "average" vertical jump of 34.5 inches (the average since 1998) would yield a JMP rating of 70. However, in Madden the average JMP is 68. The average SPD is 74, ACC is 81, and AGI is 74, and STR is 71. So as you can see, the average would change if I were to rate players the way EA does. However, I would still utilize a normal distribution based on the data. I would love to hear from some of the guys who are regulars to this thread about this in detail. The upside to using the same way EA rates players is that you can use rookies produced in CCM. The downside is that you get more ratings inflation toward the upper bound. Thoughts?

I'm obviously new here, but I have been playing Madden since 03. I personally like the wide span of ratings you have right now. It will make fore a more natural and realistic game. Even in ccm the inflation of talent seems to be so gradual the ratings would be worth doing. Im in year 2016 of my ccm and the average amount of draft class player starters per team seems to be 2 for more established teams and 4 for teams that were rebuilding through the draft. Now this may give teams that have more/higher draft picks an advantage. But, like I said it the more inflated talent seems to be infused gradually with the draft classes and the exp progression of current players. The progression of current players could also cancel out the inflated ratings in the draft class. I guess that depends on how intelligently the computer spends their xp. Now I have no idea how much work it is or if this is an ignorant question but if the draft classes are to much of a worry, there could be two sets of ratings: the ones rated on ea's scale and the current ones, and then the madden players could choose which set they would want to used based on their wants.

# 892 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMP


	This is one area where FGB ratings can make an undisputed contribution and change the way the game plays, as speed and acceleration are much easier values to work with. They don't link to animations and so can be rendered using any player. It would be SO fun to see different levels of backs: watching Shonne Greene, you can tell he runs with almost no burst; watching Trent Richardson, you can see that he has strong short burst; watching Arian Foster, you can see that he has the kind of "long" burst that Emmitt Smith had--not gonna break 80 yard runs typically, but will break off 40 combining burst and vision. You know what else would be great to see is some real distinctions between guys who are quick laterally, but not necessarily fast and not necessarily big burst guys. PR are often this way, able to make 2-3 very quick lateral moves, then accelerate at a decent rate, but they don't have to be top-end guys in acceleration or speed to be effective. The best ones are, for sure, but there are a few positions where you see guys like that on the field, and I'd love to see that in my game. That's another set of values/data that I think FGB can plug in and get an immediate benefit since there are relatively fewer variables involved than in other football moves.

THIS^^^...

...Has to be one of my favorite posts in this entire thread. That is exactly what I am trying to do...take a new approach to how players are rated. You can thank caballero and PGaither for getting on my case about that. The whole thing that limited it in the first place was the lack of data to show a true acceleration curve and top velocity. However, once I found out that ALL players in Madden regardless of SPD/ACC stop accelerating at 45 yards I found that I was able to use the split times for each player to measure the change in velocity (ACC) and predict the top instantaneous velocity (SPD) at 45 yards using a cubic function. Now it is just a matter of finding an easy way of doing it for some 20000 players, which should take a few weeks to complete.

The other thing is the whole AGI rating as you pointed out. EA basically dictates that fast SPD/ACC means a fast AGI. That is not always the case. In fact, they also make it seem like a high AGI must mean a high JKM/SPM. I don't believe that is always the case either. I have known some pretty darn good RBs in my day (some I have scouted, coached, or played with) who lacked hip movement to run with agility, but had GREAT jump cuts or an ability to stick their foot in the ground and change direction by employing a move rather than being agile.

A guy like Adrian Peterson had a very average 3-cone time for RB. He is great at getting North/South with good explosion and open field speed. However, he has a very good jump cut and great ability to stick his foot in the ground to get north and south. So although he may not have the most loose hips, he employs a great SKILL (move) in combination with great ability (SPD and ACC) to be effective. So in all reality you can have a great learned skill with a lesser physical ability.

The opposite holds true for a guy with great body lean and agility like Clay Matthews (who ran a sub-7.00 3-cone time) but will most likely never perfect the JKM/SPM as a ball carrier because his position doesn't require it.

EA needs to further realize the differences between raw athletic ability, which can be measured, and a learned SKILL which needs to be better observed, recorded, and qualified, such as how scouts do it...in my opinion anyway.

# 893 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckey00


	I'm obviously new here, but I have been playing Madden since 03. I personally like the wide span of ratings you have right now. It will make fore a more natural and realistic game. Even in ccm the inflation of talent seems to be so gradual the ratings would be worth doing. Im in year 2016 of my ccm and the average amount of draft class player starters per team seems to be 2 for more established teams and 4 for teams that were rebuilding through the draft. Now this may give teams that have more/higher draft picks an advantage. But, like I said it the more inflated talent seems to be infused gradually with the draft classes and the exp progression of current players. The progression of current players could also cancel out the inflated ratings in the draft class. I guess that depends on how intelligently the computer spends their xp. Now I have no idea how much work it is or if this is an ignorant question but if the draft classes are to much of a worry, there could be two sets of ratings: the ones rated on ea's scale and the current ones, and then the madden players could choose which set they would want to used based on their wants.

That would be a great idea to have two systems, but first we have to be able to edit the draft classes either before or after the players are added to the game. The inflation occurs through EA's non-normalized ratings and position-specific raw attributes, like LBs being slower than WRs even if they have the same maximum velocity. The other issue is the range in EAs system is far more narrow. WRs in EAs game have an average speed of 88 while FBG WRs have an average SPD of 83. So basically every player is already -5 in comparison of SPD ratings. FBG also uses higher AWR ratings. So after several seasons the new players with their AWR ratings as low as 20 would take over your league and you would be back to EAs system unless we are able to make edits to the draft classes.

The one thing I have considered doing was using EAs ranges and then using my data to differentiate between the players. So for instance DeSean Jackson has a SPD of 92 in FBG's system. That is presently derived from his 40 time of 4.35. The average 40 time is 4.81 which is 70 SPD. The max is 4.21 which is 99 SPD. Now Trindon Holliday has that 99 SPD in FBG. What I can do is set the average of 4.81 to EA's average SPD of 74 making DeSean's SPD more like a 94. However, the problem still persists that EA does not universally rate players regardless of position. So if a LB runs a 4.35 his SPD is only an 89 instead of 94. That is the other big issue. In addition, the OVR calculations are meant for players with higher raw attributes (STR, SPD, ACC, AGI, JMP) so to get the desired OVR rating, I have to compensate by raising the position specific attributes. That seems to work well for now, but it leaves us with some higher AWR and other ratings in comparision.

# 894 buckey00 @ 10/09/12 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	That would be a great idea to have two systems, but first we have to be able to edit the draft classes either before or after the players are added to the game. The inflation occurs through EA's non-normalized ratings and position-specific raw attributes, like LBs being slower than WRs even if they have the same maximum velocity. The other issue is the range in EAs system is far more narrow. WRs in EAs game have an average speed of 88 while FBG WRs have an average SPD of 83. So basically every player is already -5 in comparison of SPD ratings. FBG also uses higher AWR ratings. So after several seasons the new players with their AWR ratings as low as 20 would take over your league and you would be back to EAs system unless we are able to make edits to the draft classes. The one thing I have considered doing was using EAs ranges and then using my data to differentiate between the players. So for instance DeSean Jackson has a SPD of 92 in FBG's system. That is presently derived from his 40 time of 4.35. The average 40 time is 4.81 which is 70 SPD. The max is 4.21 which is 99 SPD. Now Trindon Holliday has that 99 SPD in FBG. What I can do is set the average of 4.81 to EA's average SPD of 74 making DeSean's SPD more like a 94. However, the problem still persists that EA does not universally rate players regardless of position. So if a LB runs a 4.35 his SPD is only an 89 instead of 94. That is the other big issue. In addition, the OVR calculations are meant for players with higher raw attributes (STR, SPD, ACC, AGI, JMP) so to get the desired OVR rating, I have to compensate by raising the position specific attributes. That seems to work well for now, but it leaves us with some higher AWR and other ratings in comparision.

So the problem isnt so much overall inflation but more just for the physical ratings like speed, agility, ect. Now not to bash ea but I feel that 2k does a much better job at rating variation. However, there are not as many players that they need to worry about. Another fundamental problem about ratings is that they rely so much on physical attributes when football is just as much a mental game as a physical one. And the mental attributes like awareness are still debated on what they actually effect.
There are so many different types of players in the NFL that it would be awesome for them to actually be accurately represented in Madden, and to be able to feel the difference. I completely agree with what you said above about fast guys not always having the greatest agility, but yet is almost always portrayed that way. Darren McFadden is the only one I can think of that has a significantly lower agility rating than speed in Madden.
On topic of draft classes I saw a thread in the rosters section that was talking about it and actually starting to implement it but it has hit a stand-still. I don't know if it was for only names or ratings too.

# 895 DCEBB2001 @ 10/09/12 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckey00


	So the problem isnt so much overall inflation but more just for the physical ratings like speed, agility, ect. Now not to bash ea but I feel that 2k does a much better job at rating variation. However, there are not as many players that they need to worry about. Another fundamental problem about ratings is that they rely so much on physical attributes when football is just as much a mental game as a physical one. And the mental attributes like awareness are still debated on what they actually effect. There are so many different types of players in the NFL that it would be awesome for them to actually be accurately represented in Madden, and to be able to feel the difference. I completely agree with what you said above about fast guys not always having the greatest agility, but yet is almost always portrayed that way. Darren McFadden is the only one I can think of that has a significantly lower agility rating than speed in Madden. On topic of draft classes I saw a thread in the rosters section that was talking about it and actually starting to implement it but it has hit a stand-still. I don't know if it was for only names or ratings too.

Well I am not sure how M13 has the OVR ratings compiled as you draft and go into a few seasons, but it is rare that I have over 100 of the 20000+ players rated over 90. In fact, right now I think there are only 89. The number of players in the 80s is also pretty low in comparison. However, I also have a larger population to draw from (20000 players compared to only 3000 as seen in Madden). What I basically wanted to do was make the 90+ player RARE and make the "average" player more abundant, but with room to develop into a great player.

In Madden presently, it seems like all of the rookies have very high physical skills and just low AWR ratings. That means you can take just about any player and find a way to just up their AWR to make them great. That, however, is not correct in my experience. I posit that the differentiation in physical skills is far wider. That means that no matter how much more AWR a player gets, their lesser physical skills will hold them back. Scouts refer to this as the "ceiling". A player with a high ceiling typically has off the chart physical talent (SPD, ACC, AGI, JMP, STR) but lacks technical skills (AWR, CTH, CAR, PBK, RBK, etc.). Coaches know that the physical skills and COMBINATION of good skills (like having great SPD and AGI for a RB or having great SPD and STR for a DE) is rare. Many WRs in college can run under 4.7 in the 40, but how many can run under 4.7, post a 3-cone time under 7.0, and bench press 20 reps? See what I am getting at here? It is the players with the COMBINATION of raw skills that are indeed rare.

That being said, if a coach/scout realizes a rare athletic talent who needs more technical refinement, they may take a chance on him in the hope that the player receives good coaching and develops his technical skills. Look at guys like Antonio Gates and Jimmy Graham who had amazing physical tools as TEs but needed to hone their crafts in order to play football. When they were picked up they most likely had "high ceilings" but were RAW. Those are the guys you want to develop based on their high, raw, athletic talents.

Madden has just about every rookie with a comparatively "high ceiling" ie: high physical attributes and low technical attributes. This is NOT representative of the college population. In fact, the opposite actually holds true. Most college players have very sound technical skill, but do not possess the raw athletic talent to compete in the NFL, where the athleticism is the best of the best in the sport. Look at just about any draft. There are reasons you find bigger/stronger/faster players going in the top portion of any draft class. Their ceilings based on raw ability are higher. Look at guys from this year like Bruce Irvin. Very gifted athletic ability, but he only played on 3rd downs for West Virginia! His technical skill does not match his athletic ability, yet Seattle took him in the 1st round ahead of more proven college players. Conversely look at Vontez Burfict. He had a very good college resume, but showed that he lacked the athletic ability to have a high ceiling. The funny thing now is that those guys with great technical skill and marginal (for the NFL) athletic abilities learn to overcome their lesser gifts with hard work, knowledge of the game, and near-perfect technical talents (see Jerry Rice and Emmett Smith for examples).

# 896 buckey00 @ 10/09/12 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCEBB2001


	Well I am not sure how M13 has the OVR ratings compiled as you draft and go into a few seasons, but it is rare that I have over 100 of the 20000+ players rated over 90. In fact, right now I think there are only 89. The number of players in the 80s is also pretty low in comparison. However, I also have a larger population to draw from (20000 players compared to only 3000 as seen in Madden). What I basically wanted to do was make the 90+ player RARE and make the "average" player more abundant, but with room to develop into a great player. In Madden presently, it seems like all of the rookies have very high physical skills and just low AWR ratings. That means you can take just about any player and find a way to just up their AWR to make them great. That, however, is not correct in my experience. I posit that the differentiation in physical skills is far wider. That means that no matter how much more AWR a player gets, their lesser physical skills will hold them back. Scouts refer to this as the "ceiling". A player with a high ceiling typically has off the chart physical talent (SPD, ACC, AGI, JMP, STR) but lacks technical skills (AWR, CTH, CAR, PBK, RBK, etc.). Coaches know that the physical skills and COMBINATION of good skills (like having great SPD and AGI for a RB or having great SPD and STR for a DE) is rare. Many WRs in college can run under 4.7 in the 40, but how many can run under 4.7, post a 3-cone time under 7.0, and bench press 20 reps? See what I am getting at here? It is the players with the COMBINATION of raw skills that are indeed rare. That being said, if a coach/scout realizes a rare athletic talent who needs more technical refinement, they may take a chance on him in the hope that the player receives good coaching and develops his technical skills. Look at guys like Antonio Gates and Jimmy Graham who had amazing physical tools as TEs but needed to hone their crafts in order to play football. When they were picked up they most likely had "high ceilings" but were RAW. Those are the guys you want to develop based on their high, raw, athletic talents. Madden has just about every rookie with a comparatively "high ceiling" ie: high physical attributes and low technical attributes. This is NOT representative of the college population. In fact, the opposite actually holds true. Most college players have very sound technical skill, but do not possess the raw athletic talent to compete in the NFL, where the athleticism is the best of the best in the sport. Look at just about any draft. There are reasons you find bigger/stronger/faster players going in the top portion of any draft class. Their ceilings based on raw ability are higher. Look at guys from this year like Bruce Irvin. Very gifted athletic ability, but he only played on 3rd downs for West Virginia! His technical skill does not match his athletic ability, yet Seattle took him in the 1st round ahead of more proven college players. Conversely look at Vontez Burfict. He had a very good college resume, but showed that he lacked the athletic ability to have a high ceiling. The funny thing now is that those guys with great technical skill and marginal (for the NFL) athletic abilities learn to overcome their lesser gifts with hard work, knowledge of the game, and near-perfect technical talents (see Jerry Rice and Emmett Smith for examples).

In 13 most of the Star development players from the draft are in the 70s and 80s depending on schemes. That would be another variable with madden 13 if you do end up doing it. And in ccm the new development system allows us to easily progress players much more so than in years past, especially if the player user controls the games. The physical attributes do cost more which is nice.

Another problem in madden is there no chance for those extremely athletic prospects or physically skilled prospects to bust or underwhelm like they do in the NFL all the time. Such as Jamarcus Russell, Aaron Curry, Vernon Gholston, Felix Jones and so on. And then in Madden there is also no way to turn the marginal athlete in a quality player because this game relies so much on physical attributes. It is much easier to use a heyward-bey type player with bad route running and catching but burning speed and agility than using someone like Welker who does not have the same speed but has the catching and route-running necesarry to be a good receiver. Almost all teams in the NFL would take Welker but in Madden I find it easier to use bay.

# 897 buckey00 @ 10/22/12 08:33 PM

Do you think fbg will come out with an edited roster for 13, with the roster editor, as I'm sure that would take much less time than doing it inside the game, now that you can take custom rosters into ccm?

# 898 KBLover @ 10/23/12 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckey00


	It is much easier to use a heyward-bey type player with bad route running and catching but burning speed and agility than using someone like Welker who does not have the same speed but has the catching and route-running necesarry to be a good receiver. Almost all teams in the NFL would take Welker but in Madden I find it easier to use bay.

And you'd think with all the emphasis on the Infinity Engine and stuff, the route running would be much more represented in the gameplay - bad cuts, some stumbles/more rounded turns, not able to maintain the best line on the route, etc.

I would have thought that in 13 - the Welker's of the world would have been much stronger

# 899 DCEBB2001 @ 10/23/12 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckey00


	Do you think fbg will come out with an edited roster for 13, with the roster editor, as I'm sure that would take much less time than doing it inside the game, now that you can take custom rosters into ccm?

FBG Ratings does not produce rosters at this time. We are in negotiations, and have been for some time, with a 3rd party for roster production.

As for an external rosters editor for M13, I am unaware of this. Someone care to elaborate?

# 900 DCEBB2001 @ 10/23/12 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBLover


	And you'd think with all the emphasis on the Infinity Engine and stuff, the route running would be much more represented in the gameplay - bad cuts, some stumbles/more rounded turns, not able to maintain the best line on the route, etc. I would have thought that in 13 - the Welker's of the world would have been much stronger

Route running is just another way to make a guy "appear" to be slower or faster. This was one of the arguments in the "speed is speed" thread. EA often confuses route running, vision, or play recognition with speed. Brian Urlacher sniffed out a screen pass last night against the Lions against two blockers to take down the RB for no gain. Did he get there in time because he was faster than LeShoure? Of course not. He got there quicker because of his play recognition and instincts. Did Jerry Rice gain a 5 yard cushion on a DB because he was faster than most of them? Hardly. It was because he was able to run routes at full speed and gain separation through the break on his route. Too often people confuse speed with other attributes that can be qualified.

« Previous 1 2…42 43 444546 47 48…76 77 Next »

More Links

FBGRatings Seeks to Recalibrate Madden Ratings, Change Game