Donny Moore, the 'Madden Ratings Czar', Leaving EA

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

Perhaps indirectly. I do not know how the ratings dynamic works for the development team, but lets assume Donny rated players based on what he thought they should be (lets ignore the marketing aspect for now) and that alone. The CFM team then has to balance rookies towards the scale Donny made with the current roster. The more likely scenario is that there is teamwork between each aspect of the game. Donny works with the gameplay guys to nail down the rating thresholds and the relationship with ratings and animations, those two then work with the CFM guys to make sure it transitions smoothly. Imagine if Donny changes the rating distribution and does not work with the other guys; it would be a disaster. For example, right now a CB with MCV of 80> is terrible. I think that is too high. So imagine Donny decides that from now on the average should be 70 but the gameplay guys don't update the code. Wanna guess what the result would be? (I use the term work with very loosely here)

OT, but I looked it up and did the math for funsies - the average CB on the default roster of Madden NFL 15 has a MCV rating of 79 and a ZCV rating of 80.

On the substance of your post, I agree wholeheartedly. Whoever ends up doing the ratings is going to have to work with the CFM team to make sure that the balance multiple seasons into the mode doesn't get out of whack.

[msdm27]

Quote: Originally Posted by StefJoeHalt

DD I respect and agree with most of what u write but not this...QB inaccurate is right in front of our/everyone's face..the ratings should (for accuracy) more reflect QB completion %..example 70% = 70 not 70% = 99 completion %..corner route by design are one if not the most difficult routes to cover....problem in madden is corner routes are to easy for QB to complete... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my opinion your comment about the qb accuracy rating is wrong. Accuracy should not be reflective of completion %, the ratio in which a qb completes his passes is affected by way more things than just his general accuracy.

[StefJoeHalt]

Quote: Originally Posted by msdm27

In my opinion your comment about the qb accuracy rating is wrong. Accuracy should not be reflective of completion %, the ratio in which a qb completes his passes is affected by way more things than just his general accuracy.

I agree with u completion is effected by more then one thing..however I believe in simple terms this is how it is programmed..it's been posted here before, a few years ago one of the Dev's even said as much in a blog or post..there is a link..let me try and find it..but IMO that is part of the accuracy issue..they reverted back to normal 0-100 scale..but when it should be more related to each QB %..should there be a better system Yes I agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by StefJoeHalt

I agree with u completion is effected by more then one thing..however I believe in simple terms this is how it is programmed..it's been posted here before, a few years ago one of the Dev's even said as much in a blog or post..there is a link..let me try and find it..but IMO that is part of the accuracy issue..they reverted back to normal 0-100 scale..but when it should be more related to each QB %..should there be a better system Yes I agree Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember the blog you are talking about. It was a ratings reveal and it was in regards to Aaron Rodgers deep accuracy. The line was something like "He has a deep accuracy of 92. So 92% of his deep passes are on point!"

I think they simplified the description a bit. I think that under ideal circumstances he is on point 92% of the time.

[msdm27]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I remember the blog you are talking about. It was a ratings reveal and it was in regards to Aaron Rodgers deep accuracy. The line was something like "He has a deep accuracy of 92. So 92% of his deep passes are on point!" I think they simplified the description a bit. I think that under ideal circumstances he is on point 92% of the time.

And that's ok.... 92% of passes being on point does not mean 92% of passes are completed.

[jerwoods]

dan i hope u get this u do great work if EA is reading this i might as well explain what i would do and how it could heip

its called Liquid ratings kinda like NCAA 05 and NFL Head coach

here is the Pats
under my system

QB T Brady 95-99 95 is the Low rating while 99 is the peak rating
Jimmy G 67-80 younger players have a higher ceiling

RB Blount 73-77 Cadet 70-75 J White 68-78 Gray 70-76 Bolden 71-74 Gaffney 67-73
FB Devlin 74-79
WR Edelman 86-96 LaFell 79-84 Danny A 75-80 Tyms 69-73 Slater 66-77 Boyce 59-68 Dobson 60-73 Brandon Gibson 74-78
TE Gronk 94-99 Chandler 78-83 Hoom 72-75 Derby 67-70 Bequette 50-65 at TE as DE 57-63
LT Solder 87-92 Cannon 70-76
LG T Jackson 64-74 Devey 68-72 Barker 61-69
C Stork 84-95 Mason 65-71
RG Wendell 66-73 Kilne 67-71
RT Vollmer 86-93 Flemming 68-73 Hup 60-65

LE Nink 82-87 Flowers 68-75
RE Jones 81-91 Moore 67-74 Gissom 66-76
DT Branch 75-79 Sliga 72-80 Brown 70-84 Shead 76-83 easely 69-79 vellano 70-74 Johnson 65-71
Lolb Collins 85-95 freeney 68-74 fleming 70-73
MLB mayo 83-88 Flecher 66-72 Marin 65-69
ROLB Hightower 84-89 waton 70-73 white 67-72
CB Ryan 75-82 Butler 76-85 Mccain 77-81 Swanson 62-68 RCB Green 70-75 Fletcher 66-74 Cox 69-73 Robets 65-74
FS Mccouty 86-92 wilson 67-73 Harmon 69-74
SS Chung 71-76 ebner 66-72 Richards 68-77
K gostkowski 88-97
P Allen 70-80

[sphinxnole]

Jerwoods,
I Like That Idea Also...
U Can Account 4 Subpar Days, & Everything in Between All the
Way Up 2 Spectacular Days..
Then Consistency, & Confidence Could Also Factor in Creating Better &
More Diverse Gameplay...

[msdm27]

Quote: Originally Posted by sphinxnole

Jerwoods, I Like That Idea Also... U Can Account 4 Subpar Days, & Everything in Between All the Way Up 2 Spectacular Days.. Then Consistency, & Confidence Could Also Factor in Creating Better & More Diverse Gameplay...

The sad part is: That was probably the idea behind Dynamic Player Performance (DPP)... to account for the variance in level of play by different players.

Needless to say, it didn't quite work optimally.... but it would have been so cool if DPP was expanded upon instead of just being forgotten.

- Give each player a range in which their ratings fluctuate from week to week.

- Give each player a consistency/confidence rating that dictates (along with a randomized algorythm) how often and how much ratings change.

BOOOOOOM! Gameplay woulde've changed forever... Hopefully they get back to it at some point.

EDIT: This same "performance range" system for ratings could also be used to handle regression.... the older you get, maybe the broader the fluctuation range for your performance gets.