Madden NFL 16 Roster Update For Week 2 Available Now

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by Find_The_Door

I'd like needed ratings adjustments made on a weekly basis (example: Joe Randle made an effortless one handed catch yet had a 40 something spectacular catch). Also injuries and transactions. Annoying that injuries aren't enforced online....

totally agree with you regarding injuries but one catch doesnt mean anything....consistency and trends do. i'm a birds fan, kiko alonso had a one handed interception vs ATL. should his catching go up because of one play? I say no...his decent catch rating is based on the fact that he had 4 picks as a rookie. He exceeds that this year we'll talk....otherwise? NAH.

I don't like this whole "overreact to minutiae" politic-for-my-team, highlight driven ratings stuff. The next time Randle drops the ball should his catch rating drop? again...trends, not one play assessments. FYI: Randle has 15 catches for his career (in 30 games) so he's not exactly a pass catching back juuuuust yet.

[Find_the_Door]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

totally agree with you regarding injuries but one catch doesnt mean anything....consistency and trends do. i'm a birds fan, kiko alonso had a one handed interception? should his catching go up because of one play? I say no...his decent catch rating is based on the fact that he had 4 picks as a rookie. He exceeds that this year we'll talk....otherwise? NAH. I don't like this whole "overreact to minutiae" politic-for-my-team, highlight driven ratings stuff. The next time Randle drops the ball should his catch rating drop? again...trends, not one play assessments. FYI: Randle has 15 catches for his career (in 30 games) so he's not exactly a pass catching back juuuuust yet.

He was at Okh state though but in large part I agree.

Why is head to head such a neglected aspect on this game. It's literally never been worse, enforcing injuries would at least make it somewhat enjoyable - sheesh.

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by Find_The_Door

He was at Okh state though but in large part I agree. Why is head to head such a neglected aspect on this game. It's literally never been worse, enforcing injuries would at least make it somewhat enjoyable - sheesh.

no clue, agree with you. played a guy with GB the other day who made like a 25yd catch with Randall Cobb, that wasnt good enough I guess....he immediately paused the game and put Jordy in, all I could do was laugh.

[jfen31]

EDIT: Sorry, I see this stuff was already covered (several times) earlier in the thread.


I realize I'm in the minority here, but these weekly changes laughably encapsulate the modern-day sports fan's overreaction to blips on the radar.

AP gets "worse" because his team played an all-around terrible game and he only touched the ball 10 times?

The whole idea of adjusting ratings on a weekly basis ignores the fact that players (and humans in general) are prone to good days and bad days.

Why must we overreact to the most recent thing we just witnessed rather than considering a larger and more comprehensive body of work?

[althor]

Quote: Originally Posted by T5063

He had one great game against the worst team from last year. I'd hold off on buying fabric for those superbowl banners just yet.

Dan Marino was a superstar without banners. There have been plenty, even if briefly. But I am not actually basing it on one game, there are a lot of signs pointing towards his future (barring injury) and even if he isn't a future superstar, do you really think the Titans should be able to draft a QB in the 3rd or 4th round next season that is better than what we have seen up to this point with Mariota?

*Just a personal note: I would have traded the #2 pick, and still would.

[DCEBB2001]

Issuing roster updates on a weekly basis for player movement is one thing, which I am totally cool with.

However, making changes to ratings based off of weekly performance is complete crap. Stats should have nothing to do with rating attributes. Ever. Professional scouts don't have a "production" grade that they issue to players, so why should we change a player's grade (rating in Madden) based upon that? It doesn't follow. If EA really wants to make this game replicate the NFL, they need to consider the fact that most scouting departments and services won't even evaluate a player within a month-to-month period, nonetheless a WEEKLY period. At the very most, do re-rates on a monthly basis, not a weekly one.

[Critical Kills]

EA can't win for losing, if they didn't update each week then this site would be howling with people about how EA doesn't give a crap about the game and they should be giving us more updates, but then they do weekly updates and it's "too reactionary".

Normally I don't like name calling either but the poster who said this site is full of whining babies isn't far off the mark I think...smh..

[ChaseB]

Again, it's not that any of these arguments are invalid or don't have serious merit, it's just not looking at what a "live" video game is versus the sport itself. This is a game serving many communities during the course of a season.

There's been similar conversations with Diamond Dynasty mode in MLB The Show this year, and people have actually been more frustrated certain guys aren't going up or down more during the year. And baseball obviously is the king of trying to make it about more than your base "production" stats. The general thought goes back to "it's not about how good they are for their career, but how good people think they are in this moment during this season." It's like do I think Brandon Crawford will hit 25 home runs every year from now on? No, but this year he is doing it and should get a power boost in accordance.

My general feeling is if this isn't hurting your actual ongoing franchise modes etc. it's something that has its place in a video game trying to retain some intrigue throughout the year.

When the offseason hits, then obviously it's not like you should say well "X player ended as this rating so he starts next year at the same rating." Then at that time you actually look and assess and actually try to rate these guys fairly based on their body of work. I know the argument then becomes that "well you invalidate this work the moment you change things after Week 1" and I get that. What I would still say is if you get the general "baseline" rating right at least you're starting from a good place in Week 1.