Posted by bhazlewood on 8/15/2012 11:45:00 AM (view original):
Maybe ATH should be discarded as a factor since it is TOO generic, and replaced by other stats in the 3.5 engine.

Posted by kilabe on 8/15/2012 1:54:00 PM (view original):
I'm probably missing something, but rather than have the ATH as a modifier that equalizes the ratings or chance, could it be used as a bonus multiplier.

example:

punt returner has SPD and ELU calculated against a defenders TKL and GI, if it comes out into a wash or slight advantage either way, then can you use the runners ATH vs the Defenders GI or Tech to calculate breaking the tackle?

Posted by cydrych on 8/15/2012 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kilabe on 8/15/2012 1:54:00 PM (view original):
I'm probably missing something, but rather than have the ATH as a modifier that equalizes the ratings or chance, could it be used as a bonus multiplier.

example:

punt returner has SPD and ELU calculated against a defenders TKL and GI, if it comes out into a wash or slight advantage either way, then can you use the runners ATH vs the Defenders GI or Tech to calculate breaking the tackle?

I think you must be missing something since your example and your suggestion that ATH be treated as a bonus multiplier have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I don't really mean to bust your chops.  There are a lot of ideas floating around and we can only speculate on what would work well and what wouldn't.  The cool thing is that there is a very engaged user base and a developer who is willing to bounce ideas.  +1 to norbert and +10 to the guys willing to help think this stuff through in a productive manner.

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
100% agree with all norberts thoughts.  Also agree that ATH could be eliminated without any problem as all it does is cause confusion.  Although, also agree that because of the ratings ceilings at D1A that something has to be a deciding factor.  So many of the top teams are similar talentwise with 90/90 core guys that the tiebreaker isn't a bad idea.

If you get rid of ATH and there is no "tiebreaker", I would suggest raising the rating ceilings of cores.... so you can only recruit 90/90/90 guys still, but similar to the lower levels, the ones who can be developed more turn into 96 type guys and the stubborn, lazy ***** stick in the 91 area... This creates more of a talent gap at D1A.  This also solves the problem of the 3 yard runs every down... since everyone was so similar.

It was much easier to stop at lower levels, contrary to popular belief, because of the talent differences that could be achieved.

Posted by moranis on 8/15/2012 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
100% agree with all norberts thoughts.  Also agree that ATH could be eliminated without any problem as all it does is cause confusion.  Although, also agree that because of the ratings ceilings at D1A that something has to be a deciding factor.  So many of the top teams are similar talentwise with 90/90 core guys that the tiebreaker isn't a bad idea.

If you get rid of ATH and there is no "tiebreaker", I would suggest raising the rating ceilings of cores.... so you can only recruit 90/90/90 guys still, but similar to the lower levels, the ones who can be developed more turn into 96 type guys and the stubborn, lazy ***** stick in the 91 area... This creates more of a talent gap at D1A.  This also solves the problem of the 3 yard runs every down... since everyone was so similar.

It was much easier to stop at lower levels, contrary to popular belief, because of the talent differences that could be achieved.

Frankly they need to do a large scale revamp of hte ratings across the board.  The users are correct that say Speed and Strength should be the same no matter the position.  If the guy is a 90, then he should be a 90 no matter his position. 

If that isn't realistic, then they should at least have realistic distributions in the stats.  QB is about the only position where the ratings make sense i.e. very few 90 ratings.  The Andrew Lucks' of the world should be very rare and they are in this game at his position, but ten running backs seems to have Dickerson's speed and elusiveness coupled with the strength of a guy like Brandon Jacobs.  Totally unrealistic.  There should hardly be any 90 speed running backs and those guys should have much smaller strength, technique, etc.  There should only be 1 or 2 players at each position that have HOF ratings and I'm not just talking about freshman, I mean in the game as a whole (per world).

Posted by moranis on 8/15/2012 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
100% agree with all norberts thoughts.  Also agree that ATH could be eliminated without any problem as all it does is cause confusion.  Although, also agree that because of the ratings ceilings at D1A that something has to be a deciding factor.  So many of the top teams are similar talentwise with 90/90 core guys that the tiebreaker isn't a bad idea.

If you get rid of ATH and there is no "tiebreaker", I would suggest raising the rating ceilings of cores.... so you can only recruit 90/90/90 guys still, but similar to the lower levels, the ones who can be developed more turn into 96 type guys and the stubborn, lazy ***** stick in the 91 area... This creates more of a talent gap at D1A.  This also solves the problem of the 3 yard runs every down... since everyone was so similar.

It was much easier to stop at lower levels, contrary to popular belief, because of the talent differences that could be achieved.

Frankly they need to do a large scale revamp of hte ratings across the board.  The users are correct that say Speed and Strength should be the same no matter the position.  If the guy is a 90, then he should be a 90 no matter his position. 

If that isn't realistic, then they should at least have realistic distributions in the stats.  QB is about the only position where the ratings make sense i.e. very few 90 ratings.  The Andrew Lucks' of the world should be very rare and they are in this game at his position, but ten running backs seems to have Dickerson's speed and elusiveness coupled with the strength of a guy like Brandon Jacobs.  Totally unrealistic.  There should hardly be any 90 speed running backs and those guys should have much smaller strength, technique, etc.  There should only be 1 or 2 players at each position that have HOF ratings and I'm not just talking about freshman, I mean in the game as a whole (per world).

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moranis on 8/15/2012 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
100% agree with all norberts thoughts.  Also agree that ATH could be eliminated without any problem as all it does is cause confusion.  Although, also agree that because of the ratings ceilings at D1A that something has to be a deciding factor.  So many of the top teams are similar talentwise with 90/90 core guys that the tiebreaker isn't a bad idea.

If you get rid of ATH and there is no "tiebreaker", I would suggest raising the rating ceilings of cores.... so you can only recruit 90/90/90 guys still, but similar to the lower levels, the ones who can be developed more turn into 96 type guys and the stubborn, lazy ***** stick in the 91 area... This creates more of a talent gap at D1A.  This also solves the problem of the 3 yard runs every down... since everyone was so similar.

It was much easier to stop at lower levels, contrary to popular belief, because of the talent differences that could be achieved.

Frankly they need to do a large scale revamp of hte ratings across the board.  The users are correct that say Speed and Strength should be the same no matter the position.  If the guy is a 90, then he should be a 90 no matter his position. 

If that isn't realistic, then they should at least have realistic distributions in the stats.  QB is about the only position where the ratings make sense i.e. very few 90 ratings.  The Andrew Lucks' of the world should be very rare and they are in this game at his position, but ten running backs seems to have Dickerson's speed and elusiveness coupled with the strength of a guy like Brandon Jacobs.  Totally unrealistic.  There should hardly be any 90 speed running backs and those guys should have much smaller strength, technique, etc.  There should only be 1 or 2 players at each position that have HOF ratings and I'm not just talking about freshman, I mean in the game as a whole (per world).

I'm not sure I understand the difference.  I think I agree with you, but basically if I understand right -

You are saying lower the ratings of the recruits in the pool.

I am saying raise the ceiling at which the recruits can become.

Correct?  If so it's the same thing...    I didn't spend a whole lot of time recruiting with my last team, but I do remember there only being a couple of 90/90/90 RB (Just to use as an example) in the world.

The problem is.... those 90/90/90 RB end up 93/93/93 with high potential or 92/92/92 with average potential.  The same as a 86/86/86 guy does.  The same as a 80/80/80 guy does with high potential and good WE. 

They all end up the same player regardless.  Now the 80/80/80 guy is going to max out at a 93/93/93 after 4 years..... but the 90/90/90 guy with high potential could end up closer to the 100's.... and the average potential 90/90/90 still is stuck at 92/92/92....   More variation that way...

I'm kind of confusing myself with all of these numbers, but I hope my point is being made.  I don't want to raise the ceiling to 100 and be able to recruit guys at 99... The pool can stay the same, just raise the potential ceiling.

Hey "Beautiful Mind", stick to drinking.

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moranis on 8/15/2012 3:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
100% agree with all norberts thoughts.  Also agree that ATH could be eliminated without any problem as all it does is cause confusion.  Although, also agree that because of the ratings ceilings at D1A that something has to be a deciding factor.  So many of the top teams are similar talentwise with 90/90 core guys that the tiebreaker isn't a bad idea.

If you get rid of ATH and there is no "tiebreaker", I would suggest raising the rating ceilings of cores.... so you can only recruit 90/90/90 guys still, but similar to the lower levels, the ones who can be developed more turn into 96 type guys and the stubborn, lazy ***** stick in the 91 area... This creates more of a talent gap at D1A.  This also solves the problem of the 3 yard runs every down... since everyone was so similar.

It was much easier to stop at lower levels, contrary to popular belief, because of the talent differences that could be achieved.

Frankly they need to do a large scale revamp of hte ratings across the board.  The users are correct that say Speed and Strength should be the same no matter the position.  If the guy is a 90, then he should be a 90 no matter his position. 

If that isn't realistic, then they should at least have realistic distributions in the stats.  QB is about the only position where the ratings make sense i.e. very few 90 ratings.  The Andrew Lucks' of the world should be very rare and they are in this game at his position, but ten running backs seems to have Dickerson's speed and elusiveness coupled with the strength of a guy like Brandon Jacobs.  Totally unrealistic.  There should hardly be any 90 speed running backs and those guys should have much smaller strength, technique, etc.  There should only be 1 or 2 players at each position that have HOF ratings and I'm not just talking about freshman, I mean in the game as a whole (per world).

I'm not sure I understand the difference.  I think I agree with you, but basically if I understand right -

You are saying lower the ratings of the recruits in the pool.

I am saying raise the ceiling at which the recruits can become.

Correct?  If so it's the same thing...    I didn't spend a whole lot of time recruiting with my last team, but I do remember there only being a couple of 90/90/90 RB (Just to use as an example) in the world.

The problem is.... those 90/90/90 RB end up 93/93/93 with high potential or 92/92/92 with average potential.  The same as a 86/86/86 guy does.  The same as a 80/80/80 guy does with high potential and good WE. 

They all end up the same player regardless.  Now the 80/80/80 guy is going to max out at a 93/93/93 after 4 years..... but the 90/90/90 guy with high potential could end up closer to the 100's.... and the average potential 90/90/90 still is stuck at 92/92/92....   More variation that way...

I'm kind of confusing myself with all of these numbers, but I hope my point is being made.  I don't want to raise the ceiling to 100 and be able to recruit guys at 99... The pool can stay the same, just raise the potential ceiling.

Posted by polabonez on 8/15/2012 2:33:00 PM (view original):
100% agree with all norberts thoughts.  Also agree that ATH could be eliminated without any problem as all it does is cause confusion.  Although, also agree that because of the ratings ceilings at D1A that something has to be a deciding factor.  So many of the top teams are similar talentwise with 90/90 core guys that the tiebreaker isn't a bad idea.

If you get rid of ATH and there is no "tiebreaker", I would suggest raising the rating ceilings of cores.... so you can only recruit 90/90/90 guys still, but similar to the lower levels, the ones who can be developed more turn into 96 type guys and the stubborn, lazy ***** stick in the 91 area... This creates more of a talent gap at D1A.  This also solves the problem of the 3 yard runs every down... since everyone was so similar.

It was much easier to stop at lower levels, contrary to popular belief, because of the talent differences that could be achieved.