Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: jdhalfrack

IMO even Weight and Height should be included in a better system. Weight affects blocking and Height affects catching.

also weight at the higher end also affects speed

I know about this, but I have a question: how does it affect speed, etc...? In your opinion, anyway.

Basically, Is it pretty much linear? Like will the smallest weight effects speed "the best" and the heaviest weight will affect it "the worst?" Or is it like a bell curve where it peaks at the middle? Same with blocking, catching, etc...

Also, is the range from 5'5" to 6'6" and 175 lbs to 310 lb? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Any suggestions are appreciated! Thanks guys!

JD

I think a bell curve would be about right
and the weights go to a max of 315 lbs and height to 6'10" I believe

Okay, here is an updated spreadsheet for you guys to test out.

Max FB Overall Ratings Spreadheet

I included Height and Weight. Height affects the CATCHING rating "behind the scenes" before the CATCHING rating is used in the OVERALL rating. Weight affects the SPEED, STRENGTH, and BLOCKING ratings "behind the scenes" before any of them are used in the OVERALL rating.

Unhide all cells to see the actual formulas (if that interests you). Otherwise, just plug in some numbers and tell me what you think.

JD

Impressive............
ran a good few sets of numbers through it
not an extensive test more a long quick test

But I have to say, it works for me
figures being produced are very realistic in my humble opinion
it Rocks

I would just like to say that I agree that Weight should effect blocking, but its hard to say if weight effects speed.  But I DO beleive that weight can effect endurance of a player.  The simple formula E=mc^2 helps prove this.  It takes more energy move a large mass as fast as you can.  Granted, players aren't going to travel mach speed or something, but I bet a 315 Ib. Linemen is going to use up a heck of a lot more energy compared to a 180 Ib Wide Receiver at the same velocity.

but I bet a 315 Ib. Linemen is going to use up a heck of a lot more energy compared to a 180 Ib Wide Receiver at the same velocity

can a 315 lb lineman even move as fast as a 180 lb reciever....... that was the point
it doesnt mean a lineman is a lumbering ox, he can still pocess speed of reaction etc.

If you dont think weight affect speed...............
find me someone 315 lb and send him to me, I'm around 170 lb, I'll race him over 50 metres
now who's ya' money on................[:D][;)][:'(]

My money is on Mykal....of course.

ORIGINAL: Mykal

can a 315 lb lineman even move as fast as a 180 lb reciever....... that was the point
it doesnt mean a lineman is a lumbering ox, he can still pocess speed of reaction etc.

If you dont think weight affect speed...............
find me someone 315 lb and send him to me, I'm around 170 lb, I'll race him over 50 metres
now who's ya' money on................[:D][;)][:'(]

MyKal, what I'm trying to say is that weight probably does effect speed of a player, but not directly. In the NFL there are actually some quite fast Defensive Ends that could probably run like lightning compared to the average person. But the point I was saying is how long can they maintain that speed? I bet over a long period of time, his mass would factor into his speed indirectly causing him to slow down and for a fast WR to maintain high velocity because he would have less mass to deal with.

Yep I'm with ya' bro

It actually factors in right from the offset though,
I certainly dont have any E=mc squared quotes to offer, not even sure I understand them anyway

But...............

I was in my younger days a sprinter who represented my county
and then after this I played american football in the BAFL

my 100 metre sprint time was around 3/10 of a second slower why ?

My belief is weight, as a sprinter I was around my present weight about 160 lbs at that time
but whilst playing in the BAFL I had hit the weights like crazy and was around 210 lbs but no less lean and fit

I wasnt carrying any excess weight (fat) and certainly hadnt let my fittness slip,
so the difference in speed over even 100 metres has to have been body mass

now to the average Joe on the street, I still probarbly appeared to move like lightening
and this was actually my main assett as a wide out, I was just so much faster than most
but I knew I was a good quater second slower over 100m

So that was why I posted my comments, nothing scientiffic about it (not my thing)
just plain old observation and common sence applied to something I experienced myself.

EDIT - typo's, hahaha

ORIGINAL: jdhalfrack

Okay, as part of my new editor, I have given users the ability to "manipulate" the "OVERALL" rating formulas. Basically, I just allow users to manipulate the weighting of each skill.

However, I am attaching a spreadsheet ( Max FB Overall Ratings Spreadheet) with the default formulas for you to experiment with. The formulas are based off of the Madden rating formulas (which your truly finally cracked over at Football-Freaks.com). The numbers that are bolded are the skills that actually affect OVERALL ratings. For example, Kick Strength for a QB will not affect the OVERALL rating of the QB.

To get the full effect, unhide all cells. That will give you the option to see the full formula.

Let me know what you think after you put in some values to test. If you don't like a certain result, post the skill ratings and overall rating and tell me why you think it should be different.

JD

I had a much longer look at this JD
it all seems to be fine and dandy
except, you totally missed out Coverage for Linebackers and DB's

I don't like the way that each rating has the same "weight" in determining the effectiveness of a player. For example, PSS and PSA on a HB/FB/WR should barely be included (if at all). It should not be on the same level as SPD and HND. I know you can "double" or even "triple" the weighting of some skills by using the Profile, but even then, it still seems a little too close.

PSS and PSA are not used for HB/FB/WR.

HND doesn't mean much for many players either. It would be nice if it was taken into account when trying to catch balls in traffic or balls that are not on the numbers, but that is not the case.

The way it was done was to take the stats that are used by that player position and add them up. They are weighted by the skills selected in the team profile.

One can do it anyway one wants, but this was much better than what had been in the game.

ORIGINAL: Marauders

I don't like the way that each rating has the same "weight" in determining the effectiveness of a player. For example, PSS and PSA on a HB/FB/WR should barely be included (if at all). It should not be on the same level as SPD and HND. I know you can "double" or even "triple" the weighting of some skills by using the Profile, but even then, it still seems a little too close.

PSS and PSA are not used for HB/FB/WR.

HND doesn't mean much for many players either. It would be nice if it was taken into account when trying to catch balls in traffic or balls that are not on the numbers, but that is not the case.

The way it was done was to take the stats that are used by that player position and add them up. They are weighted by the skills selected in the team profile.

One can do it anyway one wants, but this was much better than what had been in the game.

Isn't the Hand attribute the indicator for how prone the player is for fumbling the ball?

Isn't the Hand attribute the indicator for how prone the player is for fumbling the ball?

 
Yes, that's it.  Using hands for fumbles is a good idea, but what else can good hands do?
 
Most of the time when a receiver is said to have "great hands" it is not because he doesn't fumble; it is because he can make the tough one handed catch or bring in the ball when in traffic. 
 
It is of my opinion that stats in football games should be used for various functions rather than be more limited to one thing or another.  It isn't a big deal, and is moot here.  It is what it is, and it isn't likely going to change.

I had a much longer look at this JD
it all seems to be fine and dandy
except, you totally missed out Coverage for Linebackers and DB's

Well, when the program is released, you will have the option to change that if you like. However, I read more detail about what COV actually means. Originally, I thought that it was how well a Corner covers, but it's not. From the MainData.mdb:

How aggressively does the player cover his assignment in man to man. Low values can mean more completions against player. Overly high values can mean more PI calls.

So, it's not really a rating of how WELL one covers, but just HOW one covers. Does that make sense?

JD

Oh, OK that explains that then

How very odd, Coverage means the same to me as your first thought,
oh well, it is was it is.

Welcome back!  I have a request as well - do you think it would be possible to save edits in a file, so if I make a randomizer again, instead of having everyone reput in my data manually, all they would have to do is load up my file (like an excel file or even a comma separated text file)?

Man, I just spent the last 20 minutes or so looking at my old global edits/randomization options in my old editors... Jesus I was good. I was a little TOO good. I can't remember how I did all that! So, it'll take me a bit to figure that out again. But, that's what I am working on next. I'll look into that import/export option too, but probably won;t be able to do much with it yet.

JD

I just spent the last 20 minutes or so looking at my old global edits/randomization options in my old editors... I was good. I was a little TOO good. I can't remember how I did all that! So, it'll take me a bit to figure that out again.

 
 
Oh no!
 
All of the Madden stuff has made you stupid. [;)]
 
Next thing ya know, you'll be wanting to play the game with five minute quarters to get better stats and start looking around for the Superfan feature.