If they gave players their actual ratings, there would be 99 overall, 98 overall, and 97 overall cards at the beginning of the game. Those players would be too expensive for NMS players and would completely ruin the skill gap. I get where you're coming from, but that would basically kill all the hype around new players coming out.
Not necessarily. They can leave a little at the top for Legends and others. How many people should honestly have a 99 rating each year (maybe 1 or 2)?? They would just need to tweak the scale overall. The way they do it now... giving guys who should objectively be in the low-to-mid-90's a low-to-mid-80 rating at the start... has nothing to do with competition. It is so they can release 5+ cards for popular players to stimulate purchases.
The whole reason why they have the gamemode the way it is is that so there's almost a journey through the year of building up your team. When you start in August, your team might be an 80 overall. Then an 85 overall in November, a 90 overall in February, a 95 Overall in May, and a 99 overall in the following August. Nobody wants 90+ cards running around the field when majority of cards that are out are below 85
I agree they would have to reimagine how they approach it to make it work the way I described. But they could make it work. And it would be much more realistic. The majority of NFL players are average or slightly above. Very few players are 90+ if compared to their peers on a 100 point scale. In fact, on a 100 point scale, the only players who should be above the low 90's are legends and current all-pro caliber players. They could introduce the former throughout the year (putting out the lesser legends first and best later). And the universe of high-80s and low-90's would still further expand throughout the year as TOTW's, Flashbacks, promo's came out. Instead of getting 8 Khalil Mack's... you would actually get some seriously intriguing lesser knowns who progress substantially based on performance throughout the year. It would be different... no doubt. But it could be done. And your team would still improve as the year went along.
It is the way it is now, so folks have to constantly re-acquire the same popular cards to keep their roster relevent (that leads to more purchases). They also know that a relative few players entice people to buy the most packs. That is understandable as EA is a business. But let's not pretend that isn't the case or that the current model is the only one that would work for consumers.
So you want them to entirely revamp their rating system? That's easier said than done. I'd rather pay for 8 Randy Moss cards than be stuck with 1 90 rated card the entire year. I just think that would kill all the hype
If they gave players their actual ratings, there would be 99 overall, 98 overall, and 97 overall cards at the beginning of the game. Those players would be too expensive for NMS players and would completely ruin the skill gap. I get where you're coming from, but that would basically kill all the hype around new players coming out.
Not necessarily. They can leave a little at the top for Legends and others. How many people should honestly have a 99 rating each year (maybe 1 or 2)?? They would just need to tweak the scale overall. The way they do it now... giving guys who should objectively be in the low-to-mid-90's a low-to-mid-80 rating at the start... has nothing to do with competition. It is so they can release 5+ cards for popular players to stimulate purchases.
Edited by GSUMetz21
The whole reason why they have the gamemode the way it is is that so there's almost a journey through the year of building up your team. When you start in August, your team might be an 80 overall. Then an 85 overall in November, a 90 overall in February, a 95 Overall in May, and a 99 overall in the following August. Nobody wants 90+ cards running around the field when majority of cards that are out are below 85
I agree they would have to reimagine how they approach it to make it work the way I described. But they could make it work. And it would be much more realistic. The majority of NFL players are average or slightly above. Very few players are 90+ if compared to their peers on a 100 point scale. In fact, on a 100 point scale, the only players who should be above the low 90's are legends and current all-pro caliber players. They could introduce the former throughout the year (putting out the lesser legends first and best later). And the universe of high-80s and low-90's would still further expand throughout the year as TOTW's, Flashbacks, promo's came out. Instead of getting 8 Khalil Mack's... you would actually get some seriously intriguing lesser knowns who progress substantially based on performance throughout the year. It would be different... no doubt. But it could be done. And your team would still improve as the year went along.
It is the way it is now, so folks have to constantly re-acquire the same popular cards to keep their roster relevent (that leads to more purchases). They also know that a relative few players entice people to buy the most packs. That is understandable as EA is a business. But let's not pretend that isn't the case or that the current model is the only one that would work for consumers.
Edited by GSUMetz21
So you want them to entirely revamp their rating system? That's easier said than done. I'd rather pay for 8 Randy Moss cards than be stuck with 1 90 rated card the entire year. I just think that would kill all the hype