Rugby 2012 Team Ratings?

[donmcdazzle]

So Australia and South Africa are better then France, Ireland & England at the moment.

More to the point, Australia are the 2nd best in the world, are they?

Yes, and yes.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I guess you could combine IRB rankings and the star system

5 stars to top 5 teams: NZ, AUS,SA FRA, IRE
4.5 to the next three: ENG, SCO, ARG
4.0 to the next three:WAL, FIJI, ITL
3.5 to the next 5 so on and so on pretty rough but you get the idea

I think this is actually the best way to do it rather than the overall made up number out of 100.

 

[Teh Mite]

Name one sports game (not motorsports) that is as fully simulated as what you think we woud like?

Your idea is ridiculous, make the top 4 or 5 teams the same, the next 4 or 5 a bit worse and so forth.. that's stupid. To borrow from your fifa analogy, you can definitely take down the likes of chelsea and barcelona using a lesser team if you are a better player. But if two equal players went head to head one used chelsea and one used, say, west ham, then the chelsea guy would win most of the time. Better players in real life should be better in the game too, I'm not sure which sports games (not motorsports) you've played that don't use philosophy? Games like FIFA, madden, even tennis games have their teams and players ranked based on their real life counterparts. There's no point even using the proper players and teams if you are going to ignore how good they are in real life and just make everyone the same.

Using the argument I made against my point isn't going to win a debate. Read the rest of the thread instead of picking a fight.

So Australia and South Africa are better then France, Ireland & England at the moment.

More to the point, Australia are the 2nd best in the world, are they?

Yes, and yes.

Well that's a ******* sad indictment for rugby union if so.

 

[alex]

if they make all the stats editable for everything (offline) then everyone would be happy.

 

[Duckdee]

if they make all the stats editable for everything (offline) then everyone would be happy.

Except those against editable stats.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

So Australia and South Africa are better then France, Ireland & England at the moment.

More to the point, Australia are the 2nd best in the world, are they?

Of course they are at the moment now go and try argue against it. Thats right you can't it's the official ranking, maybe by the end of their Tour they might come down a peg or two but they made real progress throughout the tri-nations and I think they'll carve some teams up. Could be wrong.

 

[Teh Mite]

A couple of wins over South Africa and getting beat by nigh on everyone (including Scotland) in the past 12 months hardly reads like the 2nd best team in the world to me. Regardless, that's off topic.

 

[donmcdazzle]

A couple of wins over South Africa and getting beat by nigh on everyone (including Scotland) in the past 12 months hardly reads like the 2nd best team in the world to me. Regardless, that's off topic.

You brought it up in the first place we were just answering your questions.

Now you're ignoring the other points people make. I'm sure if your club/international team was the best you would want them represented as such. Be it the star system or the points system, the best teams/players should be the best rated; the sort of crazy logic sports games have been using forever.

 

[Teh Mite]

You brought it up in the first place we were just answering your questions.

Now you're ignoring the other points people make. I'm sure if your club/international team was the best you would want them represented as such. Be it the star system or the points system, the best teams/players should be the best rated; the sort of crazy logic sports games have been using forever.

I've already explained to you once that I'm not precious about that sort of thing. If I have to again I shan't even bother answering you.

However, (hypothetically speaking) if the teams I'm most likely to use often happen to be "the best in the game", I wouldn't want them to be clear cut ahead of all the opposition, making it too easy when using them or annoying infuriating just because their stats are set too high when playing against them. The likeley there hood being Northampton and England, of which Northampton will likely be there abouts as one of the top-rated clubs (say 4 or 5 evenly matched top sides from the 12 Premiership teams). I want it to feel like you've won or lost a game because you've out-played the opposition or cunningly been undone, not because somebody with an excel spreadsheet got over zealous during the development stage.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I've already explained to you once that I'm not precious about that sort of thing. If I have to again I shan't even bother answering you.

However, (hypothetically speaking) if the teams I'm most likely to use often happen to be "the best in the game", I wouldn't want them to be clear cut ahead of all the opposition, making it too easy when using them or annoying infuriating just because their stats are set too high when playing against them. The likeley there hood being Northampton and England, of which Northampton will likely be there abouts as one of the top-rated clubs (say 4 or 5 evenly matched top sides from the 12 Premiership teams). I want it to feel like you've won or lost a game because you've out-played the opposition or cunningly been undone, not because somebody with an excel spreadsheet got over zealous during the development stage.

Yeah i can understand that actually, I often don't use NZ in rugby games as my mates always want to use them and I feel like it's more of a challenge against them than with them. I think I get what you originally meant now so I apologise for criticsing your views. International footy is pretty close these days at the top level so it would be no good having a team with a constant advantage over all others. I guess it's a challlenge for the developers to make the teams in a way that theyre different, but not too much so. I still think the best players/teams should be rated as such, but without making it cheap or annoying to play against them.

 

[scarletaled]

I think it would be good if the teams have an overall rating, defence, attack and set piece. that will go for the league teams as well as international.

wales for instance have a dangerous backline, but a side like england can dominate upfront. then theres teams like france who are strong at the set piece as well as having amazing attacking flair.

you see teams, england, south africa, ireland, italy, argentina, all use a forward orrientated game.
then theres nz, wales, australia, france etc who enjoy to run with the ball in hand. i think that could come into the game somehow.

 

[Teh Mite]

Sounds like a good idea - Going with that theme a managerial tweak to set the styles of play (regardless of what a teams particular strengths are) so you could pick particulars about the gameplan (e.g set-piece/counter-attack/territory-kicking/running from everywhere) with either a, say, pick 3 options out of 7 or every time you pick one type the others become less effective may help to improve the depth and longevity of the game.

This could also make it more tactical for squad selections - e.g. A running team will want a more mobile pack but a crash ball team will want a lot of grunts in the mid-field and fast wingers to exploit the gaps.

 

[dan the man]

Team Ratings should be worked out from the people in the selected match day 22. This would mean that a full strength English team might get a rating of 89 and a full strength New Zealand team might get a rating of 94 (don't jump down my throat about the numbers, they're just an example) but if, for whatever reason Dan Carter, Richie McCaw, Piri Weepu and Brad Thorn weren't picked, the New Zealand team rating might drop down to about 83.

I also think that form and morale should actually affect the individual player ratings. If Richie McCaw had been injured for 6 months then his form and morale would be way down, and instead of his rating being 96 it could be down to about 84 (again the numbers are just an example) and this would affect his overall team rating to.

Having the Team and Player Ratings fluctuate would encourage you to give bench players a bit more gametime to keep their form and morale up.
This would also mean that although your chances would be better when playing as NZ, SA or AUS. Any team could win on a good day.

 

[SavageLez]

Brilliant idea! It would be great if the overall team rating got stronger or weaker depending on the substitute and/or player getting injured.

 

[King_D'Arcy]

Team Ratings should be worked out from the people in the selected match day 22. This would mean that a full strength English team might get a rating of 89 and a full strength New Zealand team might get a rating of 94 (don't jump down my throat about the numbers, they're just an example) but if, for whatever reason Dan Carter, Richie McCaw, Piri Weepu and Brad Thorn weren't picked, the New Zealand team rating might drop down to about 83.

I also think that form and morale should actually affect the individual player ratings. If Richie McCaw had been injured for 6 months then his form and morale would be way down, and instead of his rating being 96 it could be down to about 84 (again the numbers are just an example) and this would affect his overall team rating to.

Having the Team and Player Ratings fluctuate would encourage you to give bench players a bit more gametime to keep their form and morale up.
This would also mean that although your chances would be better when playing as NZ, SA or AUS. Any team could win on a good day.

It is a good idea. It's asking quite a lot though. Sports games which would have a much hugher budget like PES, FIFA and Madden wouldn't even have team or player details this fine

 

[dan the man]

Yeah, I'm aware that there is a limited budget for Rugby 2012. But i think that this system would be better than just giving set numbers/stars to each team

 

[Dizzy]

It sucks that this project is on such a tight budget... We'd love to have so much more in the sport that we all love to bits but due to budget restrictions we will never get a game that fully satisfies us....

 

[dan the man]

If we all rush out and 'BUY' the game once it's released, and it makes surprisingly good sales then maybe EA would come onboard with the next release... they've got plenty of $$$ :lol:

 

[Dizzy]

Yeah but there aren't too many of us and Im quite certain most of us will be rushing to buy it when it is first released and it won't have that much of an impact on the sales anyway... After the initial release and everyone buys their copy sales after that will drop and we probably wont have another game until the next World Cup.

 

[Hamez]

Yeah but there aren't too many of us and Im quite certain most of us will be rushing to buy it when it is first released and it won't have that much of an impact on the sales anyway... After the initial release and everyone buys their copy sales after that will drop and we probably wont have another game until the next World Cup.

Which I wont care about if its a great grame.