Rugby 2012 Team Ratings?

[Hurricane Nate]

They should fluctuate depending in who is picked in the Match day 22, and players higher ratings would boost the overall team ratings. eg. if you were playing in the RWC and you came up against a relative minnow in your pool matches you might decide to rest your top players, this would lower your teams overall rank

This definitley needs to be added.

 

[Teh Mite]

Yea realistic as... just as in real life huh. Like I said the NH teams will make ground up as our season is coming to an end. By the end of the NH international season the IRB rankings would be the most fair way to do it. No speculation, no making **** up, no personal feelings just cold, hard proper rankings from actual rugby that has actually been played in the real world. We all want this game to be realistic don't we.

Either that or average out teams IRB ranking points over the last four years.

The last thing we want is another crappy "Realistic" game. What we want is a fun, challenging and well balanced game. "Realism" only produces pretty but boring shite like Gran Turismo (don't pretend otherwise, it is dull as dishwater), go down the route of balancing the stats with creative license and suddenly you create much more entertaining ***les like Grid or Forza.

Being as everyone is making a song and dance about Fifa for the comparisons, think of it like that: Barcelona or Chelsea generally wipe the floor with all comers, but that doesn't mean they're a 150% better then the rest of the game. They made sure that 90% to all the teams in their leagues are close enough stat wise to mean that equally skilled players don't get pathetic advantage through the choice of team they've used. Conversely, a cock proud Kiwi shouldn't have a massively unfair advantage just because in real life Horsea Gear is a better winger then David Strettle or because Mealamu is more of a fatass then Ross Ford.

Plus, if these gospel stats affect the game, that also means every sodding world cup final we'll all play in will be against the sodding All Blacks (assuming they don't continue the realism and make them choke in the 1/4 or Semi).

Conclusion: If you want a balanced game, both players pick tier 1. If you want a challenge, one picks tier 1 and one picks tier 2. If you want it very hard with noticeable ability difference, one from tier 1 and the other from tier 3. It should be about player skill, not pre-defined stats deciding the results.

******** to these "oh, NZ have to be a 99.97% rated team and the next best is barely 80% just becoz the All Blacks Roxors lol" calls.

 

[soapit]

take the irb rankings and add 100 to each so nz would then be 192, aus 186 and so on. good to have better teams but you dont want to make it so you can only use one of three teams if you want to win the world cup.

 

[alex]

The last thing we want is another crappy "Realistic" game. What we want is a fun, challenging and well balanced game. "Realism" only produces pretty but boring shite like Gran Turismo (don't pretend otherwise, it is dull as dishwater), go down the route of balancing the stats with creative license and suddenly you create much more entertaining ***les like Grid or Forza.

Being as everyone is making a song and dance about Fifa for the comparisons, think of it like that: Barcelona or Chelsea generally wipe the floor with all comers, but that doesn't mean they're a 150% better then the rest of the game. They made sure that 90% to all the teams in their leagues are close enough stat wise to mean that equally skilled players don't get pathetic advantage through the choice of team they've used. Conversely, a cock proud Kiwi shouldn't have a massively unfair advantage just because in real life Horsea Gear is a better winger then David Strettle or because Mealamu is more of a fatass then Ross Ford.

Plus, if these gospel stats affect the game, that also means every sodding world cup final we'll all play in will be against the sodding All Blacks (assuming they don't continue the realism and make them choke in the 1/4 or Semi).

Conclusion: If you want a balanced game, both players pick tier 1. If you want a challenge, one picks tier 1 and one picks tier 2. If you want it very hard with noticeable ability difference, one from tier 1 and the other from tier 3. It should be about player skill, not pre-defined stats deciding the results.

******** to these "oh, NZ have to be a 99.97% rated team and the next best is barely 80% just becoz the All Blacks Roxors lol" calls.

can you please stop making fun of New Zealanders?

 

[Hurricane Nate]

The last thing you want bullitt is a realistic rugby game, aanndd your numbers are off too. I agree with your view on gran turismo but thats car racing. Sports games such as rugby I think should be a fair reflection of real life, nearly everyone in here seems to want realistic player stats. But you don't seem to want accurate team stats?. I think upsets should be possible in this game definitely, teams always get up for matches against the ABs and that could be worked in somehow like giving advantages to the home side. You seem to just be angry that your teams are insufficient up there and you want this game to close the gap because in real life it ain't closing any time soon.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

 

[donmcdazzle]

The last thing you want bullitt is a realistic rugby game, aanndd your numbers are off too. I agree with your view on gran turismo but thats car racing. Sports games such as rugby I think should be a fair reflection of real life, nearly everyone in here seems to want realistic player stats. But you don't seem to want accurate team stats?. I think upsets should be possible in this game definitely, teams always get up for matches against the ABs and that could be worked in somehow like giving advantages to the home side. You seem to just be angry that your teams are insufficient up there and you want this game to close the gap because in real life it ain't closing any time soon.

Haha yeah spot on there, if England were beating everyone like 2003 i wonder whether Bullitt would want it to be realistic or not. The guy can not stop having a pop at NZers for whatever reason.

 

[ranger]

The last thing we want is another crappy "Realistic" game. What we want is a fun, challenging and well balanced game. "Realism" only produces pretty but boring shite like Gran Turismo (don't pretend otherwise, it is dull as dishwater), go down the route of balancing the stats with creative license and suddenly you create much more entertaining ***les like Grid or Forza.

Being as everyone is making a song and dance about Fifa for the comparisons, think of it like that: Barcelona or Chelsea generally wipe the floor with all comers, but that doesn't mean they're a 150% better then the rest of the game. They made sure that 90% to all the teams in their leagues are close enough stat wise to mean that equally skilled players don't get pathetic advantage through the choice of team they've used. Conversely, a cock proud Kiwi shouldn't have a massively unfair advantage just because in real life Horsea Gear is a better winger then David Strettle or because Mealamu is more of a fatass then Ross Ford.

Plus, if these gospel stats affect the game, that also means every sodding world cup final we'll all play in will be against the sodding All Blacks (assuming they don't continue the realism and make them choke in the 1/4 or Semi).

Conclusion: If you want a balanced game, both players pick tier 1. If you want a challenge, one picks tier 1 and one picks tier 2. If you want it very hard with noticeable ability difference, one from tier 1 and the other from tier 3. It should be about player skill, not pre-defined stats deciding the results.

******** to these "oh, NZ have to be a 99.97% rated team and the next best is barely 80% just becoz the All Blacks Roxors lol" calls.

Haha what a load of shite that is.
If Hosea Gear is better than Strettle in real life, then Hosea Gear should be better than Strettle in the game. If Kevin Mealamu (Who happens to be a midget and not much of a fatass) is a better player than Ross Ford, then he should be better in the game. I can't see how anyone sane person could argue against that.

 

[Teh Mite]

The last thing you want bullitt is a realistic rugby game, aanndd your numbers are off too. I agree with your view on gran turismo but thats car racing. Sports games such as rugby I think should be a fair reflection of real life, nearly everyone in here seems to want realistic player stats. But you don't seem to want accurate team stats?. I think upsets should be possible in this game definitely, teams always get up for matches against the ABs and that could be worked in somehow like giving advantages to the home side. You seem to just be angry that your teams are insufficient up there and you want this game to close the gap because in real life it ain't closing any time soon.

If stats and records are all that matter to you, buy a book. I get the impression you don't understand this is supposed to be a VIDEO GAME, not a historical document.

I couldn't care less that New Zealand are in a run of form in real life, nor does it matter that Ireland are way off the boil, this is supposed a game with lots of choice for the gameplay experience, not a device for sucking up to anyone or masaging your ego.

You ever noticed (for example) on a Formula 1 game it's possible to win on hard mode even with a supposedly slow team? That's because the balence the gameplahy for the player. That's how it works - If they went for "realism", you wouldn't stand a chance of winning.

A realistic rugby game would mean we'd spend 40 of the game not doing anything, have endless reset scrums, ping-pong kicking contests ( you can f right off if you're going to reply that only NH teams do that n'all) and the option to issude desth threats to the ref after beating up the wif. Yawn.

Then bare in mind that the NPC teams would never bother tackling, the French would never play because they're perminantly fighting, Wasps would have uncontested scrums every match, the Celts would never play a full strength team, the Super 14 lot would play in empty stadia for half the season and the zworld cup mode could only be played drunk in the middle of the night.

One more thing - If you make a team have a clear cut advantage over the rest, that means that every ******* online game you play for the rest of eternity will be "New Zealand vs New Zealand", which will ware thin very quickly.

Lets have something designed to be fun, thankyou very much. Not the perfect simulation, which in all honesty would be boring as sin - I dor one would rather get that by standing on the terrace with a guinness in my hand or record the weekends matches and watch them later in the week. I doubt I'm the only one.

 

[Teh Mite]

Haha what a load of shite that is.
If Hosea Gear is better than Strettle in real life, then Hosea Gear should be better than Strettle in the game. If Kevin Mealamu (Who happens to be a midget and not much of a fatass) is a better player than Ross Ford, then he should be better in the game. I can't see how anyone sane person could argue against that.

But what you lot are asking for an unfair advantage to anyone who picks NZ instead of thinking of a wider picture (e.g. making the team/individual players all have certain strengths and weaknesses thus designing gameplay variation and a challenge)

Or, you could have a remake of Rugby 08 with blindly one sided stats then get bored of it within a month. But hey, at least New Zealand would be the best team in the game by a considerable margin, right?

 

[Teh Mite]

Haha yeah spot on there, if England were beating everyone like 2003 i wonder whether Bullitt would want it to be realistic or not. The guy can not stop having a pop at NZers for whatever reason.

Wrong. I'm not precious like you lot. And I'd play club rugby all the time anyway, not Test matches.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

If stats and records are all that matter to you, buy a book. I get the impression you don't understand this is supposed to be a VIDEO GAME, not a historical document.

I couldn't care less that New Zealand are in a run of form in real life, nor does it matter that Ireland are way off the boil, this is supposed a game with lots of choice for the gameplay experience, not a device for sucking up to anyone or masaging your ego.

You ever noticed (for example) on a Formula 1 game it's possible to win on hard mode even with a supposedly slow team? That's because the balence the gameplahy for the player. That's how it works - If they went for "realism", you wouldn't stand a chance of winning.

A realistic rugby game would mean we'd spend 40 of the game not doing anything, have endless reset scrums, ping-pong kicking contests ( you can f right off if you're going to reply that only NH teams do that n'all) and the option to issude desth threats to the ref after beating up the wif. Yawn.

Then bare in mind that the NPC teams would never bother tackling, the French would never play because they're perminantly fighting, Wasps would have uncontested scrums every match, the Celts would never play a full strength team, the Super 14 lot would play in empty stadia for half the season and the zworld cup mode could only be played drunk in the middle of the night.

One more thing - If you make a team have a clear cut advantage over the rest, that means that every ******* online game you play for the rest of eternity will be "New Zealand vs New Zealand", which will ware thin very quickly.

Lets have something designed to be fun, thankyou very much. Not the perfect simulation, which in all honesty would be boring as sin - I dor one would rather get that by standing on the terrace with a guinness in my hand or record the weekends matches and watch them later in the week. I doubt I'm the only one.

I've never said stats and records are all that are important at any time. I'm interested to know what your feelings are on player ratings? realistic or not?. My view is with all the guessing and personal feelings toward which team should be rated what it should just be down to their IRB ranking as it is the only non bias method. I actually couldn't give a crap what NZ was ranked so long as they were number one in the game if that was where their IRB ranking put them. Even if they were only better than the next team by one point in the game. It is supposed to be a game with lots of choice for the gameplay but they also need to have realistic non bias rankings of the teams just to be fair. Keep the order of the IRB rankings at the end of the season but make their stats closer, SOLVED.

 

[ranger]

But what you lot are asking for an unfair advantage to anyone who picks NZ instead of thinking of a wider picture (e.g. making the team/individual players all have certain strengths and weaknesses thus designing gameplay variation and a challenge)

Or, you could have a remake of Rugby 08 with blindly one sided stats then get bored of it within a month. But hey, at least New Zealand would be the best team in the game by a considerable margin, right?

Upsets happen in real life. Injuries in critical positions, poor team selection, negative team chemistry/ poor combination's, bad tactics, big match temperament (yes, i mean the All Blacks at the world cup) could be programmed in to hinder teams. Also Positive team chemistry/great combinations, homefield advantage, good tactics etc etc could help teams.
The All Blacks aren't invincible, but i would be right ****** off if Corey Jane and Conrad Smith start getting bossed by Cueto and Tindall.

I can see where you are coming from, but good players should get good ratings. Thats pretty clear cut. Try telling basketball fans that the Lakers, Heat and Celtics should have their stats reduced so that other teams can beat them. You would get yelled down by all comers. So the All Blacks would be the best team, it just makes it more of a challenge to beat them, i don't see the problem with that.

 

[Teh Mite]

How about as mentioned earlier using the star system instead: New Zealand, France, SA, England, Ireland & Wales at 5*, Aus at 4.5*, Scitland & Italy at 4* then the Tier 2 & minnows follow suit as thus.

If the rankings are that important, the can be seperate in the records similar to the "My Rugby" section of previous games and dynamically alter depending on what the player does over the lifespan of the game.

 

[Hurricane Nate]

Rough example

1. NZ 94
2. Aus 93
3. SA 93
4. France 91
5. Ireland 91
6. England 90
7. Scotland 88
8. Argentina 88
9. Wales 85
10. Fiji 80
11. Italy 79
12. Samoa 79
13. Japan 79
14. Canada 75
15. USA 70
16. Tonga 70
17. Georgia 69
18. Russia 65
19. Romania 65
20. Nambia 62

IRB rankings kept in order, no massive differencies, no personal feelings, no making **** up.

 

[ranger]

How about as mentioned earlier using the star system instead: New Zealand, France, SA, England, Ireland & Wales at 5*, Aus at 4.5*, Scitland & Italy at 4* then the Tier 2 & minnows follow suit as thus.

If the rankings are that important, the can be seperate in the records similar to the "My Rugby" section of previous games and dynamically alter depending on what the player does over the lifespan of the game.

That doesn't solve the issue of the individual player ratings.. Are you wanting all the players to be the same or what?

 

[Hurricane Nate]

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

 

[Teh Mite]

This thread is about "Team ratings" is it not? Players will be different, of course. But again it needs to be balenced - Jonah Lomu isn't playing any more, so there shouldn't be an almighty "do everything" player. I dunno, Habana, Ashton Sivivatu and AN.Other (for example) could be the quickest in the game and they could all have superb sidesteps, but lets say their clearance kicking is very average and they're a bit shakey under the high balls. Maybe it doesn't completely represent each players, but it does make them the deadly finishers that people who use their respective teams will work to put into space before giving them a pass.

A lot of direction on teams ability should come from the half backs, so while Carter is by a margin the best 10 in the world and Nick Evans should be a close 2nd, really NZ only have Stephen Donald as backup. This should have a baring on the overall strength in depth is just as important as the first XV.

Rough example

1. NZ 94
2. Aus 93
3. SA 93
4. France 91
5. Ireland 91
6. England 90
7. Scotland 88
8. Argentina 88
9. Wales 85
10. Fiji 80
11. Italy 79
12. Samoa 79
13. Japan 79
14. Canada 75
15. USA 70
16. Tonga 70
17. Georgia 69
18. Russia 65
19. Romania 65
20. Nambia 62

IRB rankings kept in order, no massive differencies, no personal feelings, no making **** up.

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?

 

[ranger]

This thread is about "Team ratings" is it not? Players will be different, of course. But again it needs to be balenced - Jonah Lomu isn't playing any more, so there shouldn't be an almighty "do everything" player. I dunno, Habana, Ashton Sivivatu and AN.Other (for example) could be the quickest in the game and they could all have superb sidesteps, but lets say their clearance kicking is very average and they're a bit shakey under the high balls. Maybe it doesn't completely represent each players, but it does make them the deadly finishers that people who use their respective teams will work to put into space before giving them a pass.

A lot of direction on teams ability should come from the half backs, so while Carter is by a margin the best 10 in the world and Nick Evans should be a close 2nd, really NZ only have Stephen Donald as backup. This should have a baring on the overall strength in depth is just as important as the first XV.



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?

Okay, but i assumed that the Team ratings would be dependent on the players within those teams.. So All Blacks with Carter and McCaw = 90 something, All Blacks with Donald and Braid = 80 something.
So the stats of the players that made up the teams would be very important. If you gave Ireland the same rating as New Zealand you have to think that their players would be rated the same.

Also, im fully against a "do everything player" aswell. That goes for Brian O'Driscoll who has been ridiculously better than anyone else in the last games.
I really think that the stats should mirror real life as much as possible. Tom Varndell and Tonderai Chavaga should be the fastest players in the game, but they should fail in other areas just like they do in real life.
Chris Ashton would be a better allround player than Varndell and it would be better to have him in the England team. I think that the game could work out fine if the stats are given out accurately. The difference between Sivivatu and Ashton is negligible in real life anyway.

 

[donmcdazzle]

If stats and records are all that matter to you, buy a book. I get the impression you don't understand this is supposed to be a VIDEO GAME, not a historical document.

I couldn't care less that New Zealand are in a run of form in real life, nor does it matter that Ireland are way off the boil, this is supposed a game with lots of choice for the gameplay experience, not a device for sucking up to anyone or masaging your ego.

You ever noticed (for example) on a Formula 1 game it's possible to win on hard mode even with a supposedly slow team? That's because the balence the gameplahy for the player. That's how it works - If they went for "realism", you wouldn't stand a chance of winning.

A realistic rugby game would mean we'd spend 40 of the game not doing anything, have endless reset scrums, ping-pong kicking contests ( you can f right off if you're going to reply that only NH teams do that n'all) and the option to issude desth threats to the ref after beating up the wif. Yawn.

Then bare in mind that the NPC teams would never bother tackling, the French would never play because they're perminantly fighting, Wasps would have uncontested scrums every match, the Celts would never play a full strength team, the Super 14 lot would play in empty stadia for half the season and the zworld cup mode could only be played drunk in the middle of the night.

One more thing - If you make a team have a clear cut advantage over the rest, that means that every ******* online game you play for the rest of eternity will be "New Zealand vs New Zealand", which will ware thin very quickly.

Lets have something designed to be fun, thankyou very much. Not the perfect simulation, which in all honesty would be boring as sin - I dor one would rather get that by standing on the terrace with a guinness in my hand or record the weekends matches and watch them later in the week. I doubt I'm the only one.

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.