Multiplat AFL Evolution 2

[AFL Canada]

Yes it is in the game. Names and Guernseys are made up, but the competition itself is in the game.

Thanks!

We're thinking about replicating the matches on Twitch when they would have been played.

 

[Treehill23]

Imagine this:

Evo 3 is released. Big Footy forums going off as usual at the start of an AFL games release
Sebastian Giompaolo gets notified of WW and BA going at it in the forums so he logs on only to see the hundreds of notifications with his name tagged in posts
However the plot thickens. He finally replies and we all get notified that the Evo 2 forums have a new post 2 years later because he hasn’t logged in since the last post he made about sales

 

[Schulzenfest]

Nice goal behind ratio for the AI here.

By the way I had Ivan Soldo named on the bench and set to second ruck. He came off the bench once. For the entire game, once. Nick Vlastuin rucked half of Q1 and Q3 and Nankervis rucked all of Q4 by himself.

 

[mike123]

150 players works out to roughly 8 players per team. There are some pretty shit AFL teams out there. I would’ve thought only the top 4-6 teams would get near 8 players above 85.

The top 4-6 teams probably have 10-12 85+ rated players whilst the bottom teams have much less.

 

[SugarShane]

I played NBA Live 97 and have pumped duck knows how much money into the NBA the past 23 years. Games, jerseys, tickets, merchandise, subscriptions to heaps if shut. List goes on. I’m sure lots of NBA and soccer fans were introduced by a game.

The AFL is pretty forward looking but backwards on not pumping in money. And it won’t happen for a while now.

It's weird. They are balls deep in all social media and a shit ton of it specifically targets youth. Yet at the same time they are just so unbelievably ignorant about video games as a marketing tool.

 

[SugarShane]

View attachment 862352
Nice goal behind ratio for the AI here.

By the way I had Ivan Soldo named on the bench and set to second ruck. He came off the bench once. For the entire game, once. Nick Vlastuin rucked half of Q1 and Q3 and Nankervis rucked all of Q4 by himself.

St Kilda 3:16 says "You just whooped our ass."

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

The top 4-6 teams probably have 10-12 85+ rated players whilst the bottom teams have much less.

Richmond players above an 85

Martin, Rance, Riewoldt, Lynch, Edwards, Grimes, Prestia, Lambert (?)

That’s 8 to the reigning premiers, even then Lambert is a maybe, Cotchin doesn’t need to be that high nor anyone else

80-84 you might start seeing those B+-A support guys

Sports games are more fun when you have distinct best players who can influence a game. I don’t want Fyfe and Martin just being one of twenty-two players

 

[treefingers]

My personal favourite bug from the WW list:

Bombers misspelling on banner as "BOMBRES"

 

[mike123]

Richmond players above an 85

Martin, Rance, Riewoldt, Lynch, Edwards, Grimes, Prestia, Lambert (?)

That’s 8 to the reigning premiers, even then Lambert is a maybe, Cotchin doesn’t need to be that high nor anyone else

80-84 you might start seeing those B+-A support guys

Sports games are more fun when you have distinct best players who can influence a game. I don’t want Fyfe and Martin just being one of twenty-two players

Cotchin, Grime, Broad, Houli, Vlaustin and would all be 85+. Astbury and Nankervis bprderline. B+ would should be 85-90. 90 for all the a graders.

 

[Old Stuckup]

My personal favourite bug from the WW list:

Bombers misspelling on banner as "BOMBRES"

Might not actually a bug.

 

[nick1408]

The top 4-6 teams probably have 10-12 85+ rated players whilst the bottom teams have much less.

I really disagree that 25% of players at Richmond are over 85.

I reference back to Football Manager as it has the best scouted players in any sports game. Liverpool currently have 6 players over the equivalent of 80+ out of 85 players on their list - less than 10% This is more or less the same throughout the game (EPL sides are typically a touch higher rated - it's a constant source of discussion on their forums)

Just for reference to my first comment - players at Richmond I would have over 85 (in no order):

Rance
Martin
Riewoldt
Cotchin
Grimes
Prestia
Lynch

That is 7. Others may argue that some may be higher/lower but the difference between 84 and 85 is minimal. Even then, 7 is maybe high but if Richmond are current flag favourites (they are) they can possibly be slightly over the average while GCS would be slightly under the average of 85+ players. I think realistically though, Richmond would have more players in the 75-85 range than GCS (and most clubs) do.

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

Cotchin, Grime, Broad, Houli, Vlaustin and would all be 85+. Astbury and Nankervis bprderline. B+ would should be 85-90. 90 for all the a graders.

I think using that system leads to the game feeling like there’s no difference between Fyfe vs a Swallow/Higgins quality player, when in reality, there’s a major difference.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Cotchin, Grime, Broad, Houli, Vlaustin and would all be 85+. Astbury and Nankervis bprderline. B+ would should be 85-90. 90 for all the a graders.

Broad? ****ing lol

 

[mike123]

I really disagree that 25% of players at Richmond are over 85.

I reference back to Football Manager as it has the best scouted players in any sports game. Liverpool currently have 6 players over the equivalent of 80+ out of 85 players on their list - less than 10% This is more or less the same throughout the game (EPL sides are typically a touch higher rated - it's a constant source of discussion on their forums)

Just for reference to my first comment - players at Richmond I would have over 85 (in no order):

Rance
Martin
Riewoldt
Cotchin
Grimes
Prestia
Lynch

That is 7. Others may argue that some may be higher/lower but the difference between 84 and 85 is minimal. Even then, 7 is maybe high but if Richmond are current flag favourites (they are) they can possibly be slightly over the average while GCS would be slightly under the average of 85+ players. I think realistically though, Richmond would have more players in the 75-85 range than GCS (and most clubs) do.

Soccer there’s only 11 on the pitch so 6 is more than half the players on the field.

I’m a sport where there’s 18 on the field and an additional 4 that rotate regularly it would make sense the have more players would have an 85 + rating.

Richmond would have more players in the 80-85 range than Gold Coast. I doubt anyone in the AFL that’s a best 22 at any club would be below 75. I’d imagine it would be same for the top 20 rated clubs in football manager and FIFA.

I know FIFA top 100 players are all above 85+. So 150 85+ rated players for a sport that has practically double the amount of players involved in any given game seems pretty fair.

 

[SSwans2011]

Bought a switch today and craving a sports game because of coronavirus.

Any suggestions on whether I should get Cricket 19 for $40 or this for $80? Is it worth waiting for a few more patches first or is it worth it to get my footy fix?

 

[mike123]

I think using that system leads to the game feeling like there’s no difference between Fyfe vs a Swallow/Higgins quality player, when in reality, there’s a major difference.

That’s because there isn’t enough stats IMO, there needs to be a clearance stat, roving stat, agility stat, ground ball, get stat then there should be additional player skills like they have in PES like long shot on the run, pressure snap shot, pirouette master, candy man, hang time specialist, fend off specialists, hand ball receiver, ect.

 

[nick1408]

Soccer there’s only 11 on the pitch so 6 is more than half the players on the field.

I’m a sport where there’s 18 on the field and an additional 4 that rotate regularly it would make sense the have more players would have an 85 + rating.

Richmond would have more players in the 80-85 range than Gold Coast. I doubt anyone in the AFL that’s a best 22 at any club would be below 75. I’d imagine it would be same for the top 20 rated clubs in football manager and FIFA.

I know FIFA top 100 players are all above 85+. So 150 85+ rated players for a sport that has practically double the amount of players involved in any given game seems pretty fair.

You're not just rating AFL players though. While Liverpool may have half their players on the field over 80 remember they are also 25 points clear on top of the table. Ranking Richmond nest to them isn't an equivalent unless Richmond was winning the H&A by about 4 games. My fault - I used a poor argument. I should have possibly used maybe a Manchester City or Chelsea.

I can't discuss FIFA - I don't play it (my opinion is they also over-rate players but not a discussion for here).

What Filthy Sanchez is saying about differentiating players is probably more accurate than discussing overall ratings. Having someone like Rance a far better marker than.... I dunno, Astbury would be a better discussion than individual overall ratings. What needs to happen is a benchmark set for each stat then work form there and the overall rating sorts itself out. Overall rating can be a bit of a furphy if a player's individual stats aren't balanced or are stacked in a particular way. I can detail more about rating players if you like from my experience doing it for Football Manager.

 

[nick1408]

That’s because there isn’t enough stats IMO, there needs to be a clearance stat, roving stat, agility stat, ground ball, get stat then there should be additional player skills like they have in PES like long shot on the run, pressure snap shot, pirouette master, candy man, hang time specialist, fend off specialists, hand ball receiver, ect.

I think you are spot on here. There are ways to do it in the current system (for example, there is a tackle break attribute that I would rate Dustin Martin at 99 and work everyone else backwards from here. I pick Dustin Martin due to his ability over the history of AFL, not just for 2019. Handballing I might use Greg Williams, spoiling Steven Silvani etc. the point is, build from a benchmark) but it isn't ideal. Also, player scouts need to know how these attributes work exactly in the game.

It'd be bloody handy to be able to download all player ratings into a spreadsheet to help discuss this. Also, is there any hidden attributes WW hasn't told us about?

 

[mike123]

You're not just rating AFL players though. While Liverpool may have half their players on the field over 80 remember they are also 25 points clear on top of the table. Ranking Richmond nest to them isn't an equivalent unless Richmond was winning the H&A by about 4 games. My fault - I used a poor argument. I should have possibly used maybe a Manchester City or Chelsea.

I can't discuss FIFA - I don't play it (my opinion is they also over-rate players but not a discussion for here).

What Filthy Sanchez is saying about differentiating players is probably more accurate than discussing overall ratings. Having someone like Rance a far better marker than.... I dunno, Astbury would be a better discussion than individual overall ratings. What needs to happen is a benchmark set for each stat then work form there and the overall rating sorts itself out. Overall rating can be a bit of a furphy if a player's individual stats aren't balanced or are stacked in a particular way. I can detail more about rating players if you like from my experience doing it for Football Manager.

Liverpool half their players over 85. They’re whole starting 11 plus a couple of bench players would be over 80.

Also would take their 25 point lead only applies to premier league. They were knocked out by Atletico in the champions league who are 3rd??? in La Liga. Basically they have the rest of Europe to compete with not just England.

I agree with last point though. I made a comment earlier in the thread that Betts should have a high rating despite being cooked because his most his stats like goal kicking should still be high it’s just his physical stats that would be down.

 

[nick1408]

No Liverpool half their players over 85. They’re whole starting 11 plus a couple of bench players would be over 80.

Also would take their 25 point lead only applies to premier league. They were knocked out by Atletico in the champions league who are 3rd??? in La Liga. Basically they have the rest of Europe to compete with not just England.

I agree with last point though. I made a comment earlier in the thread that Betts should have a high rating despite being cooked because his most his stats like goal kicking should still be high it’s just his physical stats that would be down.

On Liverpool I opened the editor to get the current ability ratings. 6 of them were 160+ out of 200 out of their 85 players on their list. You were right the first go around, 6 out of 11 on the field. I'm sure I could further analyse the overall rating but it really doesn't mean much. Ath. Madrid have 3 players (out of 26) (Koke, Giminez & Oblak) 160+ but in a two matches they played better than Liverpool.

Edit - posted early:

What you say about Betts relates here too. here is an extract from an attribute for FM:

Jumping Reach - This is how good a player is at reaching a ball in the air. It is not how high the player gets his feet off the ground. it is linked to a player's height. As a guide our researchers have a table to use for players with varying heights. The taller the player the bigger the jumping attribute. The smaller the lower.

It's clear and concise and how players in AFL Evo 2 need to be rated. Researchers are also given guidelines that outliers like Tim Cahill are able to be rated outside the above guidelines.

Betts also proves that overall rating can be skewed by attributes not being balanced (assuming what you say about physicals is correct - I didn't check)

 

[JT_the_Man]

My personal favourite bug from the WW list:

Bombers misspelling on banner as "BOMBRES"

I don’t think that’s a bug tbh

 

[Monfries7]

Glad to see they’ve got an extensive list of bugs already, and that they’ve got someone quickly responding to all posts in that forum.

Already loving this game and can’t wait for the bugs to be ironed out

 

[JT_the_Man]

Personally, I’d like to see ratings as -

95+ - Superstar
90+ - Star
85+ - Stars, players on the cusp of becoming stars, AA caliber talent
80+ - Core member of the side
75+ - Semi-regular best 22, fringe at full strength
70+ - Promising young players, might get a game or two with injuries
Sub 70 - Developing or absolute potato


But it’s not a big deal.

 

[mike123]

On Liverpool I opened the editor to get the current ability ratings. 6 of them were 160+ out of 200 out of their 85 players on their list. You were right the first go around, 6 out of 11 on the field. I'm sure I could further analyse the overall rating but it really doesn't mean much. Ath. Madrid have 3 players (out of 26) (Koke, Giminez & Oblak) 160+ but in a two matches they played better than Liverpool.

Edit - posted early:

What you say about Betts relates here too. here is an extract from an attribute for FM:



It's clear and concise and how players in AFL Evo 2 need to be rated. Researchers are also given guidelines that outliers like Tim Cahill are able to be rated outside the above guidelines.

Is there a site that allows you to access this easily, I’ve searched bit but I’m having trouble getting my head around it I didn’t realise FM was vastly different to pes and fifa. I love the the amount of different attributes the game takes in consideration though.

I know Fifa has 115 player rated 85 and over atm.

 

[nick1408]

Personally, I’d like to see ratings as -

95+ - Superstar
90+ - Star
85+ - Stars, players on the cusp of becoming stars, AA caliber talent
80+ - Core member of the side
75+ - Semi-regular best 22, fringe at full strength
70+ - Promising young players, might get a game or two with injuries
Sub 70 - Developing or absolute potato


But it’s not a big deal.

I really shouldn't discuss overall rating because I think it can be skewed too easily but On the surface this looks fine. The problem comes when you start trying to fit in state leagues, international players, NAB players etc. I think it's better to be discussing individual attributes and let overall rating sort itself out.