Player Progression In Franchise Mode.

[bigal093]

Quote: Originally Posted by CajunPunk

No, maybe his overall can come up or something. Because if he gets released into free agency, the CPU is too dumb to sign a player that ran for 2500 yards because he has a low rating. Completely unrealistic. A hall of fame season goes by the wayside in Madden, regardless of how great the o-line is. Besides, potential is completely subjective. Maybe if they fix the franchise mode AI where the CPU actually signs a player and starts him because of his previous success (i.e., Matt Cassel), rather than some presorted potential or overall rating. (I know this is not a progression thing, but this would help alleviate the progression discussion.) And, if a player is benched all season and goes up 4 points at the end, is that not ridiculous?

it is not ridiculous, how do you think matt cassel, tom brady, and the rest of the league developes players. aaron rodgers sat behind brett farve for a few years and didn't play a snap. comes in and is a top flight NFL QB. i guess his 75 overall did that for him though.

but i do agree with some of your points.

[bigal093]

Quote: Originally Posted by British Bronco

Well if you are arguing for a perceived value rating that is a different matter. I agree with that. Yes the 2,500 yard rushing back should be able to get a lot in Free Agency. It would be great if EA could introduce such a value. The highly regarded Football Manager (Soccer) Series has had a perceived rating score for years. Its great. It means you might have the next Ronaldo or Pele in your squad, but until they produce on the pitch their value to the outside world remains low. It works in reverse as well for overrated veteran players who have actually regressed but still command high wages/transfer fees. The NFL is littered with GM's who overpaid for players on the back of high performance seasons only to discover that having high stats does not mean a player is really that good. Just don't confuse perceived trade value/salary expectations with Madden's OVR ratings which actually affect on field performance. Which is a mistake many here make I'm afraid. Its a shame that Madden's AI logic uses the OVR ratings to make trade/salary decisions. It ends up confusing people it seems. As for your last remark regarding progressing despite being benched we must return once again to Messrs Aaron Rodgers and Steve Young. Yes a player can progress while on the benches. Something a stats based performance progression system can take no account of.

head coach had performance rating or something. what he has done in the nfl.

[GatorChomp2345]

If you can run for that many yards or pass for 5,000+ in a year with any overall quarterback, why do you even need a higher overall rating?

Sorry if someone said this already I didn't read through the whole thing.

[PGaither84]

@British Bronco

Great posts, well thought out, and right on the money. Also, a valiant effort to try and reason with dirtysouth, but in the end you cannot reason with... what ever you call that.

@dirtysouth

After reading your responses, it's clear you just do not get it. On top of that, you do not even want to have a civil, thought out discussion. I think you may enjoy this link.

[Reejer]

I found this on the EA site and it sounds pretty good:

Quote: Originally Posted by xbox.ChamberlainB

The inability to edit a player's potential is such a huge problem. I agree with having a potential rating, but it is implemented all wrong. For anyone that cares, here is the proper way to do it: Implementing Player Progression First, we need letter's plus symbols for potential (A+, A, A-, etc). They would correspond roughly to x1, x5, x9 where x is the ten's place of the letter (A+ = 99, A = 95, A- = 91, B+ = 89, etc). Next, the potential needs to be a gravitational point, always pulling a player's overall toward that rating. Let me break it down for you. Say Tyson Jackson has a C+ potential, meaning that he caps out at 79. Ok that's fine. If I start a franchise and sit him on the bench for a year behind a skilled veteran and under good coaching, he should still improve up from a 75 rating, because he is young and his potential is higher than his overall. Like this: No Play Scenario +3 ovr from potential +0 ovr from play = +3 ovr final change If he plays, and does terrible, his potential will try to pull him up, but his poor performance will pull him back down, like this: Poor Play Scenario +3 overall from potential (would be applied to individual stats, but applying it to overall for simplicity) -2 overall from poor performance = +1 overall final change If he came out and played solid, his performance would contribute, rather than take away from, his overall score. Good Play Scenario +3 from potential +1 from play = +4 overall So lets say next year he reaches a 79 overall after year 1. Then he plays solid again. He should improve. And because he started the season at a 79, his potential would have zero effect on his ratings: Good Play When potential is fulfilled +0 ovr from potential +2 ovr from play = + 2 total Players with ratings higher than their overall are "overrated" this would make him 81 ovr. From this point on, because he is considered "overrated", his potential would attempt to drag his ratings back down to where it needs to be, but it can be overcome with consistent solid play. For example, say after he improves to an 81, he plays incredible, leads the league in sacks, makes the pro-bowl, etc, his ratings change would be like this: -2 ovr from potential (because he is higher than his C+ potential) +8 ovr from play = +6 ovr total Changing potential so he would go up +6 ovr to an 87, even with C+ potential. As an overrated player, their ratings will decrease more with bad play and go up less with good play. They are constantly in danger of having their high abilities revoked. But with years of solid play, they can prove that they aren't overrated, meaning that after a certain number of years at a high level of play, their potential can jump up a category. So if T. Jax makes the pro-bowl 3 years in a row, he is obviously the real-deal, in which case his potential would jump up to whatever is the closest to his current rating. if he is 91 ovr at the moment, his potential will jump up to A-. he will then remain fairly good even with a year of bad play. his new potential will try to keep him at a 91, rather than a 79 like his old potential. Potential Drops and players can drop in potential too. say T. Jax starts every year and plays terrible, has less than 10 tackles a season and no sacks. his 79 potential would try to pull him up, but his play would drag him down faster than his potential would pull him up, eventually, after a few years of terrible play, his potential would drop and he would be considered a "bust". think jamarcus russell in this situation. everyone talked about his high potential for his first few years, even after some bad seasons, but his continued poor play made everyone drop the "high-potential" talk and realize he is just terrible. Progression Factors here's the factors that should play into a players ratings increases/decreases each year: their potential their play awards (including probowl) super bowl team success team captains veterans at the same position veterans on the same side of the ball good HC good coordinator on their side of the ball team chemistry years under current system age Progression Sheet At the end of each season, each player has a progression sheet showing their progression and the contributing factors. Potential and play on the field will be the biggest areas but other things (mentioned above) will factor in. Here is an example of T. Jax after a few years in the league: Starting year overall: 84 New overall: 90 Player potential (C+): -4 overall Player performance: +5 overall Awards (6): +3 ovr Super bowl: +0 ovr team success (1 playoff win): +1 ovr team captains (Matt Cassel 78 ovr, Andy Studebaker 68 ovr, Derek Lokey 60 ovr): -1 ovr veterans at the same position (glenn dorsey 86 ovr 5 yrs pro): +0 ovr veterans on the same side of the ball (no one worth mentioning): +0 ovr good HC (Todd Haley: .561 winning percentage 75 ovr): +0 ovr good coordinatior (Romeo Crennel 90 ovr): +1 ovr team chemistry (80 TC): +0 ovr years under current system (3 years): +1 ovr age (4 years pro): +0 ovr Applied to real life Let's imagine a few quick scenarios and how this progression system would effect them. In fact, lets plug in some real-life scenarios and see if, under this progression system, they would play out the same in-game. Peyton Manning Came in with very high potential (A+). His first year was not very good stat-wise. But due to his high potential he would've improved, giving him more ability to make plays on the field. He also stayed under the same HC and offensive system for years, giving him more boost there. His eventual individual and team successes would've compounded his accomplishments and turned him into just the player he is today. Carson Palmer High potential, combined with veteran leadership from Jon Kitna early on, and high performance when he took over contributed to him reaching his potential very early. Alex Smith Came in with high potential (probably A or A-). He has played "average", but constant coaching and scheme changes would have negated the positive changes that would've been seen by his potential. Jamarcus Russell Came in with high potential (A+). Constant coaching and scheme changes, along with poor play caused him to experience a ratings decrease because the postives from his high potential couldn't overcome his terrible play and terrible situation. Eventually after years of poor play, his potential decreased. Kurt Warner Terrible overall and terrible potential when he first came in. Played incredible for years, was considered an "overrated" player and a product of Mike Martz's scheme at first, but after years of solid play, his potential jumped and he stayed good until retirement. I could go on but you can see how this progression scheme can really mirror real life. Great players can emerge from terrible prospects with years of good play. Busts can emerge from incredible prospects with bad situations and bad play. One year wonders can crop up, then go back down due to a low potential. This is the most true to life progression system that can be implemented, and I for one think it would be very fun. You have to earn it with bad players, nothing is handed to you, but anything is possible. I love it.

Mix that in with my ideas and... Problem solved!

Here are a few suggestions that have been rambling through my head ever since Madden went next-gen (so some of my ideas might be a bit dated).

Potential rating:
Dump the Potential Rating: I don't like having a desk jockey at EA tell me how good one of my players will get, regardless of how good they play. Ex: I have a "D" rated player that is a perennial Pro-Bowl player who will always be rated poorly. Pre-PS3 I used to like to bench or trade my starters, so I could build up a team of scrubs.

I understand about how you don't want a bunch of 99's. That is why Progression/Regression needs to be a more dynamic, stat based system (that should occur every week, or every play).

What I am trying to say is if a QB has a record breaking year (no matter how old he is, what is so bad about making him a high 80's-low 90's rated QB), If he has another record breaking year the following year he should be a 99.

But it should also work in the reverse, say a QB (even Manning) has a terrible year, he should be in the 60's, If he has another stinker of a year he should be in the 50's.

-- I have never been a fan of the potential rating, so I think that they should ashcan the whole idea, or at least make it more dynamic like this:

--There should be a re-eval of Potential by the coaching staff at the begining of the season, then every 4 weeks, then a final eval. at the end of each season.

--The quality of coaching staff should have an impact on bringing out the potential of some of your lower rated players. Ex.: Hiring a great O-line coach could automatically increase the players potential rating by X-points, or hiring a cruddy coach could produce an inverse result.

--And the players performances, during mini-camps, training camps, pre-season games, and weekly practices could be a good tool for evaluating some of the raw talent that doesn't see the field on Sundays.

--And with my system anyone can have a good game or a bad game, and their ratings would react accordingly. Which could produce hot/cold streaks. Ex.: If Brady or Manning threw 5 Int's, and 0 TD's in a game, then the next game their confidence wouldn't be at 100%.

It could be broken down to: If your QB threw 8/10 of his int's on passes 40+yds. then it could affect his long passing accuracy rating. And if his comp.% is higher on passes less than 40 yds. then his confidence rating would be boosted for shorter passes. And this would produce player tendencies, so that it would seem like you are playing a different team each week.

Progression/Regression:
--I think that progression/regression should be primarily based on player performance in playable practices leading up to the game, and game time performance.
-Practices should be responsible for about 25-30% of progression, so you can develop your 8 man practice squad (9 with an international player), and lower rated players. And so you can see if any of them are good enough to bring up to your active roster.
Have practices mean something. Have the 3rd string players and practice squad players go against the starters (and have them play in the style that they will play against in the next game). This could be a way to increase the ratings of your scrubs instead of the way it is done now.
-Game time play should be responsible for 70-75% of progression/regression. Because the best way to show what you can/can't do is on Sunday.
--Progression/regression should (at least) happen each week, and should be performance based only. It also needs to be more dramatic so that the players can have hot/cold streaks. Say for instance; if your QB throws 4 int's and no TD's, then his ratings should take a dive, then during practices the next week you can build him back up 25-30% of what he lost. That wouldn't bring him back to 100%, but he could try to improve his ratings, by good game-time performance the following Sunday.
I think it that would make it more realistic if one of your (or opposing) players is having a good/poor game, that it would carry on to the next game.
Regression needs to occour just as naturally, and shouldn't be based solely on age (look at Kurt Warner), or any other factor. And it shouldn't follow a predestined path like in Madden '10 in which: There are three periods during a player's career, Incline, Plateau, and Decline. During the Incline period, a player can gain 10 points per season and cannot decline except due to major injury. During the Plateau period, he can increase or decrease 2 points per season. During the decline, he can decline up to 10 points per season and cannot go up.
--I think that the perfect system would be to have progression/regression to happen play by play. This would create team winning/loosing or player hot/cold streaks. Perhaps they should add a confidence rating that affects some of the other ratings on a temporary basis (depending on performance).
Say a QB throws an INT the first passing attempt of a game. Then after that, he completes 5+ of his next passes. That would nullify any negative affect on his confidence rating.
EX:
INT=-10
Consecutive competions=+2 per completion
TD=+10

[rooney8]

I remember in the ps2 franchise I used to love desperately trying not to throw ints with my young qb and trying to get him some easy TD's. The Qb I had succeess or failure in the Nfl was on me not predetermined by the CPU. Everybody saying progression should not be based on stats at all please tell the way it should be. Personally as I said a couple of pages ago I think progression should be based on; Age, years pro, downs played, coaches, team, players on the team, players in the same position, work ethic, contract, morale, potential and stats.
The example of the 70 overall rb running for 2,000 yards and then improves so he runs for 2,500 yards the next season then 3,000 the next so that's why you can't base progression off stats at all is wrong to me. If someone plays the game on a level to do stuff like this then they should and are going to get unrealistic progression. If someone plays it on a realistic level then this isn't a problem. Football manager is a great game and I love the percieved rating but in that game progression is affected the most by performance.

[RayAllen20]

Quote:

This isn't unlike the potential ratings now right? I've grabbed guys late in the draft with A potential ratings and after breakout seasons they've progressed into solid football players. We aren't talking Tom Brady caliber but still solid mid 80s overall... ...but what if a guy is drafted with a low overall rating and low potential rating in the 70s? He can't progress past 70 overall even with a breakout season? With the DE I drafted there was at least a chance he would progress and I knew that from the beginning of the season. B potential ratings typically translate to about 2 point per year assuming that player puts up solid numbers.

My system is different because in Madden 11 if you get an A potential player, you know he progresses no matter what. With my system, you have to mostly do well on the field (although players can improve in practice) to progress and your potential is the limit of your overall.

Quote:

I don't think fantasy power rankings are the best way to judge QBs in the NFL. Either way, Manning has gotten better since 2005 so I don't see why he doesn't deserve one of the highest QB ratings in the game. McNabb has fallen off slightly but not much since '05 and Farve, is well, Farve. Culpepper never improved off of his '04 season and disappeared. I don't know enough about Bulger to really comment but I never thought Trent Green was a great QB. Maybe he put up some good number a few years in a row but I wouldn't put him in the same category as Farve, Manning, even McNabb. I guess my point is this: QBs can go their whole careers with out "declining" much. I don't think it's necessarily fair to drop a players overall rating just because they're getting old and you expect them to play worse than the season before.

Manning and McNabb both reached the top 5 QB status at a young age, which is why they haven't fallen off. Although I must admit Favre hasn't declined much.

While you are somewhat correct about QBs not falling off much, basically every other position does since you need to be fast/strong and physically ready to play. And still, a lot of QBs fall of due to age although some of the best don't (I really don't think Matt Hasselbeck is one of them though like he seems to be in Madden). Basically I just want a little more extreme regression, so the best players in the league now won't be the best players in the league in 2015, unless they were young in 2010.

[dirtysouth1295]

Quote: Originally Posted by GatorChomp2345

If you can run for that many yards or pass for 5,000+ in a year with any overall quarterback, why do you even need a higher overall rating? Sorry if someone said this already I didn't read through the whole thing.

ok so if my qb passes for 1000 10tds and 16ints i should get points, so i can have a better year? you cant have it both ways. at least my way the player earns his ratings boost instead of advancing just because a programmer predetermined it.