Player Progression In Franchise Mode.

[Deelron]

I'm not sure why it's laughable if some players lose speed at 26, players are frequently different, and there's plenty of examples of RBs (easily measurable stats coming in handy here) who's YPC drop as they get even slightly older, even great young players like Adrian Peterson.

It's clear that YPC isn't a perfect measure by any means (there clearly are too many factors here, line play/QB play/game-plan/load etc) but it's certainly possible that, if we were actually rating in real life, his speed could have dropped from 97 to 96. When we're talking a singular point drop or two, it's completely possible (or worse, there have been Kevan Barlow types in the actual NFL).

The whole point is that players should be aging in a variety of different patterns. Some guys should 1-2% of their speed even at an age of 26, and some won't, and it's not always via injury. There should be dozens and dozens of career paths, and currently their isn't enough of them. It's not a major problem that they lost a point here or there at 26, the problem is that it was inconsistent in its application as the person reporting it stated it happened only to the human player.

[JBH3]

In regards to speed and just player progression in general, its sort of a moot point right? I mean we've known for years that there is no rhyme or reason to progression. This thread and most of what is in it is no recent discovery right? Why debate over the perils of when speed should be reduced when its painfully obvious franchise is the long forgotten ugly duckling.

[PGaither84]

I would argue Kevin Barlow wasn't all that fast to begin with. He really benefited from playing with G. Hearst, T.O. and Garcia. Back then even our TE Eric Johnson was above average. After that offense was gutted and it rested on the shoulders of Kevin Barlow, we saw who he really was

[bigal093]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deelron

Yes I read it, and basing progression based on performance in any way at all is backwards. Players don't get better because they won the Super Bowl, they won the Super Bowl because the team actually performed better to begin with. Speaking from a simulation standpoint, the teams with the higher ratings, when untouched by human players, should preform better then teams with lower ones, and in a system that's rewarding things like "Super Bowl appearances" and "team chemistry" (which is typically short for winning, teams who win tend to have less problems being around people they don't like) merely lead to the successful teams staying more successful and the bottom teams remaining at the bottom. You have to take the human element out of progression, it's about making the CPU competitive 5-10 seasons in as opposed to human run franchises who are able to stock up so many great players its to easy.

right but those are small things. i don't believe that super bowl should affect it. but it would still only be like +1 overall. and by no means does chemistry mean winning. it is basically keeping players together for multiple years. it really has almost nothing to do with winning. at least in a video game it wouldn't. if performance has absolutely 0 affect, it is a random progression. it doesn't make any sense.

notice how the guy used real life examples that have already panned out, and how they all would've worked correctly. with your system there is no way at all that those players work out. removing the human element completely is head coach. if you want your "perfect" progression go play head coach.

now look i agree a system based on performance is a TERRIBLE idea. but if you look, that guy's idea weighs potential much higher than performance. infact it is THE MAIN driving force behind progression for his idea.

yes there are small things like the super bowl that are debatable but those are small issues that could easily be worked out.

[AndyMcC123]

I'd be happier if you were able to manually change Potential without having to tinker with a player's overall.

Jermaine Cunningham having a potential set at C as a 2nd round pick is rediculous. I agree with their overall rating of him as he hasn't played OLB in a 3-4 before but he has the ability to end up a lot better than 70-75 overall. EA don't know how these players will progress and a simple ability to change potential from, say, a C to a B or B to A manually would just about perfect their system.

Obviously this would have to be done to the rosters before beginning a Franchise mode, not during.

[tarantism]

Wasn't it last year that Ian Cummings set up a poll to see whether potential should be a hidden rating that you cannot change, or something that the user could edit? I remember voting that it should be editable, but the community ruled in favor of having it be unchangeable and hidden.

[jcahta]

I haven't read all the pages on the issue but enough to understand both sides of the debate. It seems what is being forgotten is the context of the player rating within the game. The player's rating should adjust to how he performs within the game, season, franchise no matter the sliders position or level of difficulty. Player's performance should be within the context of the game.

For instance, my first season I played on All-pro level and for the first franchise year for my team (carolina Panthers); I had TE Gary Barnidge make the Pro Bowl and put up 800+ receiving yards and 8 td's. 2nd leading receiver on the team. His potential is an A (or B), but his progression went up by only 4 points to a total OVR of 74. While his physical attributes are what made him put him his numbers (82 on speed), if his awareness and other attributes do not progress then simulated games will not duplicate the performance, only maintaining the status quo.

Am I altering the player's progression by playing?..yes, but I'm performing at a high level so that should be reflected in the ratings. I have a DT that had a good season no pro bowl or anything, potential A, decent number of tackles and sacks. He progressed from a 83 to 88 OVR by his throwing power and other non defensive relevant attributes going up each by a point.

Programmed ratings are based on numerous opportunities of physical observations of player reality with a transition to gameplay..its no longer comparing apples to apples because the player rating programmers are not observing my gameplay.

Player's should progress with breakout seasons, and regress slowly without any performance at all. Potential is needed but not the only decider. If so, Steve Smith would not be a 92 (he was drafted in the 5th round).

So since its a game, let us do what we want with it. Those who want realism will dictate that and those who want an artificial juggernaut should be able to create it.

[JVM]

I don't understand progression in Madden 11. My quarterback, Philip Rivers, is A rated and was MVP of the year and did not gain any progression points! There are quite a few A-Rated players on my team that never got any progression points even though they had great seasons.