Player Progression In Franchise Mode.

[eye_opener]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deelron

Actually I think they do that (not saying "he's an A" but saying "he's going to be awesome"), the difference between Madden in the NFL is that the NFL people can be wrong and not know it for a while in Madden you know immediately. A variable, numerical based potential rating would solve that problem. Lets say we're drafting QB's and we see 3 sets of potential ratings (and lets try to do it based off of what people saw at the time, as opposed to what we know now): Potential Ratings Range: QB #1 83-95 QB #2 70-97 QB #3 70-85 QB#1 is clearly the best QB in the draft, and the most finished package. QB #2 is very raw but some people think he potentially can be better then QB #1. QB #3 is likely to be a competent QB, could be a good one but doesn't have that Top of the line potential. After year 1 perhaps they develop like this: QB #1 88-95 QB #2 70-95 QB #3 75-83 QB #1 is clearly on the path to greatness, and his downside (without the injury factor) is top 10 QB. QB #2 didn't do much, but he was really raw and some still think he can be great, just not the greatest. QB #3 is becoming ok. After year 2, perhaps they develop like this. QB#1 93-97 QB#2 65-84 QB#3 78-81

I do like this as opposed to a set score rating. However, a set ranging score, whether identifiable or not, still has the same faults as a single set. Ryan Leaf was an obvious bust, but who's to say the giants couldn'tve molded him into the player he was projected (especially with pressure taken off from a far superior running game, see tiki barbar). Again too much is made about the induvidual players in the thread. In reality there are very few players who are good enough to consistently take over a game (aside from obligatory QB's see CJJ, AP, Larry Fitzgerald, Nnamdi Asougmaha, Ed Reed, Ray Lewis, Troy Polomalu, MJD, Clay Mathews and about 30 more out of 1500 NFL players), where as in reality many of these players we perceive as being great are just pieces, just as often interchangeable (see the 2000's Patriots whose system is so complete and awe inspiring the abilities of the players is surpassed by that of the system and coaches by evidence of their inability to reproduce their results when they leave the team, see almost every ex-patriot from this decade sans lawyer milloy, mike vrable, asante samuel, richard seymour, rodney harrison, matt cassel, of which many are playing under patriots coordinators or under the beliceck coaching tree thus implementing similar uses of their talents, still not a good measure of their personal skills. see vrable before romeo crennel this year, pretty pedestrian. not bad but not great either. look at rob ninkovich a current standout player WITHIN the system)

[eye_opener]

Quote: Originally Posted by Boregard

1. Have to hide it - must hide it cuz knowing your 7th rd pick is A POT ruins the replay-ability of franchise I would love to see the game "randomize" POT for existing players at the start of each franchise - Star players would either be at their peek or have slight room for improvement, mid range players could be a A one time and a B the next, lower players would have less of a chance to be A POT, but the chance would exist. 2. Coaches need to be rated, so we can see it. Numbers or letters or something - graded in groups (DL, LBs, CBs, Ss, QB, RBs, WR,TEs, OL and K/P) at the minimum. Rated to motivation, teaching/player developement, strategy, composure whatever the ratings are they need to be out there for us to see. Coaches should impact player progression, training staffs should impact INJ/TGH and maybe in very small ways no more than a point or 2 AGI,ACC,STR, maybe SPD, maybe JMP, coaches should not affect "physical" attributes, but coachable stuff like MCV, PMV,RR, release, PRC, TAK and so on. 3. User needs to have option to tell a player to "bulk up/slim down" in the off-season and it should have a potential impact on their ACC,AGI, SPD, STR and so on again no more than a point or two 4. Coaches and players present on team should moderately effect a young players progression thus allowing for some flexibility 5. Players should have random "oh my gosh I get it now" points in their career. Not just early 6. Progression should be completely and exclusively in POS specific (non "physical" attributes) and AWR 7. AWR, PRC, Route Running, PUR should never regress based on age, - Ray Lewis may have lost a step but he is not getting dumber as he ages he still plays at a very high level, most likely because he prepares so well mentally and has gotten smarter (more AWR, PRC) with age. Pursuit, the way I understand it measures a players pursuit angles, and that should only increase with experience - that player may not be as fast but he isn't taking dumber angles as he ages. Route Running for WRs may have a ceiling but knowing how to run routes at the proper depth and with proper technique is not something that gets "unlearned" with age. 8. Regression should be almost exclusively "physical" ratings as players age not technique things - now some technique or posistion specific ratings maybe fall off because of detering physical attributes - like FMV or JUK ratings falling as AGI falls but those regressions should be tied to those attributes - say a 34 year old running back loses 2 points of AGI, then naturally his elusiveness, JUK, SPN moves should all take a hit. I would even say that MCV should fall with SPD,AGI, ACC because no matter how perfect a guy's technique is, if he is a 85 SPD, 87 AGI, 88 ACC player he can have 99 PRC, 99 MCV, and 99 AWR but he still won't be able to stay with a 94+ SPD, 90 something AGI/ACC WR even if that WR on has 80 route run and 30 AWR 9. The CPU needs to be coded/programmed to be very very good, if not infalable at evaluating talent and in the same way programmed to see value in youth/POT over just OVR rating. WR B. Guy was drafted by the "Skins" in my latest M10 'chise and released after 4 seasons at 83 OVR because he sat behind 2 aging vet WRs that were slightly above him in OVR. In my first M10 franchise I drafted him and he developed over 3 seasons to a 94 OVR because I could "see" his POT and dumped WR Roy Williams in a trade for picks and thus B. Guy flourished for me, but the same dude drafted by the CPU did next to nothing. Add to that the fact that the CPU teams all slipped while I continually improved year after year and I had to tweak the sliders to make the game challenging as years went by because it became too easy! The CPU needs to get MAX progression for its players in their first 3 seasons (or give me an option/slider for CPU progression! 10. IRL rookies who have not been in the league for 2 complete seasons are considered "exclusive rights free agents - in other words they can not just go sign with another team, the team that drafted them has "exclusive rights" to them meaning those players have no bargaining leverage and thus the late rd gems that EA created for the generated draft classes should not be hitting FA after one year on a CPU teams roster!!! The easiest way to fix this is to have the CPU sign all draft picks to a minimum of 3 years - late rd picks should get no bonuses so the CPU needing to cut the bad ones to make room for new, better players should not be a problem. It really sucks to see a "gem" (bad enough that you know he is a gem) get drafted right ahead of you and then know the CPU will "release" him after 1 season so you can get him anyway if you still have that need!!!! EA please, please, please fix this - I think it is awesome that late rd gems are in the game, but really really sucky that the CPU teams never take full advantage of them.

1. That should be up to the player's discretion (when did a standard over personal preference become so attractive? I do a lot of things to make the game more challenging but if I suddenly decided to do it the other way and couldn't I would be livid at having that option stripped from my grasp especially when it requires less than 10-20 lines of code per option to do, which is not a lot). I think nearly every component of the game should be customizable. It is not a true simulation now and the pretense should be dropped in favor of players being able to somewhat craft the game they want to play.

2.I agree but I believe the influence on progression should be a part of the progression algorithm rather than having its own stand alone effect. (People the math may seem difficult to the uninclined but I assure you the number crunching isn't 10% as complicated as the algorithm used to simulate one game. Please stop throwing your hands in the air stating the problem is too difficult to resolve. It only fuels EA to not do anything since you don't expect anything. Stop praying the madden czars are right and praising them when it's gets better but is still broken. A leaky tire is better than a flat tire, but a new tire would be best.

3. I see merit in this idea, but it would take a lot of time to flush it out. It's not too difficult, but we have no frame of reference (as opposed to ratings progression which we have years of reference to move forward from) to determine what the effects should be. If it is ever implemented it should be optional (as I believe most components should be) so if it is ineffective in its first installment it doesn't hinder the game in any unalterable way.

4.I believe they should affect potential more than progression and their effect on progression should be an aspect of the progression matrix and miniscule, where as their affect on the player's potential could be more pronounced, as it tends to be IRL.

5. Definitely, with a variety of career paths, especially in this day and age of superstar being more coveted than athlete in the title "superstar athlete".

6. I agree for the most part, however, I like the position based physical stats (AGI for HB, DE, LBs, Ss; or ACC WR, CB; or STR for DT & OL) but I think the physical stat influenced should be determined by practice, workouts, coaching or something that the user can determine. I loved in pre-gen where I had a LB with poor ACC and could do the DB drill to try and raise it (which was fine up to the madden and sometimes all-pro level of the drill depending on other stats of the LB). I'm not saying reinstitute drills to raise stats, but the idea of working with a guy on a specific physical stat is a nice thought (though much care should be made to cap it quickly and have the increases be moderate to low, though some stats are more important than others, as we all know, in the game not IRL; and those stats should be controlled much more stringently)

7. For a large part I agree, but keep in mind PUR is not just about angles, it's also how much distance between the ball carrier and defender is too much to catch up on (which is an aspect I would like to see de-emphasized and the angle itself emphasized more; once you get past a slower person if you do nothing to break stride you should not be caught; you wouldn't IRL. And for those who say "I saw such-and-such catch so-and-so in a game," watch with attention to detail the ball carrier was probably looking for other defenders or running lanes and may have slowed to process this decision making while the defender had little else to concentrate on other than bringing down the carrier assuming there were no blockers in front of the ball carrier to turn back on the defender)

8. I agree with this for offensive players running the ball and receivers beating the press (even then the technique is not diminished IRL, it's effect is just less pronounced because the defender has more time to diagnose the play and best angle to attack from IRL), but MCV is more about body position and angles taken. The physical component of MCV is the back pedal and having the torsional agility to turn with the receiver quickly and fluidly enough to stay in coverage.

9.I think the evaluation of the player should be better, but no where near infallible (as that would be just as rediculous as their ignorance now). However I think drafting players based on a scheme and team need should be more influencing of a factor. Also I think the largest gains made in progression should not be in the first 3 years of the player in the NFL but the first three years of significant playing time (also progression for limited playing time could be made based on effect of their presence, which has more to do with the coach putting inexperienced players in the right position to make good plays and understand the realities of the game than some arbitrary potential rating) so those players that sit can become the late blooming gems and it would work the same without exceptions, but determined by team direction (and those gems wouldn't lose their value to the CPU as high potential players). This would exclude certain positions who generally learn off the field before they are put on it for any serious playing time (i.e. QB, O-Line, FS, FB, blocking TE and 3-4 DE)

10. Q.E.D. above.

[eye_opener]

Quote: Originally Posted by Faizon

Ok, and do you really care if some guy abuses it to where he gets all his guys to 99 in his offline franchise that nobody will ever see but him? I'd rather a guy improve by 15 points if he's an out of nowhere to pro bowl player in my franchise the way I want to play rather than worry about how some schmuck I'll never meet is playing it.

this is probably the greatest single point made in this whole thread.

Also, get rid of OVR. It really serves no purpose but as an over ride for the CPU to use as an AI crutch when making off-the-field desicions.

That concludes my take. I understand it is lengthy, but so were the opinions on the thread.

[sccavs64]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmurphy31

Progression should also be in increments during the season (after a 4weeks or so) and right after preseason (had a good preseason and beat out a starter).

agreed, I loved when they had progression after the preseason in the old maddens. Tthat's what the pre-season is about, getting your back-ups and younger guys some extra in-game repetitions, so they will be better and more experienced in the regular season.

[bwburke94]

Madden 08 PC is the best franchise mode IMO.

[CarpCarter]

This may or may not be the appropriate place for this question, but I just finished the first season of my franchise and got to the offseason, and I can see that my players have progressed (or regressed), but unlike in old Madden, I don't see the same (+4) or (-1) next to the rating that showed their growth or decline. Is there a screen where I can see this change, or do I just have to eyeball it (or write all my ratings down before advancing to the offseason ugh).

Also, both Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski (A POTs) advanced +5, even though Herndo finished with ~1300 yards and 8 TDs, and Gronk had just over 400 and 4. Sigh.

[moylan1234]

CarpCarter, after you advance past the staff hiring screen under team management there's a progression category you can select that will show you what you're talking about and it's only available in the off-season

[Xgomez3X]

Look what i hate about Online Franchise is the fixed draft classes its too unrealistic.. Than to top it off in Online Franchise you can see the players overall and all other stats.. I Love to Draft if they made a game solely on Drafting id buy it. Its an art-form to be able to evaluate stats (based on scouting reports) and draft guys you HOPE is going to be the next Tom Brady or you might draft a Ryan Leaf. The point is Madden should do keep progression/Potential as is just don't show everyone the Overall make it a fun way to grab sleepers against your friends. Draft classes should also be updated with patches so people like us cant know the future madden studs before they arrive. Player Progression should also have a slight increase based on performance and not so much on age look at Ray Lewis still in top form he shouldn't decrease because he a granddad.