Player Progression In Franchise Mode.

[x31x]

I think a system that resembles the one used in Football Manager 10
is a good idea.
There, every player has a set max ovr that he can reach. It's decided at the beginning of every new game you start. A young player that is a future superstar gets a value between 170-200 so you never know if his limit is gonna be 200, which would make him one of the best ever, or just 170 which would make him "just" very good.
If the player is gonna reach that limit is a whole different story, the progression is based on age, training, opportunity and injuries. Lack of playing time and serious injuries will severly damage a players chance of living up to his potential.

The game also uses performance and value very well.
I had a young striker in my team in the swedish premier div.
One of the best players in this fairly bad league. He scored 20 goals for me in a season and I sold him to Napoli in Italy for 3 million dollars.
By their standards he was barely average ability wise and he ended up riding the bench after being mostly ineffective when he got a chance.
This is the way madden must be. Stats should not drive progression. Progression drives performance, not the other way around, it's pure logic.
Performance, or stats, should drive trade value, and willingness by coaches to give a player playingtime.

Also, a players potential and ovr. should of course be hidden.

I hope you guys understand my ramblings, english is not my first language so I hope it makes sense.

[Deelron]

Quote: Originally Posted by marktg30

I don't think that is a fair analysis of human players as a whole. It should be an option in a system that needs to drastically change from SPD, AGE, POT and then CATCH and IMPORTANCE.... (In order of what is currently the order of priority for many people.) You aren't wrong so to speak, but you are proving my points about doing away with OVRs and such... The entire "Spreadsheet" style of things needs to change.

I certainly don't disagree that OVR's shouldn't be the end all be all (in determining salary values, I think most agree that it's not in terms of describing how a player plays), but I certainly do think that the vast majority of human players base the decisions on which players they keep or don't primarily on 2 factors: do I like this player in real life, and how do they play in the game. I think very few players go "this guy rushed for 1400 yards last season, I should give him the appropriate contract" when they can tell how well the player can actually do the things they care about.

[Deelron]

Quote: Originally Posted by x31x

I think a system that resembles the one used in Football Manager 10 is a good idea. There, every player has a set max ovr that he can reach. It's decided at the beginning of every new game you start. A young player that is a future superstar gets a value between 170-200 so you never know if his limit is gonna be 200, which would make him one of the best ever, or just 170 which would make him "just" very good.

Aye, this would be my preferred system, I'm a fan of a ranged initial potential.

Quote:

Progression drives performance, not the other way around, it's pure logic. Performance, or stats, should drive trade value, and willingness by coaches to give a player playingtime. Also, a players potential and ovr. should of course be hidden.

Couldn't agree more, except for the players potential being hidden, there should be some idea to get a grasp on what they can be, but if you mean their true (final value) potential, then I'm right with you.

[JWO35]

Bottom Line: You see guys ratings sky-rocket(or drastically decrease) in one Madden to another, so someone tell me why is it okay for Franchise Mode to limit a players potential(that would affect their OVR)...?

[x31x]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deelron

Couldn't agree more, except for the players potential being hidden, there should be some idea to get a grasp on what they can be, but if you mean their true (final value) potential, then I'm right with you.

That's exactly what I mean, of course your scouts should provide you with their analysis of a player and their opinion on his potential, how accurate this report is should be determined by the quality of your scouts.
But the true potential of a player should be hidden.

[CajunPunk]

Have you guys noticed a drop in progression with players who have switched positions? For example, I switched Kawika Mitchell to LOLB, and he picked up 3 or 4 points by moving to the outside. Then, in the offseason, he digressed 7 or 8 points after having a pretty good year.

Hopefully, this is just a one time, one player deal, but I was curious if anyone else saw something like this.

[marktg30]

Quote: Originally Posted by CajunPunk

Have you guys noticed a drop in progression with players who have switched positions? For example, I switched Kawika Mitchell to LOLB, and he picked up 3 or 4 points by moving to the outside. Then, in the offseason, he digressed 7 or 8 points after having a pretty good year. Hopefully, this is just a one time, one player deal, but I was curious if anyone else saw something like this.

I really don't think it will be the "only time" you see that in Madden 11...

Madden 12 is where I am putting all my hopes and dreams for NFL Football gaming... Unless another developer can make and keep promises about a Franchise Mode in a pro-style football game.

[JJ_Bills9]

The problem with progression is not the concept of "potential", it's the way it's implemented.

How many 7th rounders have you drafted who were like 57 overalls, but they had A potential? I'm guessing the answer is zero. There are almost no such things as hidden gems because the lowest rated players in the draft more often than not end up being lowly rated their whole careers with no exceptions. That simply isn't realistic at all. There are a ton of quality starters coming out of the 5-7th rounds.

The first thing that needs to be changed with potential, is that it shouldn't be a be-all end-all to determine who is great.

A potential should mean a player is capped in the 90's, B in the 80's, C in the 70's, etc. etc.

... All players should have caps on their abilities. I should be able to draft a 58 overall DE and a 75 overall DE and have both players able to reach a certain overall rating.

Say both guys cap out at a 84 overall, and say the 58 has A potential and the 75 has F potential. Now, this F isn't damning the 75 player to a horrible career as his cap is still an 84. It's just going to be damn hard for him to reach it, and if he doesn't perform well, he won't go up. Now this 58 overall with A potential will have a much easier time moving up in his ratings. The 58 doesn't need as much time on the field to realize his potential, maybe he's just lacking in the fundamentals of the game, and he's a quick learner.

Potential shouldn't be ther determining factor in progression as an absolute. It should be there as a means of saying Higher potential means more likelihood that a player will reach his Cap rating. At the same time, an F potential player can still live up to his Cap rating, but he's going to need to see the field A LOT, and he's going to have to perform well when he's out there to live up to his hype.

Also, you need busts. I should be able to draft a guy at an 82 overall, but his Cap rating is lower than that, say 75. This means this guy is going to have to continue to play at a very high level, or he's going to drop to a 75 overall, which is still a damn good player. Also, he's never going to exceed his initial rating.

In theory, I should be able to draft a guy in the 7th round who is a 61 overall, but he has the ability to become a 91 even if he has C potential.

I will say this in summation. This is probably impossible to accurately program into a game, and given EA's history with the issue, they'd find a way to have everyone reaching their potential, and everyone on every team would be a 75+ overall player.

IMO, this is the best possible way to do progression, as it takes into account how quick a learner someone is, and whether or not they're performing well on the field, and it balances these two things.