Home
Madden 2010 News Post

EA has just posted another Madden NFL 10 blog. This one covers franchise mode improvements.

Quote:
"This week I wanted to give you an update on what we’re addressing in franchise mode this year. We’re probably going to have a few blogs about franchise mode from now until August, so I’m just going to touch on a couple of things we’ve been working on since I joined the team.

One thing we learned on NFL Head Coach ’09 was that in order to have a great franchise mode, you need a solid base. You wouldn’t put a 2nd or 3rd addition on your house if the foundation is crumbling, right?

Since our ‘foundation’ is the logic behind every decision made in franchise mode, we knew we really wanted to address that foundation before anything else major was applied. I know some folks may be expecting the entire NFL Head Coach ’09 game to be dropped into Madden this year, but that’s not going to happen. We have a lot of work to do and it’s going to take us some time to start with the core of franchise mode and take it where we all want it to be.

I’ll break down some of the problems we’ve encountered so far and talk about how we’re addressing them below."

Game: Madden NFL 10Reader Score: 7.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 76 - View All
Madden NFL 10 Videos
Member Comments
# 141 Step2001 @ 04/07/09 01:02 AM
Playing NFL Head Coach 09.

The potential that a player can reach can change based on a couple of factors.

The coaches played a role. How the player held on to his knowledge. His production on the field.

I have moved Sam Hurd up from a 68 to a 75! 68 was his capped potential. 75 is now his new potential based on hard work.
 
# 142 Vikes1 @ 04/07/09 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnada
Yeah i was just taking a 2nd look at the blog and notice that too.
Does that mean most undrafted rookies cannot exceed an overall Rating? that is if his potential is say 85, i use him all season has a cromartie rookie year, i cant get him above 85?
If I understand this "potential" rating thing...yep, I believe what you said here is correct. I don't know...maybe it'll be ok. Myself...I'm just not quite sure what to think about this.
 
# 143 Big_Mig_11 @ 04/07/09 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikes1
If I understand this "potential" rating thing...yep, I believe what you said here is correct. I don't know...maybe it'll be ok. Myself...I'm just not quite sure what to think about this.
I also dont know what to think!!!. I know that it reads pretty unfavorable (about not exceeding potential), but in the blog, he also states that from time to time we can find the next "Brady or Colston" in the later rounds of the draft. Well, coming into the league and being 6th and 7th round picks, there "potential" (in a videogame stand point) would be mid-60's...tops. So is this a contradiction or a HUGE misunderstanding?? Either way this should and needs to be cleaned up and explained into greater depths... If not, then another sad franchise for me as I take THE most time into building up my rookies...
 
# 144 Cnada @ 04/07/09 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikes1
If I understand this "potential" rating thing...yep, I believe what you said here is correct. I don't know...maybe it'll be ok. Myself...I'm just not quite sure what to think about this.
mmmm could have some bad consequences later on, could potencially make lower rounds useless if their a not a gem since the potencial would be too low.

If ive learnt anything about gaming previews,blogs,marketing the important things is what is not mentioned rather than promoted. I remember in madden 07 or 08 some big feature was gone, i remember caused alot of controversy but as far as gaming you gotta stay one step ahead of everything promoted cos the cracks break the game not the peaks
 
# 145 Stikskillz @ 04/07/09 01:31 AM
EA, can you provide us some info regarding an online franchise? It would be great if it was done like NCAA 09, but I would be ok with the EA Locker set up from past gen games. Don't keep us hanging too long
 
# 146 Stikskillz @ 04/07/09 01:34 AM
Also, in past-gen when your team wins the Super Bowl all of the players would get a 99 in awareness. When you discussion progression further can you let us know if there will be a similar progression boost for taking home the Lombardi?

Thank you!
 
# 147 Megatron2k7 @ 04/07/09 01:38 AM
IMO, the only potential cap we should see is one for physical attributes. The potential cap for what a player can rise to in overall rating should not be seen.

When scouting players based on physical potential, your scout could say..." this HB has great potential. He has a frame that could easily add 15 lbs. and he wouldn't lose a step. He could benefit from some strength and speed training."


Seeing physical potential is a real life scenario used by scouts everyday. It's easy to predict what a player is physically capable of. That's why they treat all the guys going into the combine like they're horses at a horse auction. (poking, prodding, measuring etc.)

Knowing exactly how good a player will be in the future by seeing a "potential cap" would be very unrealistic. No one knows exactly how a player will develop their skill sets. The potential rating of each player in the draft of the Franchise mode needs to reamain hidden, and be very random. We should get hints on whether the player has high or low potential based on scouting, but never given an absolute number for it.

One last point. I don't agree with not being able to see the CPU players potential either. Most GM's and scouts, look at way more than just the players they draft. Many teams scout a player and can't draft fhem on draft day, does that mean they suddenly forget everything about that player...???

Example...... Ron Wolf scouted and wanted Brett Favre in the draft , but the Falcons drafted him before he had the chance. Wolf became the Packers GM, and we all know the rest of the story as he traded for Favre in a move that went down in history. I'm pretty sure Wolf didn't need to have Favre on his roster to see his potential.
 
# 148 Cnada @ 04/07/09 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikes1
If I understand this "potential" rating thing...yep, I believe what you said here is correct. I don't know...maybe it'll be ok. Myself...I'm just not quite sure what to think about this.
Always read the fine print...
this may be a cause for concern...
 
# 149 Megatron2k7 @ 04/07/09 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Step2001
Playing NFL Head Coach 09.

The potential that a player can reach can change based on a couple of factors.

The coaches played a role. How the player held on to his knowledge. His production on the field.

I have moved Sam Hurd up from a 68 to a 75! 68 was his capped potential. 75 is now his new potential based on hard work.

This is great news. If this is the way it will work in Madden then I have a much lesser problem with it. I still would prefer to not see the actual cap number, but if it's not set in stone, then it would be so much more realistic. Thanks for posting this.
 
# 150 UtahUtes32 @ 04/07/09 01:52 AM
i love how they fixed the draft, NCAA import, ETC. That is my ABSOLUTE Favorite part of Franchise mode, and this will save Franchise for me!!
 
# 151 kcarr @ 04/07/09 02:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thejake
For the guys arguing against player ratings decreasing as they get older....

Do yall think that if you have a good season with a guy their ratings should stay the same or get better? So if you keep having good years they can play forever? Age is the number one factor that determines regression and the example in the blog about the running backs is right on and I'm excited to read that they are finally doing something like this.
Personally I would love to see players never decrease and if they play well continue to increase. Nothing like those completely realistic 47 year old running backs being 99 overall because they just kept putting up great seasons so their ratings never drop. Come on people, let's look at this realistically
 
# 152 kcarr @ 04/07/09 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGaither84
I really don't like the idea of a "cap" on how players progress. If they do ell, they should be ratted higher. It's simple really. If I draft rookie QB Joe Blow in the 4th round and his "potential" is 85 and I through a serise of events I end up making him the next Tom Brady, he should be THE NEXT TOM BRADY. Not get caped at 85. This potential "cap" idea [i don't know if it is accurate] as we understand it is GARBAGE. Potential should help you rate what kind of player he "Could be" on draft day. Manning and Leaf had a lot of potential, but look who lived up to it?

When Jamal Lewis ran for over 2000 yards what happened in Madden? he was a BEAST as he should be. i was jsut talkignto my friend and he was sayign it would be wrog if I could just take a shmuck reciver and do crazy things with him that he shoud become a 99 in a few years. I responded "Why? If you saw that reciver go ape $hit, wouldn't you EXPECT his madden ratting in the next update/game to be high?" Your ratting should be in part a reflecion on you performance. Manny Lawson of the 49ers is 6'6" 235 lbs and has 90 speed. he is a beast. however he is hurt a lot and it only an 85 OLB. If he could overcome injury and play at the level willis has played, would he too deserveto be a high 90's player?

I know I sound like a bad record, but production and physical attributes should factor into how well a player's ovr is ratted and how he progresses. I agree that things like speed, agilit, acceleration, and jump shouldn't really go up. tackle, play recogniton, man/zone coverage, rout runningand others however should be altered by thier performance as that is the POINT of rattings, to RATE how well a player is doing out there.
First on the "potential cap" deal you are talking about, if you draft a player and he is not the next Tom Brady, being able to make him the next Tom Brady really takes away from any relevance to smart drafting.

As far as this whole progression should be based off of performance thing, this whole deal makes absolutely no sense to me. Can anyone tell me how a running back running for 2000 yards will cause him improve beyond his current level? Can anyone here name a few examples of players who have followed breakout seasons with true development being even better the next year? The whole deal just makes no sense. It bases progression off of the user's stick skills basically as if they can make a player play better than they should, they progress. If the user can't then that player won't progress. The whole deal just seems wrong to me.
 
# 153 Bump101 @ 04/07/09 02:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron2k7
I think players should progress physically until the age of 25 regardless of playing time or workouts unless they suffer a severe injury. (some more than others based on potential, body types, etc.)

Age 25 - 30.... maintain physical attributes as long as they are not severly injured. Some attributes like strength can be upgraded through training. Speed pretty much locked in at this point.

Age 30 +.... Some players slowly start to regress in physical attributes. Stamina, and Injury really need to start regressing here. Severe Injuries take a much larger toll on attributes. RB's being the hardest hit here. LB's probably next in line. Gaining even the simplest of physical attributes like strength should be very difficult.

The progression of non physical attributes should be determined by success. If a 32 yr old RB still has a decent year stat wise, then he should still see an incease in Awr or in skills like catching, or any other skill he was good at during the year.

The main thing I don't want to see is a player in his 30's who has been a solid player for years, suddenly start to lose Awareness points. That seems silly to me, if anything, it should be the opposite. I know for a fact I've seen older players regress in some older versions of Madden, and I was always so confused by seeing Awr drop for them. Players don't get dumber with age, they just get older, and lose their physical edge.
I co-sign that.
 
# 154 Megatron2k7 @ 04/07/09 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwayGod53
Yeah I like the veterans losing steam after 30, but superstars should lose pts at a slower rate than a normal player;

ex:
Superstar WR

WR Age 30 Rated 95
WR Age 31 Rated 94
WR Age 32 Rated 92
WR Age 33 Rated 91
WR Age 34 Rated 90
WR Age 35 Rated 90
WR Age 36 Rated 86
WR Age 37 Rated 81

Normal WR

WR Age 30 Rated 85
WR Age 31 Rated 83
WR Age 32 Rated 81
WR Age 33 Rated 78
WR Age 34 Rated 74
WR Age 35 Rated 69
WR Age 36 Rated 61
WR Age 37 Rated 53

Like that.


Players getting older and regressing has nothing at all to do with their overall rating. It should only deal with them getting lowered in physical attributes. The drops in overall would, or could come naturally as the physical attributes drop, but you make it sound like it's just a cookie cutter formula.

A 37 year old WR being a 53 overall.........LMAO....!!! What......did his hands fall off or something....if he was once a very good, NFL caliber WR, then I'm sure he still has good hands, and by that age he should have great awareness. He may have lost a step (or nine) by 37 yrs old, but 53 overall is a bit too harsh.
 
# 155 kcarr @ 04/07/09 02:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jump
Spot on Megatron.

I'll use LT as an example.

You start your chargers franchise and LT has a good year. Say 1300 rsh yds 500 receiving yds and 13 total TD's.

I would hope that the progression takes away a few points from some physical attributes,(SPD,AGL,ACC etc.) BUT he would gain technique or awareness attributes(BCV,CAR,CTH etc.).


If he started at 92 OVRL his OVRL rating might stay the same, maybe even go up a small amount(1 or 2 points). If he had an average or bad season, he likely would have dropped due to not gaining the technique or awareness attributes.

And I think we can all agree that a 92 or 93 rated back can play a big part in an offense even if he did lose a step.

Thats what I'm hoping for.
LT has been playing professional football for 8 years, played 4 years in college, and played one year as a runningback in highschool. You really think he still has enough to learn about the game to make up for the physical loss from his advancing age, the injuries he has sustained, and the wear and tear of all those seasons? This really doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Also, I know a lot of you like to take these players you have seen excel over the past few years and see them play at least a few in madden but playing runningback in the NFL is really a young mans game. There is a lot of wear and tear that leads to player's bodies breaking down which is why anymore it is so rare to see backs play very far past 30 years old, especially as feature backs.
 
# 156 kcarr @ 04/07/09 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGaither84
I agree with your primise here. I agree that players shouldhave thier physical abilitie caped. however, though hard work and dedication players shoudl have the opertunity to be greats like Jerry Rice if they perform up to that level. i am not talking about single game performances, but over all. If I rush for 2000 yards, I shouldn't be caped at having an 85 ovr back. J. Lewis ran for over 2000 yards an in the next madden his speed went up from 88 to like 91, but his other skills went through the roof just like they should have. the same is ture in Madden. if your guy goes nuts, he should have his rattings do the same over he corse of time. conversely, if he starts to decline and shows thathe is more of a fluke [like Dante Hall?] then he should drop accordingly as well.
OK, so if as an 85 overall a player is able to run for 2000 yards then a 90 overall should be able to easily break 2000 and probably hit near 2300 or 2400 right. When was the last time you saw a runningback follow a 2000 yard season with another 2000 yard season? Even with an 1800 yard season? 1500?

Jamal followed his 2000 yard season with 1006. Terrell Davis followed his 2000 yard season with a 211 yard season. Eric Dickerson followed his 2000 yard season with a 1234 yard season. OJ Simpson followed his 2000 with 1125. Barry Sanders did the best of 2000 yard backs I can find following up his 2000 yard season with 1491 yards the next year.

Where within that do you see any great progression caused by that 2000 yard rushing season?
 
# 157 Bump101 @ 04/07/09 02:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Mig_11
I also dont know what to think!!!. I know that it reads pretty unfavorable (about not exceeding potential), but in the blog, he also states that from time to time we can find the next "Brady or Colston" in the later rounds of the draft. Well, coming into the league and being 6th and 7th round picks, there "potential" (in a videogame stand point) would be mid-60's...tops. So is this a contradiction or a HUGE misunderstanding?? Either way this should and needs to be cleaned up and explained into greater depths... If not, then another sad franchise for me as I take THE most time into building up my rookies...
Or it could mean, a player being drafted in the 6th or 7th round has a high (90) potential rating but a low (68) overall rating. And his high potential rating is what will make him the next Brady or whatever.
 
# 158 kcarr @ 04/07/09 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Mig_11
I also dont know what to think!!!. I know that it reads pretty unfavorable (about not exceeding potential), but in the blog, he also states that from time to time we can find the next "Brady or Colston" in the later rounds of the draft. Well, coming into the league and being 6th and 7th round picks, there "potential" (in a videogame stand point) would be mid-60's...tops. So is this a contradiction or a HUGE misunderstanding?? Either way this should and needs to be cleaned up and explained into greater depths... If not, then another sad franchise for me as I take THE most time into building up my rookies...
I think the real advantages of this potential cap are:

1) It adds some possibility for a need for good scouting, good drafting, and hopefully some luck to be successful. Not every player can now become the next Tom Brady or the next Marques Colston but this makes it so that when you get one of these players it really means something because not every player is like that.

2) It also leads to some players be predisposed to being steals so you will see players drafted by other teams become steals and so you can also draft steals yourself without having to work though a broken production based progression system to develop them

3) it gives the ability to make player's actually be busts.
 
# 159 Exonerated @ 04/07/09 03:59 AM
Sif complain the potential rating when you've never played Head Coach.

Potential rating in HC09 was amazing.

Potential varied by scheme, production, coaches and other stuff. Like Adrian Peterson had a potential of 95 at one time and 99 with another team, coaching staff, strong production etc.
 
# 160 Josh_Looman @ 04/07/09 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bump101
Or it could mean, a player being drafted in the 6th or 7th round has a high (90) potential rating but a low (68) overall rating. And his high potential rating is what will make him the next Brady or whatever.
Correct.

It means that we can set his potential to be whatever we want, regardless of where he is drafted. Same with overall rating.
 


Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.