Your ideal method for progression

[pendo]

Quote: Originally Posted by ndirish6776

If it were done correctly, it could work well. Not every 4 or 5 star would have A potential necessarily. I was actually more thinking it would be cool to be able to find guys who are 2 stars but who have great potential, thus not all the big schools would have them. I was more or less just thinking that the default or average potential could be a B and that is what the average player would have. It wouldn't be a system where all the 5-stars have A potential, 4-stars have B, 3-stars have C, etc.

The potential rating is idiotic because it does not matter how well you play, you never get any better. If i have a C potential qb, but throw for 10 000 yards 100 tds and no INT's in 1 season in madden, guess what? He is still 75 overall. Ratings should be based on performance. And i don't just mean stats. You can have a great game as a 3-4 DE and not record a single tackle or sack. The game should reward players for being dominant. For instance, how about a system similar to fifa (based on a rating out of 10, based on how effective you are) or one similar to NBA **11 (graded rating). If you have a NT who takes a double team all game, he is doing his job and that is an A rated game. If you MUST put restrictions on players ratings, have a system similar to Fifa. They have player types such as 'slow developer', 'late bloomer', elite etc. Even if you have the slow developer, if he is lights out for 1 season, he will progress more than the Elite guy who has an average season.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madwolf

No way should their be a potential rating. I hate that in Madden. If I want to take some guy just off the practice squad and turn him into a star in Madden I should at least be able to attempt it. In Madden right now that's impossible because everyone has a ceiling, and if you've never had a break out season you can't prove anything, even if you're a rookie 95% of the time. Plus if we did this in NCAA then all the elite schools would have all A potential players, where as teams that have fallen back to the middle of the pack for now, like Louisville, would have lower rated guys and could NEVER compete. I'm sorry, but potential sucks for everyone that doesn't play as Texas, tOSU, and Alabama. I have a lot of fun playing and winning with my team against those guys, but the game shouldn't be made artificially impossible for me to ever climb to the heights of those programs. It's a video game, and just because you're not a fan of elite team doesn't mean it should be more difficult to enjoy.

Potential does not suck. Every person and athlete has a potential limit. It should be in the game. Scouts and coaches should be able to guess at someones potential. Practicing and playing games should reveal more about someones potential.

Not having potential makes the game less accurate to how things work in the real game of football. And the game is suppose to be about the real game.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by pendo

The potential rating is idiotic because it does not matter how well you play, you never get any better. If i have a C potential qb, but throw for 10 000 yards 100 tds and no INT's in 1 season in madden, guess what? He is still 75 overall.

If you're doing this with a 75 overall QB, guess what, the game is broken, or you're on the wrong difficulty level. A 75 rated QB should never get great numbers. Potential in not idiotic, it's realistic.

[BA2929]

First off, I'd just like to say that I hated the Spring Game and I hope it never comes back. Why? Because it was boring and quite a bit of the time I'd be using players that weren't even on my roster in the fall. Once I had a 6'8" WR with 99 speed in the spring game, but he wasn't there in the fall. I wasn't too happy about that. If they do bring it back, they'd better completely overhaul it. I don't even think it effected progression at all in the past. Have early entries if its brought back, that's basically the only way it'll work.

But anyway, onto progression. There needs to be some sort of potential aspect in the game. Right now, in my opinion, it just seems very willy nilly about who progresses at the end of a season and by how much. I remember back in the early 00's where one guy could progress 10 points in an off-season. That 2-star, 67 overall LT you recruited as depth in a down year could actually start for you as a RS SR. I just don't really see that much anymore as I can usually just recruit a FR 4-star who's already better than that former 2-star guy, who's now a RS JR. It just seems like nobody progresses past their recruiting star ranking. They tried to implement that "diamond in the rough" thing, but I don't think it worked.

If they did have a potential rating, it'd have to be used correctly. Not just every 5-star guy has a high rating and every 1-star has a low rating. Maybe that #1 overall recruit in the nation comes in at an 83, but due to his poor work ethic, his potential rating is low and he never gets past an 87 overall. But that 2-star guy you recruited because of his speed has a high potential rating and jumps up to an 85-88 overall by his SR year. That'd make recruiting more fun and more realistic. You'd be taking a chance on that local kid even though he's a 2-star. They could have notes from a coach about work ethic and how fast they pick up a playbook, which would be hints about their potential.
I just wouldn't want to see a potential rating be tied to a guys star rating as a recruit. I also do not want to see a training camp. I hated grinding out mini-games hoping to do well enough to up a guys AWR by 3 points. I also don't want to have to go through each player and select a specific attribute for them to work on. I just want them to progress on their own without micro-managing each player. A mix of stats and a potential rating would do just fine. That way a guy who's been redshirting and benched all season can still progress thanks to his potential rating.

Hope all this makes sense. I've been writing it off and on at work.

[BA2929]

Quote: Originally Posted by pendo

The potential rating is idiotic because it does not matter how well you play, you never get any better. If i have a C potential qb, but throw for 10 000 yards 100 tds and no INT's in 1 season in madden, guess what? He is still 75 overall. Ratings should be based on performance. And i don't just mean stats. You can have a great game as a 3-4 DE and not record a single tackle or sack. The game should reward players for being dominant. For instance, how about a system similar to fifa (based on a rating out of 10, based on how effective you are) or one similar to NBA **11 (graded rating). If you have a NT who takes a double team all game, he is doing his job and that is an A rated game. If you MUST put restrictions on players ratings, have a system similar to Fifa. They have player types such as 'slow developer', 'late bloomer', elite etc. Even if you have the slow developer, if he is lights out for 1 season, he will progress more than the Elite guy who has an average season.

Stat based doesn't work for those guys that are red-shirting, or on the bench because better/higher rated players are ahead of them on the depth chart. There has to be a mixture of a potential rating and a stat based progression system. That way your unrealistic QB that throws for 10,000 yards will progress higher than his C rating for that season. And that NT who gets double teamed, but doesn't rack up stats because of it, will still progress because he has an A potential. A fluid potential system would be best, so one player isn't stuck at a potential rating his entire career if he's playing above that level. In the idea you lined out, starters will progress more than bench players, but once those starters leave, you'll be left with nothing because your bench players don't progress because they didn't get any game time to "dominate".

[RM938]

I agree with alot of these opinions. I liked the formulas ive heard. This is definitely what it should be based on:

Production+Potential Rating(that they need to add to the game)+Injuries = Progression

As stated before, some attributes should be pretty steady I don't wanna see strength stay the same all 4 years because in reality by their senior year they are a lot stronger then when they came into the college. Speed should rarely go up, and agility should only go up 1-2 points. But they should weight the speed rating a little more, its still hard to tell the fastest running back lets say a 95 speed compared to a Running back whose is 89 speed, in real life that'd be a huge difference.

[89OneHanded]

I see people on here going back and forth about the potential stat. The people that are against potential I agree with, but you're looking at it the wrong way. I think there should be a potential rating, but EA did it the wrong way on Madden. They made it a be-all end-all ceiling for players, but that should not be the case, because this is something you cannot quantify. Potential needs to be able to change. This is the issue I have with it, that it is fixed and no matter what you do with that player, they will never go above the fixed potential. The problem with doing it that way is because this is a video game and the user should have ultimate control. If I want to take a 70 potential TE and make him into a stud, I should be able to do this. It even translates to real life (translates better than the fixed potential anyway...) You never know when a player you thought was a bust is going to change his work ethic and realize the untapped potential no one knew was there. You have a coach that takes a low (Madden) potential player under his wing and teaches him work ethic and the ins and out of his position until the effort he puts in starts to show on the field. Then his potential would rise. Potential based on positional ratings should always be able to fluctuate. Obviously a player cannot be much faster or much stronger than his body and frame allows, but he can learn. It is the desire to learn that potential is based on (more or less).

Miles Austin is the perfect example. One year in Madden he was rated 62 or so, and his potential probably wasn't above 70. The very next Madden title he was rated 88. Why? Because he was given a chance to see the field, and showed the potential that NO ONE knew was there previously. If I take a 65 rated rookie with 70 potential, throw him the ball all year long, and he has a 1100 yd 9 TD season, is he going to be rated 75 next year? No, because his potential is 70. But then I do the same thing next year, I throw him the ball all year and he ends up with 1200 yards and 11 TDs. But he just stays the same. Still a 70.

This is what is wrong with potential. If they make the potential a dynamic rating, then I have no problem with it.

[Sanchez_Mareno]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Potential does not suck. Every person and athlete has a potential limit. It should be in the game. Scouts and coaches should be able to guess at someones potential. Practicing and playing games should reveal more about someones potential. Not having potential makes the game less accurate to how things work in the real game of football. And the game is suppose to be about the real game.

Exactly. Not every player can become elite