Your ideal method for progression

[gmmsports]

The best way to do progression/recruiting would be to implement a two tier system of actual and potential ratings but have potential not be guranteed.

Two player examples:

Player A is a 2 star recruit that comes in at 60 overall but has the potential to become a 95.

Player B is a 4 star recruit that comes in as an 75 overall but his potential is an 85.

Whether they reach their potential depends on hidden factors, coaching attributes, and to a lesser degree playing time. You would have to monitor their ratings increases to determine their "work ethic" on your own and decide whether they would reach their potential or not. That 95 potential two star may only reach a 75. While the 4 star would be more likely to reach his 85 since it is not as big of an increase from his actual.

This would for some very interesting recruiting strategies. Do you gamble on a bunch of high potential guys that could end up burning you or do you go with safer players with less upside?

On a side note it just cracks me up about everyone complaining about there 80 overall QB that threw for 6,000 yards and not having better attributes. Why in the world do you need higher rated players so you can throw for 9,000 yards?

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

If a player is producing better that means they are better, but their ratings shouldn't reflect that?

A player should produce up to there ratings. If they are producing well beyond there ratings, then the game play ISN'T using ratings accurately. Plus, players can have an anomaly of a year. Or they could be in the perfect system for them. IE. Denver Broncos in the 90's with RB's. It doesn't mean that there ratings should increase.

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

How is that arcadey?

It's arcady because in real life, progression drives ability, ability drives production, or progression drives ratings, and ratings drive stats. In real life, stats don't drive ratings or production. Rodgers didn't get better because he put up a 4000 yard season, he got better first, and then put up the 4000 yard season.

With stats based progression, only those with stats get better. The bench gets worse because they are not generating stats. You can't have that Vet still in his prime as a backup, because he starts to SUCK after progression happens, because he's not generating stats cause he isn't starting. Stats based progression takes bad players and makes them great. Doesn't happen in real life, that's arcady. What happens in real life is that players abilities are not perceived correctly, or they just get better, THEN THEY PRODUCE.

Stats based progression also handicaps the positions that don't get stats, like the CB that plays great but has few ints. Like Madden has a history of the LE getting sacks and not the RE, so a particular position suffers because of lack of stats.

There are a ton of things unrealistic/arcady about stats based progression.

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

Because someone could take advantage of the system by playing on easy difficulties? Worry about yourself, not someone else.

I am worried about myself. I could give a ratz behind what someone does with their game. Change whatever ratings you want to change. I do care when it effects ME. Have things as unrealistic as you want, but DON'T FORCE UNREALISM ON ME. Which is what a stats based progression system brings. See, I have a reason to care. It DOES EFFECT ME.

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

How is random progression like it is now at all logical.

More logical than a stats based progression system. Players do get better and worse year in and year out. Plenty of real life examples of this. Many players go up and down, year to year.

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

Adrian Peterson didn't just wake up one day and decide to be great. He piled up the stats, worked his *** off in practice and got better.

Wrong!!!!!! He worked his but off in practice, got coached up, got better AND THEN PILED UP STATS. He didn't pile up stat and then get better. You have things backwards. That's why it's ARCADY.

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

If he didn't have the stats he had in college he wouldn't even be rated right now.

If he didn't work hard in HS and College, and get better, HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE STATS IN COLLEGE to be rated in Madden in his rookie year.

If he didn't work hard in the NFL and get better, HE WOULDN'T HAVE THE STATS IN THE NFL and wouldn't be rated right now.

Many things determine progression (stats isn't one of them), progression determines ratings, ratings determine production/stats.

A player gets better, then produces. They don't produce, then get better.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by BenGerman

I'll always be someone who wishes they would just let us turn ratings off. At least to give us the option. Then at the end of the season, we could see such levels as "high progression", "Highest progression", "Medium progression", "Low progression", "No Progression". If EA gave us that, which a practice mode with reps that allowed for improvement and seeing who will be our starters and such, it would give the user a lot more control over the game. Making decisions on personnel might actually matter as much as they should if this were the case.

Would take way to much time to have to look at all 75 players with slow motion instant replay to try and determine who to keep and not keep. Also, we would have no game film on players on other teams or rookies. I think we have to simulate this and represent it somehow in an easy to read format. Have a Coaching Staff, GM and Scouts that mean something in evaluating talent. The better evaluators cost more. Get a representation of what your staff things about the players perceived abilities and potential. I would have this representation be a number with a "?", or a number range, or a letter grade with a +,-. only being as accurate as your staff is good at evaluating.

[K0ZZ]

Can you stop using NFL examples for a college game?

By your logic, Case Keenum who is pretty much a lock for 4000 passing yards should be at a lower rating then an average QB in a pro style offense because Case is benefiting from his system?

Were talking about college, you seem dominant college players emerge across the nation. Hell, Garrett Wolfe led the nation in his senior year in rushing yards. We aren't talking about the NFL here. Players progress rapidly these four years, it's the NFL where progression needs to slow down substantially.

Not to mention I never said stats only should be the progression factor. It needs to implement multiple factors. But the way it is now where stats aren't a factor is idiotic.

Also stop twisting words to go for your argument. It's a pretty basic logical fallacy and hurts your credibility. (SPH-131 helping for once).

If your going to try and act like my idea is redundant while using unrelated facts then don't bother responding. You keep bringing up the NFL. I'm talking about the NCAA. Same sport, different talent pools.

And since we can't focus our training into a player in order to raise their ratings to raise their production, than their production needs to be a factor in their progression. If they implement a preseason drill system or inseason practice system that benefits the team, than I'll back off the stats being a factor. But having it random or only based off a potential rating doesn't do anything new. It's random and you just hope the game rolls for your specific players. That's logical? Coaches don't hope that their top running back magically gets better, they work with that player specifically.

[Sundown2600]

Quote: Originally Posted by gmmsports

The best way to do progression/recruiting would be to implement a two tier system of actual and potential ratings but have potential not be guranteed. Two player examples: Player A is a 2 star recruit that comes in at 60 overall but has the potential to become a 95. Player B is a 4 star recruit that comes in as an 75 overall but his potential is an 85. Whether they reach their potential depends on hidden factors, coaching attributes, and to a lesser degree playing time. You would have to monitor their ratings increases to determine their "work ethic" on your own and decide whether they would reach their potential or not. That 95 potential two star may only reach a 75. While the 4 star would be more likely to reach his 85 since it is not as big of an increase from his actual. This would for some very interesting recruiting strategies. Do you gamble on a bunch of high potential guys that could end up burning you or do you go with safer players with less upside? On a side note it just cracks me up about everyone complaining about there 80 overall QB that threw for 6,000 yards and not having better attributes. Why in the world do you need higher rated players so you can throw for 9,000 yards?

I really like this post. I guess they could add a "diamond in the rough" potential rating as well to a very small group of lower rated players. We've been saying this for years that higher ranked recruits should not always be the best players by the time they are Jrs and Srs. They should be most of the time, but not all of the time.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

Can you stop using NFL examples for a college game?

There's a progression thread going in the Madden forum. I was in my User CP and didn't realize this was an NCAA thread. Thought it was a Madden thread. I'm going to remove it from my User CP.

But my points on stats based progression stands. It's backwards and arcady.

LOL, I was wondering why NCAA was being brought up in a Madden thread. Now I know why.

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by blkrptnt819

I like this system and it will allow for the 2* diamond in the rough to blossom. Like some 5* have been groomed to be the player they are but some 3* just started playing football within the past 2 years and have mounds of physical potential. The potential rating should be hidden and random amongst ALL recruits. Also time on the field, production and coaching should play a part. Something like progression = (x)potential + (y)Time on the field + (z) Production + (a) coaching. The ratio should be random.

Can I get some feedback on this and see if you can find any holes in this. Time on the field would be some function of # of snaps a player sees and would be gradual not all at once.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by blkrptnt819

Can I get some feedback on this and see if you can find any holes in this. Time on the field would be some function of # of snaps a player sees and would be gradual not all at once.

I also have NCAA 12 and not just Madden 12. I actually like this:

"Something like progression = (x)potential + (y)Time on the field + (z) Production + (a) coaching. The ratio should be random"

I don't want to see progression tied to production at all, but I'd be OK with it being minimized. I actually think "time on the field" should carry more weight than production. But I'd be OK with production being a part of it, as long as other things, like mentioned above, carried significant weight.

Now that I know I'm in an NCAA thread and not a Madden thread.

I would enhance it to include other things.

Allow us to create a training schedule for training camp and off season for both team practice and individual drills. Then simulate the effects.

I would add injury. I think that would be just about the only thing I would have that could cause any regression, since this is college. You would think that everyone would progress some when in college.