SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

[extremeskins04]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay D

The reason franchise modes don't work on consoles is that no one actually wants their player to degrade. It will never be worth a darn because if it became a real challenge and interesting, devs would be inundated with complaints. Their is not a single franchise mode in any sports game that is even close to being realistic enough to invest my time in. Part of that is the difficulty to produce such a mode, part of it is the vast array of unrealistic expectations. I've stuck to playing single season modes, which still have issues, but not nearly so drastic. It's why the UT modes in games are so attractive, because it moves on from what these games do poorly to what they do best. That's not to say franchise modes can't be fun. But expecting realism out of them is kind of unrealistic. It's an alternate universe, so just accept it as such. The players will never match their real world accomplishments. We can't predict their accomplishments, so why expect a video game to randomly do so. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say NBA 2k does it probably the best regarding franchise mode. MLB The Show is probably 2nd best. A normal player progression model is usually as follows:

Age 18-26: Prime progression years
Age 26-30: Still prime years and still progressing but not as much as ages 20-26
Age 30-32: Progression slowed extremely but still could progress slightly if has good seasons.
Age 32-34: Progression is pretty much halted, but if player has a bad year, he'll regress some.
Age 34+: No progression at all even if they have good season. There's normal regression at this point. Player might not regress if they have great season. Player starts thinking about retirement.

The above model is NORMAL in probably 95% of the sports games out there today. And it makes sense. And I have no issues with it.

If I see a 35 year old progressing like a 25 year old, I have a problem with that.

[JayhawkerStL]

I would argue that a progression in anything but things like awareness and discipline after age 27 is probably unwarranted.

What would be interesting to see, and I'm too lazy to do it, is running the numbers on the ratings of players as they appear in video games over their careers. You could use those variances to create an algorithm that would create more realistic dips and spikes over a career.

I mean, the data devs need is right there. It's not perfect, as star players tend to get massive benefits of the doubt in each new release, but in theory, in the age of analytics, there is no excuse for the smooth progressions we see in games.

But then, will video game players accept it if the game randomly chooses one of their players for a dip.? Will dips and spikes even be accepted without Internet forum rage?

It's too bad that sports games died on the PC, where attempts to simulate real life was much more welcomed. But then again, there is a reason they died, and that is the market for sim sports is extremely niche.

Even this site, which seems very pro simulation, reveals just how resistant video game players are to regression in the middle of a career. EA and 2K are in business to sell games, not reproduce hard reality.

It's one of the reasons I tend to stick with playing single seasons. Each year the players are re-rates based on real life performance, even if it is a projection. And in baseball, hockey, and basketball, for all but the very few fanatics, no one plays into the second seasons (and if you are simming, seriously get a PC and dive into a text sim where realism still thrives). Football is different because of the short seasons, but the games are just as weak in modeling real life progression and regression. I'd rather see a more thorough way to move the stats and league history over to the new game each season, while I play with the new ratings from the new game.

The reality is, though, devs are just trying to make a game that is fun to play, not a simulation that carries any weight. They may market and say different things, but I don't hold their PR to any higher standard than I do for products like the Sham-Wow. I've been playing sports games on consoles and PCs since the 80's. I already know what they are selling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[timelydew]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay D

I would argue that a progression in anything but things like awareness and discipline after age 27 is probably unwarranted. What would be interesting to see, and I'm too lazy to do it, is running the numbers on the ratings of players as they appear in video games over their careers. You could use those variances to create an algorithm that would create more realistic dips and spikes over a career. I mean, the data devs need is right there. It's not perfect, as star players tend to get massive benefits of the doubt in each new release, but in theory, in the age of analytics, there is no excuse for the smooth progressions we see in games. But then, will video game players accept it if the game randomly chooses one of their players for a dip.? Will dips and spikes even be accepted without Internet forum rage? It's too bad that sports games died on the PC, where attempts to simulate real life was much more welcomed. But then again, there is a reason they died, and that is the market for sim sports is extremely niche. Even this site, which seems very pro simulation, reveals just how resistant video game players are to regression in the middle of a career. EA and 2K are in business to sell games, not reproduce hard reality. It's one of the reasons I tend to stick with playing single seasons. Each year the players are re-rates based on real life performance, even if it is a projection. And in baseball, hockey, and basketball, for all but the very few fanatics, no one plays into the second seasons (and if you are simming, seriously get a PC and dive into a text sim where realism still thrives). Football is different because of the short seasons, but the games are just as weak in modeling real life progression and regression. I'd rather see a more thorough way to move the stats and league history over to the new game each season, while I play with the new ratings from the new game. The reality is, though, devs are just trying to make a game that is fun to play, not a simulation that carries any weight. They may market and say different things, but I don't hold their PR to any higher standard than I do for products like the Sham-Wow. I've been playing sports games on consoles and PCs since the 80's. I already know what they are selling. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could not agree more with all of this. Internet consternation would be at an all-time high if player progression/regression actually reflected real-life performance metrics. It would be a ****storm.

[extremeskins04]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay D

It's one of the reasons I tend to stick with playing single seasons. Each year the players are re-rates based on real life performance, even if it is a projection. And in baseball, hockey, and basketball, for all but the very few fanatics, no one plays into the second seasons (and if you are simming, seriously get a PC and dive into a text sim where realism still thrives). Football is different because of the short seasons, but the games are just as weak in modeling real life progression and regression. I'd rather see a more thorough way to move the stats and league history over to the new game each season, while I play with the new ratings from the new game. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alot of "sports simulation enthusiasts" take pride in developing their own systems of how they play the game the way they want to. For me it's fun to rebuild a franchise team into a dynasty. It's fun to use player lock on one position and have the CPU play the other positions. This way the player ratings come into full effect, which is difficult to do when you're controlling every player.

Also, I don't play every game. In an 82 game season, I will play about 20 games and sim the rest and then if i make the playoffs, I'll play one, then sim one, then play one and sim one. I like going through many seasons and building a team through free agency, trading and/or the draft.

That's fun for me. To each their own. In NHL 16 I've had a few hiccups but more or less, it's been pretty good with the progression and regression of players.

Some people like to only play one season and play every game. That's fun to them and that's cool, but I like watching players grow in their careers.

[NinthFall]

Quote: Originally Posted by extremeskins04

I would say NBA 2k does it probably the best regarding franchise mode. MLB The Show is probably 2nd best. A normal player progression model is usually as follows: Age 18-26: Prime progression years Age 26-30: Still prime years and still progressing but not as much as ages 20-26 Age 30-32: Progression slowed extremely but still could progress slightly if has good seasons. Age 32-34: Progression is pretty much halted, but if player has a bad year, he'll regress some. Age 34+: No progression at all even if they have good season. There's normal regression at this point. Player might not regress if they have great season. Player starts thinking about retirement. The above model is NORMAL in probably 95% of the sports games out there today. And it makes sense. And I have no issues with it. If I see a 35 year old progressing like a 25 year old, I have a problem with that.

Now here I agree with ya. NBA2K does well with the franchise mode and something similar would please me enough in NHL.

Also, if you were talking about 35ers stopping development, then yeah I understand what you mean. There still should be some sort of "veteran presence" thing going on for the team chemistry, which would make having these older fellas around more useful.

PS. check out Fuego from Valencia, had him develop at the age of 33. Same with James Milner, whom jumped from 80 to 82 at age 31. And did not train them manually, they developed by themselves.

[optimusparm]

does anyone know which attributes barely progress or don't progress at all for prospects in next gen NHL 16? IIRC in NHL 14 speed and poise were two that barely increased.

[NinthFall]

Quote: Originally Posted by optimusparm

does anyone know which attributes barely progress or don't progress at all for prospects in next gen NHL 16? IIRC in NHL 14 speed and poise were two that barely increased.

Faceoff rating doesn't develop ever, at all.

[actionhank]

Quote: Originally Posted by NinthFall

I play Fifa quite a lot and that's not how it is in Fifa. I just had a 31 year old central middlefielder develop from 80 to 82. Also in Fifa you can choose 5 players to train every week, so no one is really locked up at any overall. The thing is, that all this locking up players or forcing their overall down is ridiculous imo. Overall should depend on performance, a good player is simply a good player. Surely age can affect SOME aspects of their performance, e.g. speed and same with injuries. But just because a player turns 30 he should not stop right there. That's not fun for the gamer and not realistic either

The overall isn't an actual number that's changed. It's a number that changes based on the ratings in various categories for the player. People put way too much stock in a player's overall rating, because it's the easiest way to see if a player is "good" or "bad".

In the game, regression should start to take affect in certain places more than others. After a certain age, a player's ability to resist injury should start to decrease, and their speed and acceleration should also start to decrease. Strength, off/def awareness, and shot power would start to go down slowly as well, but not to the same degree that the other physical ratings do.

This way would allow for older guys to still serve a role, but in a different fashion. Guys who have mediocre shots but a lot of speed generally start to lose their usefulness as a scorer after their foot speed slows down, either due to injury or just age. They can still play, but they're not going to have that main tool that kept them valuable to a team, so their offense will suffer. Same for defenders who aren't the best defensively, but rely on speed to keep up with the play, or to generate offense. These types of players can still sign with teams in lesser roles, but they aren't going to be 1st and 2nd line players. Also, the increase in potential injuries will force players to decide if signing them to their team is a good idea. If there was some sort of "Locker room presence" added where veteran players could help improve rookies who are learning, it would add some value to them as well.

But, on the opposite side of all of that are players with high levels of skill. Guys like Ovechkin who have terrific shots and are big aren't going to suffer from their speed/acceleration ratings decreasing, because they can still rely on their shooting skills that may decrease slightly, but not enough to keep them from being an offensive threat. The same can be said for a guy like Jagr who doesn't have to rely on speed, because his passing and shooting are so good.

This would keep guys who are already elite from staying elite forever, but still make them valuable and highly sought after in the game. The reality with the NHL series is that right now, the ratings are so worthless that it doesn't really matter who you play. You can keep a team of all old players, because they pretty much keep their high ratings forever. Rookies might develop, but older players never really slow down, so there's not much reason to replace them.