SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

[JayhawkerStL]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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

[extremeskins04]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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.

[NinthFall]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

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.

Older players do decrease right now? I play Panthers and see Jussi Jokinen decrease despite of having good seasons, Purcell decreasing, MacKenzie decreasing.

What bothers me is that they shouldn't code the automatic descrease just because someone ages. There are multiple great examples of talented individuals in NHL in real life whom have only jumped to higher level in their later years.

This is where line chemistry ratings really would matter. Why keep an old slowing down player in the lineup? Why not just throw him away before he ages? Because he is good for the chemistry of a line. A certain player can become better playing with certain players, we've all seen that. So line chemistry definitely should be in the game. Chemistry obviously develops the longer they play together.

I just hate it when I want to develop a player and he never will. Panthers are basically a bank of useless AHL youngsters whom will never develop to NHL, even though in real life all whom watched their players certainly know their potential.

[NinthFall]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

Does anyone have any news if NHL 17 will fix this player development system?

I mean change it completely.

Or at very least make faceoff rating develop, since now it never develops for anyone.

And don't lock up younger players as AHL potential from the start... come on

The whole potential system needs to go. Follow FIFA 16's both rating system and development system.

[Arrowhead21]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

There is reason for some cautious optimism. Learning that there is a new mode in NHL 17 called Franchise Mode makes me curious. It could be a completely new mode with a different scouting/progression system OR it could just be Be a GM with a changed name (similar to what they did when they changed Be a Pro to Live the Life)

[joesmith4488]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

I'm not 100% sure about which iteration it was, but I'm guessing NHL 2013. But my brother and I typically pick up hockey once every few years, create ourselves, and start up franchise mode. After we finished our first season our 65 overall created players jumped considerably to around 80 after having pretty good seasons, other players on the team who had a good year went up as well.

We were completely floored, it was the first sports game we've played that we actually noticed attribute improvements/declines based off of statistics instead of the "player is young +2 to everything, player is old -2 to everything" which seems like is done in every other sports game.

Fast forward to what I'm guessing was NHL 2015, we did the same thing, finished the first season of franchise, but this time players attributes barely even budged. Older players got slightly worse, younger players got slightly better, but for the most part everyone stayed the same regardless of how they played. It was one of the single most disappointing and defeating things we've experienced in a sports game in 20 years.

Long story short, were debating picking the game up this year, but judging by this thread, NHL 2016's player progression sounded like it wasn't very good, is there reason to believe 2017's will be better and based more on player statistics in a given season?

[actionhank]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

Older players do decrease right now? I play Panthers and see Jussi Jokinen decrease despite of having good seasons, Purcell decreasing, MacKenzie decreasing.

What bothers me is that they shouldn't code the automatic descrease just because someone ages. There are multiple great examples of talented individuals in NHL in real life whom have only jumped to higher level in their later years.

This is where line chemistry ratings really would matter. Why keep an old slowing down player in the lineup? Why not just throw him away before he ages? Because he is good for the chemistry of a line. A certain player can become better playing with certain players, we've all seen that. So line chemistry definitely should be in the game. Chemistry obviously develops the longer they play together.

I just hate it when I want to develop a player and he never will. Panthers are basically a bank of useless AHL youngsters whom will never develop to NHL, even though in real life all whom watched their players certainly know their potential.

I think everyone ages though. I mean, some age better than others, and it might be hard to determine just how they would do it, but it seems like a good starting point would be some sort of formula where age, injury history, and starting skill determine how their aging will be affected.

Look at guys like Jarome Iginla, who can still put up goals, but aren't useful in contributing elsewhere on the ice as much as they used to be. I think your "play type" would also have something to do with it. A big physical power forward is not only going to feel the effects of age sooner and probably more harshly than a lighter skating sniper, but they have less to sacrifice if you will when it comes. A power forward with an average shot just becomes a 3rd line player as they lose their speed and ability to play a physical game due to injury and age. On the other hand, a sniper who has a great shot, and good hands can afford to change the way they play, because even though they may be slower, they can still put the puck in the net. To circle back to my Jarome Iginla mention, he was a dominant power forward, but as he gets older he can't play that same type of game where he speeds in and throws the body around as much to break up plays. But, he can still contribute on the powerplay with his deadly shot, and when space is created for him, he can bury passes and set players up. But, that changes their value on your team, and their use in your game. You won't want Iginla on your speedy top line, or maybe even on your 2nd line, because you would have faster rookies and young guys you want to keep developing. But, he might still be a key part of your powerplay, just like an aging defender might be a liability on your top pairing as they lose speed and have to rely on positioning, but their passing and shooting might still make them a key piece of your powerplay as they would be able to easily quarterback it with the increase in space being on the man advantage provides.

It's hard to think of a definite formula, but I think something that tracks injuries and slowly takes more away from speed, acceleration and skating, while affecting things like puck handling and shooting to a lesser degree would be good. This would also affect players like Ovechkin and Crosby less, since they have a higher starting attribute rating, and lose less in terms of attributes to age than someone who's only ever been a 2nd line winger. This way, you have the motivation to use young players, and also make tough choices when you sign free agents. Maybe you really want Iginla, but he's choosing between you and Florida. Do you give him the term and salary he wants, knowing that you could use him on the powerplay, but at 5 million he's going to be a liability elsewhere...or do you pass on the deal and just bring up some AHL talent and hope to find a gem in your system, or maybe work on a trade or free agent signing next summer?

As it stands now, there's no reason not to get a player like Jarome Iginla, or a guy like Barret Jackman, at least not over rookies. Their attributes are all higher, and they don't really decrease much. I could still run Barret Jackman as a top-pairing partner with Pietrangelo and not really see any real affects from it.

[AdamJones113]

Re: SO tired of the PLAYER DEVELOPMENT

Here's what I suggested a while ago: pics and better formatting here: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-overhaul.html

(On mobile or this would be neater, sorry)

New Look: Rating Overhaul
As I and many others have discussed in previous posts, there is a dearth of differentiation between players in EA NHL. John Scott handles like Sidney Crosby, Phil Kessel hits like Zdeno Chara, and Chris Mason plays the pipes like Henrik Lundqvist. The series hasn't seen much overhaul rating-wise since potentials went from letter grades to stars for NHL 13, so here's a possible rating system that is designed to incorporate realism and reflect the ups and downs of an NHL season while remaining true to life.

Let's break it down step-by-step:

Letter Grades (F to A+)
Now, this is probably controversial. But the way I see it is, there is more of a difference between an A+ and an A than there is between a 99 and a 96. Rather than a scale of 36-99, which we all know is hardly used, the letter grade system encapsulates a scale of 13 different rankings, from A+ (Sidney Crosby, and only Sidney Crosby) to F (I'll get into that). Letter grades for overall and letter grades for the individual rating categories.



Letter Grade Fluctuation
This kills two birds with one stone: roster updates and Be A GM hot/cold streaks + fluctuation. For the former, a simple letter grade change is required. The latter is more complicated. When a player is on a hot streak, performing well, the letter grade is changed to a higher grade and the colour turns green, indicating improvement from the original grade. When a player is on a cold streak, performing poorly, the letter grade is changed to a lower grade and the colour turns red, indicating a worse grade than the original:



The rating will fluctuate after every game, but being on a long hot streak means the rating can go higher than normal while being on a long cold streak means the rating can decrease lower than normal. For injuries, it is essentially the same thing, with the rating turning orange to indicate injury. It is up to you to decide whether the rating is high enough for the player to play through the injury or whether his injury is too severe and the player should rest:



Tangible Ratings vs. Intangible Ratings
The current iteration has six rating categories: Physical, Defense, Shooting, Puck Skills, Skating, Senses. I am proposing that ratings instead be divided into two categories, Tangibles and Intangibles. Tangible ratings, such as Speed, Passing, Wrist Shot Power, etc, are subject to the above fluctuation and will regress as a player gets older. Intangible ratings, such as Defensive Awareness, Discipline, Poise, etc, remain constant throughout a season and will only increase, at the end of the season, unless the player suffers a serious concussion or head injury. The Intangible ratings will increase as a player plays more games in the NHL: