Ideas to add "life" to a stale CFM

[Reejer]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

I would go with a select-able option that allows for either static or dynamic potential. In life, someone's potential doesn't change. What changes is the circumstances around them. My view of a 70 OVR being a perennial MVP is that the simulation must be broken if it allows for this.

Good points, I like the idea of making it optional, because options are like bacon, they make everything better. I agree that the ratings don't make much of a difference in each individual players performance, and that should be addressed. I have also noticed that when I play with an average (or slightly above average) QB, that you have more pass control, than with a QB that has his THP and each of the accuracy ratings maxed out .

The people that give potential grades can be way off the mark, because they are just human after all. Look at the Madden potential ratings of players like Tashaun Gipson when he came into the league as an UDFA. And look at him now. Or look at Brady's Madden ratings his first year in the game. I know it was before the potential rating but it shows how the ratings gurus at EA, who would be responsible for rating potential, can potentially be way off.

Sometimes the different circumstances can change potential outcomes. An example of potential changing in real life, is when a young player stinks his first couple of years, gets cut (or traded), then he gets a second chance with another team and strives under a new coach and team atmosphere, Ex: Brett Favre from the Falcons to the Pack, or Kurt Warner who went from bagging groceries to leading the Rams. How high do you think Kurt's potential was rated by the development team when he was asking old ladies, "Paper or Plastic Ma'am?" probably a zero .

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by Reejer

Good points, I like the idea of making it optional, because options are like bacon, they make everything better. I agree that the ratings don't make much of a difference in each individual players performance, and that should be addressed. I have also noticed that when I play with an average (or slightly above average) QB, that you have more pass control, than with a QB that has his THP and each of the accuracy ratings maxed out . The people that give potential grades can be way off the mark, because they are just human after all. Look at the Madden potential ratings of players like Tashaun Gipson when he came into the league as an UDFA. And look at him now. Or look at Brady's Madden ratings his first year in the game. I know it was before the potential rating but it shows how the ratings gurus at EA, who would be responsible for rating potential, can potentially be way off. Sometimes the different circumstances can change potential outcomes. An example of potential changing in real life, is when a young player stinks his first couple of years, gets cut (or traded), then he gets a second chance with another team and strives under a new coach and team atmosphere, Ex: Brett Favre from the Falcons to the Pack, or Kurt Warner who went from bagging groceries to leading the Rams. How high do you think Kurt's potential was rated by the development team when he was asking old ladies, "Paper or Plastic Ma'am?" probably a zero .

Brett's potential never changed. The circumstances around him changed. Same with Kurt Warner. I'm with you on the potential grade having some inaccuracy, which becomes more accurate the longer a player is with a team or in the league. A hidden actual potential vs a shown perceived potential. I would also tie the accuracy of potential to how good the scouting and coaching staff is at evaluating talent.

I would handle attributes/ratings the same way. A hidden actual vs a shown perceived that becomes more accurate the longer a player is on a team and in the league. Accuracy also tied to a coaching staffs ability to evaluate talent.

I do like a lot of what you are suggesting.

[Hooe]

So just some food for thought -

NFL scouting departments don't actually grade "potential". You won't find a potential grade on any scouting report. The best one can do is retroactively infer potential by looking at how the evaluation of the player changed over time (scouts do grade players' technical skills numerically, and these grades do change). To that end, the very idea of an explicit potential grade is a bit game-y. I don't think this is good or bad thing necessarily, but it is a thing nevertheless.

I'm not sure to what end this influences this discussion, but again just some food for thought.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

So just some food for thought - NFL scouting departments don't actually grade "potential". You won't find a potential grade on any scouting report. The best one can do is retroactively infer potential by looking at how the evaluation of the player changed over time (scouts do grade players' technical skills numerically, and these grades do change). To that end, the very idea of an explicit potential grade is a bit game-y. I don't think this is good or bad thing necessarily, but it is a thing nevertheless. I'm not sure to what end this influences this discussion, but again just some food for thought.

You might be right (and probably are) about the scouting report not having a specific grade for potential, but Scouts/Coaches do consider raw talent and potential when drafting. I see it with GB, especially with small school athletes or with those being converted to a new position. That's why I say a players actual potential should be hidden and we should only see a BEST GUESS.

[dkpickup]

I'm unsure f whether or not this has been mentioned, as it has been a fair while since I checked this thread. I've always wanted the idea of cumulative fatigue to apply, both week to week and over the course of a season. I'm currently in a CFM using the 49ers, and I run Hyde into the ground, as there is no problem in doing so each week, as he is back at 100% fatigue each week. If a player has a high usage rate in a week and over a season, then we shouldn't start at 100 each week. For example, give a player 25-30 carries each game for three games, and see his starting fatigue rating each week start to lower, 100 - 96 - 92 - 88. Or find that the player gets tired quicker, and then soft-tissue injuries such as hamstring pulls or calf strains become more prevalent. This would make having a decent back up running back or D-line even more valuable and make us actually use substitutions in game.

[roadman]

We will find out soon enough about what has been added to CFM. I put this in another CFM thread, but in case the posters in here don't see it, here it is.

aSOJA ‏@PHTYT 22h22 hours ago
@RexDEAFootball @Shopmaster @EASPORTS_MUT Hope CFM gets a ton of attention for 17 #CFMMovement . It still needs so much work .


Rex Dickson
‏@RexDEAFootball
@PHTYT @Shopmaster We got you covered.

[ajra21]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

I would handle attributes/ratings the same way. A hidden actual vs a shown perceived that becomes more accurate the longer a player is on a team and in the league. Accuracy also tied to a coaching staffs ability to evaluate talent. I do like a lot of what you are suggesting.

have always liked the idea of two things when it comes to drafted players in madden:

1. bust factor - a hidden rating that doesn't get shown to the user but that after one season drags a player's ratings down.

2. not showing a rookie's OVR until the end of the first season.

[khaliib]

Quote: Originally Posted by ajra21

have always liked the idea of two things when it comes to drafted players in madden: 1. bust factor - a hidden rating that doesn't get shown to the user but that after one season drags a player's ratings down. 2. not showing a rookie's OVR until the end of the first season.

#1 is already currently in the game and functioning via Player Backstory.

#2 OVR is used as a mechanism for determining "depth chart" and "contract value".
It's not used in the manner in which you are referring.

The "Matchup" stick is s mechanism that's already implemented into the game that many don't consider and/or understand the info being presented to them during gameplay.

It's actually giving a "OVR player vs player " matchup during gameplay based on the positional scheme type selected in coach scheme.

- if you have a Red Zone Threat selected for #2 WR, (under the hood) the WR's ratings are correlated against the Red Zone Threat thresholds, then the matchup stick displays how well that WR's ratings as a Red Zone Threat matches up against the cover ratings of the defensive player.

- the green, yellow, red colors give a quick OVR player vs player snapshot with dynamic mechanisms in play that altar the same matchup as well.

Maybe I'm not understanding the functionality/purpose of #2.

Many of the suggestions are already in the game, or aspects of it, but are not as visible in the manner one would like.