Expanded Attributes

[vrtkolman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Geodude

I did think of hand size and ultimately concluded that so many traits are already tied to it (carry, catching, snapping, awareness for bad handoffs, hand fighting to an extent), that ultimately I didn't include it in the end. That was how I imagined first step, short area explosiveness and reaction time off the snap! Goes beyond just straight acceleration. By the time you factor in Stamina, Season Stamina, Mass, Finish plus other heart & physical ratings I felt you had a decent picture of the effort level of a player to play up to their ratings. Love the idea of it all being tied to coaching (and scrapping XP), teams would not only scout/draft based on their preferences, but each team would coach players differently. The progression, regression and potential ratings determining how easy and how much a player can be coached.

I appreciate the coaching trait feedback. Originally the plan was to just scope it to the existing trait system as that is pretty silly. I shouldn't be able to use just one week of experience and make a lazy, low motor player into a high motor guy for this rest of his career. Same thing with QB traits. The traits would be completely dependent on coaching and not upgrade-able.

I see how applying these to ratings would be good too. Thinking more on this, I could see this being immersive in franchise mode as well with "Coaching Decisions" or something. Example, your star player is dogging it in practice, do you call him out in the media (getting your other players in line but possibly ruining the relationship with said star player), or ignore it and give the rest of your team permission to dog it as well?

Really I'm for scrapping the current EXP system and putting that all into a really detailed coaching EXP/attribute system. Right now coaches are pretty useless in this game, and in my opinion they are the most important part of the team.

[Mattanite]

A Tale of Three QBs

So in spirit of expanded attributes I thought it would be fun to tell the tale of three QBs in regards to hidden potential, progression and regression (with illustrations to boot).

Once upon a time, there were three prospective 1st round QBs who had all the scouts scratching their heads:

• Drake Gortles - He was everything you look for in a QB, tall, built, cannon for an arm but his mental acuity was somewhat questionable
• Donny Namziel - He was electric, a playmaker, he made you love football but there was something about his heart that made you pause
• Eddy Ridgewater - Quiet but solid, a true team mate but never excelling in the eye test

The three QBs were eventually all drafted in the first round and the scouts and coaches put them through their paces.

• Drake Gortles did okay his rookie year and then excelled in his sophmore season when his team brought the QB whisperer to town. He progressed well under this QB coach despite being of modest potential. However, once the QB coach was gone, Drake stumbled and stalled in his development for the next few seasons until one day a light bulb lit up above his head. He finally got it! He found his brain! But by this point, a decline in progression and regression meant that it was too late to achieve his full potential, but did well as a successful journeyman until his retirement.
• Donny Namziel was flash with cash now he was on a team. The coaches got a look at his heart, but realised he wasn't "all in" when it came to the game. He didn't do well in the clutch, or with morale, he sunk team chemistry and the coaches realised despite the high physical and playmaking skills, his potential was limited by his lack of heart and intangibles. Donny was cut and spent years bouncing around the league, entertaining with his flashy play that was just a flash in the pan.
• Eddy Rridgewater came last and was humbled by it. The coaches got to meet this kid and realised he had great intangibles and his heart was in the right place! He progressed quickly under great coaches early on despite a lack of size and questions about his slight frame. Ultimately disaster struck and a freak injury caused a severe regression in Eddy. He eventually found his courage and recovered, proceeding to work his way back up but the pundits would always wonder how high his potential was if that injury never happened. Eddy found success as a solid field general, leaning on his sharp wits and cheery morale over his lack of physicality and size

And then all three were buggered when the shining knight Eric Barr was taken in the 2nd round and put them all to shame...

The drawings below illustrate my idea of how developing a player in Madden could be. Potential is hidden and acts as a soft ceiling to a players OVR. The progression rating starts off at its peak and slowly declines with age as that player becomes more of a known commodity. Good coaching combined with high progression means players hit their potential faster and more consistently. The regression attribute slowly decreases with age which increases the chance and magnitude of a player regressing. Starting off with a high regression attribute holds off the effects of father time a little bit longer but injuries can chip away at this attribute. A good trainer helps keep father time away too! :P

[Mouthoff33]

Genius and I love the detail.

I think the only thing I would add would be "Escapability" for QBs. This trait would work in conjunction with the players agility and acceleration to determine how, and how quickly, the quarterback rolls out of or escapes the pocket when under pressure. A 99 rating would mean the QB can jet out of the pocket like Russell Wilson, a 50 rated QB would stutter step or take a moment of the delay between the button press and the escape, and a 1 rating would have a QB never escaping the pocket quickly enough to escape a sack.

Again, great work on going through the detail and intricacy of these ratings.

[Mattanite]

I thought this article was good at explaining the need to further expand the pass rush moves but also to make it about the matchup over the whole game, the chess game between two athletes if you will.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...e-never-before


Also, to back up the need for hand fighting at a lot of positions and just how important hands are to a players game, I present T.J. Watt's scouting report on WalterFootball:


http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2017tjwatt.php

[Mattanite]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mouthoff33

Genius and I love the detail. I think the only thing I would add would be "Escapability" for QBs. This trait would work in conjunction with the players agility and acceleration to determine how, and how quickly, the quarterback rolls out of or escapes the pocket when under pressure. A 99 rating would mean the QB can jet out of the pocket like Russell Wilson, a 50 rated QB would stutter step or take a moment of the delay between the button press and the escape, and a 1 rating would have a QB never escaping the pocket quickly enough to escape a sack. Again, great work on going through the detail and intricacy of these ratings.

This is already achieved in a basic (not always working) way with the trait system. What you're describing there I think is more of a need for a tendency system like NBA2k has, it's not about how good they're doing it but about what they're doing and when. Tendencies could be tied to attributes, so a QB with high playmaker stat AND scramble trait would take off even more, even to the point of run first over pass. Otherwise, "first step" could be used for QB's leaving their initial stance?


This is one of the reasons I split out playmaker as a big skill, a passer with low skill (accuracy) can still have a decent OVR if they have great physicals, intangibles, heart and playmaker(See Tebow, Tim)... but then you need to know your talent on your roster. You wont be passing too much in this case.


WR with poor catching still make teams if they have playmaking skills too! HBs is all about the playmaker!

[TMJOHNS18]

I'm all for more ratings if they can truly bring uniqueness to each player, which has always been something hard to identify on the 0-99 scale in the game. We can see how a guy with 98 spd would be faster than a guy with 78 spd, but many of the ratings appear to modify success rates and not truly showcase who the player is.

For example, in my current franchise my starting HB is Mike Gillislee. He's now 30 years old and 73ovr. He has only 82spd, acc in the 70s, and his elu/trk ratings are in the 70s. Yet he is capable of taking the ball to the house anytime he gets a touch. Nothing in his ratings show this, but game after game he's always tough to tackle. In my week 1 game he ran for 197 yards and 2 scores in the first HALF of the game. He bounced off defenders, broke tackles and outran the Rams defense for two long scores. In the second half, up big, I sat him for a younger HB. This HB is in his third year, higher overall, higher speed (94), high 80s elusive, overall on the ratings scale better in every way. Yet he finishes the game with 60 yards on 18 carries. He can only get out of a couple tackles, can't put a move on any defender, can't do much at all.

If I needed a HB out of the FA pool, I'd never give Gillislee a shot, his age, lower physical and position skills are counter intuitive. But he just plays better than all my other backs. The CPU is unable to make a decision like this. They behave too cold and calculated. That 5th round gem will never have a shot because he's stuck behind an aging vet averaging 1.2 ypc. By the time to make it to FA (if not cut) they will never be able to reach full potential. Yet, every preseason for 4 years they averaged 6.5 ypc to the vets 1.2.

I'm sure we've all had those players that appear to outperform their ratings. Guys who just seem to play above or below their numbers. Which I'm all for. The only problem I have with the system is the numbers. The visual of the numbers. The game telling me that this player should be better at doing something, yet they aren't. Which, again, is fine. Happens all the time in real life, and it's going to happen during the draft this week when guys taken in the first round will never have half the career of some guys getting picked on day three.

The problem I have though is that with Madden being a game, being a program, these numbers should be a solid indicator of who is better, a true indicator of skill difference.

Take Le'Veon Bell. He ganders around, hops left and right, and generally takes his time hitting the hole. He's patient. But how does that translate into a rating? Is his BCV 99, 98? Other elite RBs will also have high BCV, does a 96 vs 98 BCV runner truly run different? At times we see guys move from scheme to scheme and their 'eliteness' is proven true. They are a beast regardless. But some cannot, some struggle, and some are shown to be more scheme dependent. Madden doesn't have that. If a guy is great on Sunday he is rated elite on Madden. When FA in 2019 comes around, he joins a completely different team, different system, and it's no biggie for him.



My overall point here I'd love to see an expansion in the ratings. But I'd also love to see a reduction in the ratings scale, so that each rating matters more and it's the combination of ratings creating the player. Which I think your expansion of ratings could help differentiate the players more. But, if EA is still on a 0-99 scale, with players continuing to hover around the same range, then there is a whole mess more ratings not making much more of a difference.

On a side note, in my perfect madden. 90% of all ratings are hidden. Really like your progression idea. Really want a dynamic, want contract extensions to be risky. I'd want the ability to line up a player at any spot I wanted, so all would be rated. Simple letter grades/scout info (like HC09 scouting feedback) would maybe tell me putting Brady at ILB was F- F- F- "Not a good idea coach."

Plus, scheme knowledge would be good, since the game is still on the schemes idea make players 'learn' them, not walk into day one as studs.

[Mattanite]

Quote: Originally Posted by TMJOHNS18

I'm all for more ratings if they can truly bring uniqueness to each player, which has always been something hard to identify on the 0-99 scale in the game. We can see how a guy with 98 spd would be faster than a guy with 78 spd, but many of the ratings appear to modify success rates and not truly showcase who the player is. For example, in my current franchise my starting HB is Mike Gillislee. He's now 30 years old and 73ovr. He has only 82spd, acc in the 70s, and his elu/trk ratings are in the 70s. Yet he is capable of taking the ball to the house anytime he gets a touch. Nothing in his ratings show this, but game after game he's always tough to tackle. In my week 1 game he ran for 197 yards and 2 scores in the first HALF of the game. He bounced off defenders, broke tackles and outran the Rams defense for two long scores. In the second half, up big, I sat him for a younger HB. This HB is in his third year, higher overall, higher speed (94), high 80s elusive, overall on the ratings scale better in every way. Yet he finishes the game with 60 yards on 18 carries. He can only get out of a couple tackles, can't put a move on any defender, can't do much at all. If I needed a HB out of the FA pool, I'd never give Gillislee a shot, his age, lower physical and position skills are counter intuitive. But he just plays better than all my other backs. The CPU is unable to make a decision like this. They behave too cold and calculated. That 5th round gem will never have a shot because he's stuck behind an aging vet averaging 1.2 ypc. By the time to make it to FA (if not cut) they will never be able to reach full potential. Yet, every preseason for 4 years they averaged 6.5 ypc to the vets 1.2. I'm sure we've all had those players that appear to outperform their ratings. Guys who just seem to play above or below their numbers. Which I'm all for. The only problem I have with the system is the numbers. The visual of the numbers. The game telling me that this player should be better at doing something, yet they aren't. Which, again, is fine. Happens all the time in real life, and it's going to happen during the draft this week when guys taken in the first round will never have half the career of some guys getting picked on day three. The problem I have though is that with Madden being a game, being a program, these numbers should be a solid indicator of who is better, a true indicator of skill difference. Take Le'Veon Bell. He ganders around, hops left and right, and generally takes his time hitting the hole. He's patient. But how does that translate into a rating? Is his BCV 99, 98? Other elite RBs will also have high BCV, does a 96 vs 98 BCV runner truly run different? At times we see guys move from scheme to scheme and their 'eliteness' is proven true. They are a beast regardless. But some cannot, some struggle, and some are shown to be more scheme dependent. Madden doesn't have that. If a guy is great on Sunday he is rated elite on Madden. When FA in 2019 comes around, he joins a completely different team, different system, and it's no biggie for him. My overall point here I'd love to see an expansion in the ratings. But I'd also love to see a reduction in the ratings scale, so that each rating matters more and it's the combination of ratings creating the player. Which I think your expansion of ratings could help differentiate the players more. But, if EA is still on a 0-99 scale, with players continuing to hover around the same range, then there is a whole mess more ratings not making much more of a difference. On a side note, in my perfect madden. 90% of all ratings are hidden. Really like your progression idea. Really want a dynamic, want contract extensions to be risky. I'd want the ability to line up a player at any spot I wanted, so all would be rated. Simple letter grades/scout info (like HC09 scouting feedback) would maybe tell me putting Brady at ILB was F- F- F- "Not a good idea coach." Plus, scheme knowledge would be good, since the game is still on the schemes idea make players 'learn' them, not walk into day one as studs.

A great contribution, thanks!

I definitely agree with your statement regarding how tough it is to differentiate players. Under the expanded attributes system your plodding hb would have a poor physical rating but a whole host of great skill, intangible and heart ratings that a team might decide is more important. I believe they need different running styles like they have for the QB throwing motions which also might help differentiate as some might run high for more fumbles or run low for more trucks.

If you check my signature there are links to other threads about position flexibility and a badge system that might interest you. The badge system attempts to differentiate players talents that can't be measured on a 00-99 scale like being a free agent or fantastic locker room presence.

Potential and progression needs to be a balance between the players and coaches. Some players eat film and learn but need good coaches for guidance. Some players think all the need are their physical talents and can only go so far despite good coaching.

Sent from my F3111 using Operation Sports mobile app

[TMJOHNS18]

I like your ideas for progression. A system that is fluid and dynamic would be such an improvement. XP was an ok idea but I don't think the devs anticipated its shortcommings. It's too exploitable and predictable. No guys boom. No guys bust. Let them start and rack up xp.

Your expanded ratings and a progression system that weights many factors, or even completely random, wouls be welcomed.

The possibly that no two CFMs would progress the same would be amazing. Start one Goff is the biggest bust. Restart and he's a GOAT.… NICE