Absurd CFM Regression... STILL

[Ueauvan]

many thanks

i work for a company that is based in the city of your team, it is the market leader in my country and that's what we put in spreadsheets, and i was filling one in when i posted

laziest abbreviations are actually in games like everquest and ffxi or so ive found

[timhere1970]

It is not that difficult. The team has the ratings they gave every player every year at every age for more than 25 years. Just use that information on how they actually regressed according to their own game and introduce some diversity. Create a damn bell curve off that info. I would love to see my back who was a top five one year at 25 fighting for a roster spot 2 years later. That is common in the nfl. I would love to get to preseason after the draft and free agency and find out a player just doesn't have it anymore. I want to make decisions that coaches and gm's make every year.

[adembroski]

HB regression should be based on carries vs. body weight with a modifier for a dude just plain being durable (Frank Gore). The accumulation of hits on a body is what eventually slows them. Over 400 carries in a season should expect some major regression since, historically, 400 carry seasons end up resulting in real life regression. But that number should depend on the back. It'd be much less for a Warrick Dunn type.

When I was at EA I'd suggested weight + 1.75 times stamina as a carry threshold in a season before a player starts seeing heavy regression the following season, regardless of age. I never worked out a formula for career.

The truth is 27 is the right age. Scientifically speaking, we do start breaking down at that age, but 1 point of strength and speed every other year plus 1 point of agility and acceleration per year would be much closer to the mark realistically (of course modified by injuries and punishment taken, certainly HBs should go down faster if they have a lot of carries).

[NimitsTexan]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

The truth is 27 is the right age. Scientifically speaking, we do start breaking down at that age, but 1 point of strength and speed every other year plus 1 point of agility and acceleration per year would be much closer to the mark realistically (of course modified by injuries and punishment taken, certainly HBs should go down faster if they have a lot of carries).

The is the problem a lot of gamers have. Yes, a lot of players, especially in "speed-dependent" positions, in real life do start regressing in the 26-29 year time frame, but it is not as if every single players hits a brick wall at 27. Some should regress earlier, some a little later, and it should be slower (perhaps with a little bit of randomness thrown in) for those that play well and do not suffer significant injury or fatigue.

What is telling, that several 28-31 years olds are given ratings in Madden for the start of the 2017 season that it would be almost impossible for a young real life or draft-generated superstar to achieve. The rating and regression system in Madden CFM should be rationalized to approximate real life results, which they sort of do not at the moment.

[Rollo]

Having no knowledge of coding, but understanding its limitations, I could see an easier way to make this regression event a little easier would be to add a % chance to lose a point in a given attribute starting at age X and increasing by 5-10% each year.

Since you've been using running back as an example, lets continue. At the age of 27, lets put the chance to lose a point in speed/agility/acceleration at 30% with it increasing by 10% each year. By the time they are 34 they will lose 1 point in each stat guaranteed. If they're still around, they could continue to gain % points to losing an additional stat? Now at 35, they have a 10% chance to lose a second point, 36 a 20% chance, and so on.

Balance this with a guaranteed increase in awareness and play recognition every year for every player on a roster. There is no reason why someone on a roster deep in the depth chart shouldn't be progressing in those 2 stats. And if a player started more than half the games, they should have a 50% chance to gain a second point. If they started all games, they should have a 75-100% chance to gain a second point.

[Ueauvan]

counter argument time

any player, wr for example, who is say 31, with 90 spd now must have been 94 spd at 27 if you lose 1 spd per year. that isnt the case i believe. players can be older but still physically in great shape; ie Tony Gonzalez, Jerry Rice because of their mindset and routine. the game cant or wont cater for those instances just fixes it in the next madden via rosters.

[triplechin]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rollo

Having no knowledge of coding, but understanding its limitations, I could see an easier way to make this regression event a little easier would be to add a % chance to lose a point in a given attribute starting at age X and increasing by 5-10% each year. Since you've been using running back as an example, lets continue. At the age of 27, lets put the chance to lose a point in speed/agility/acceleration at 30% with it increasing by 10% each year. By the time they are 34 they will lose 1 point in each stat guaranteed. If they're still around, they could continue to gain % points to losing an additional stat? Now at 35, they have a 10% chance to lose a second point, 36 a 20% chance, and so on. Balance this with a guaranteed increase in awareness and play recognition every year for every player on a roster. There is no reason why someone on a roster deep in the depth chart shouldn't be progressing in those 2 stats. And if a player started more than half the games, they should have a 50% chance to gain a second point. If they started all games, they should have a 75-100% chance to gain a second point.

Check out my progression post, it has some similar concepts to yours. Would love some feedback

[Rollo]

Quote: Originally Posted by triplechin

Check out my progression post, it has some similar concepts to yours. Would love some feedback

I will have to check it out later.