|
Rookie
|
Re: Long term progression
One major concern with progression in my opinion is how predictable it is. Yes, when I train players I do expect there to be some predictable amount of growth, but steady predictable growth is not the only kind of growth that happens in the league. For example, Kareem Hunt was a 75 at launch of Madden 18 and is an 89 at launch of M19. A 14 point overall increase in one year is impossible to replicate in Madden, correct? (I don’t own 19 yet, but from what I’ve read it seems like that kind of growth can’t happen). Regression is just as bland. JJ Wilcox began Madden 18 as an 81 overall, he begins M19 as a 71, a 10 point regression. I again assume that a player regressing that much is not possible in Madden.
What this means is that the game is not able to recreate the fluctuation of real-life players within its own system (it takes human roster edits and the release of a new game to do that). Franchise mode is not self-sustaining in this way.
What is also the issue is how predictable the game is when it comes to progression in relation to statistics. We can seemingly all agree that stat-padding sucks - we probably all consciously or sub-consciously do it, but it’s unrealistic, not fun, and not conducive to good games of football. I think it’s a complicated issue though, because in some ways ratings should and do follow stats: if a 70 rated receiver puts up 80 catches and 1000 yards in the real NFL, his rating in the game will increase. If a 70 rated receiver puts up 80 catches and 1000 yards in Madden, his rating will also increase. That’s “realistic”. Now, as some have mentioned here this “stat chasing” is not really what is happening. The player really was talented all along, it’s just that we didn’t see it until the stats came. In other words, the talent caused the stats not the stats caused the talent. While that is true, having that as a hard and fast rule is not realistic also. If ratings do not follow stats at all, then that means if you have a 80 catch 1000 yard season with a 70 rated wideout, then his ratings won’t increase because of that. However, we already know that if the same receiver had that kind of production in the NFL, his Madden rating would rise significantly. So having stats/production not influence ratings is also unrealistic.
So to me the real question is: how do we solve the issue of stat padding to boost ratings being unrealistic but also still have ratings be influenced by stats? I think the answer is in the predictability of it all.
I’ll only touch on season goals for now, though I think a lot of other changes could help. But for now, season goals:
First, why is there only one type of goal for a player? If I have a receiver catch 120 passes for 1500 yards but only 3 touchdowns, does that make it a bad year? Hell no, but if the yearly goal was to catch 10 touchdowns then he isn’t rewarded for that year. Stupid. Changing this (in the right way) will help decrease stat padding. If you are able to win rewards for each type of stat then people will still stat pad, but if the game instead just rewards you for one of them (maybe the best one) or averages them out then you’ll be less inclined to stat pad because you’ll feel like your player will be rewarded with whatever organic production you produce. You won’t feel that you need to force touchdowns to someone who has no problem gaining yards or force yards to someone who catches touchdowns with ease. The archetype system tries to achieve this, but it still is a dumb system. If my 6’5” slow moving red zone threat wideout has an uncharacteristic year where he puts up 1400 yards but only 2 touchdowns, does that make it a bad year? Once again, hell no. Good production is good production, even if it doesn’t fit the archetype.
Second, why should the amount be so specific? 100 tackles is a great year, but your player got 99, he’s obviously a chump? The cutoff (if we even want to use a cutoff) should be random and hidden within a range. People might still stat pad to try to get above the range, but at least they’ll be less inclined to do so because they won’t be so sure of their target. Is it really worth forcing 2 extra touchdowns to your tight end in week 17? What if you passed the cutoff 2 touchdowns ago? What if the cutoff is 3 or 4 touchdowns away, not 2? This adds a disincentive to stat pad.
Third, less predictability in how much the stat padding will matter. Not all production is equal! (I’m gunna keep reiterating that). This in my opinion would be a huge difference maker. If you know a receiver is gunna get 30,000 points if you get him 100 catches, then you’re going to push yourself to do it. This not only promotes stat padding, but it’s also unrealistic. Progression (as measured through production/stats) is much more organic than that. Not all production is equal! Look at Matt Stafford as an example - he puts up huge numbers every year, but he’s not considered an elite QB among the likes of Brady, Rodgers, and Breeze. Not all production is equal! Meanwhile, look at Fletcher Cox. He’s a monster on the inside who ruins pockets and disrupts timing constantly. He’s pretty universally considered to be a fanatic DT. The problem? He averages less than 6 sacks per year. In Madden, where all stats are created equal, Cox would be considered pretty average and Stafford would be considered an all-time great. Not all production is equal! We humans with our eyes and brains and understandings of variables can spot when statistics apply and when they don’t (Stafford and Cox for instance). Unfortunately, the game can’t differentiate between “deserved” production and “padded/forced” production, so it can’t apply the reward in a fully realistic way. We could get half-way there though if the reward for meeting certain goals were random and hidden. This does produce a realistic end-result of “not all production is equal!” (Even if the means are less realistic). In addition, this would significantly reduce stat padding and create situations where real unexpected, unpredictable, dynamic growth that is driven by statistics can occur. Consider 2 scenarios (both of which could never happen in Madden currently): example 1, you decide to start a low-rated young receiver and want to pad his stats with the hope of him increasing 7-10 points in his overall. You pad his stats like crazy, you reach every goal you set out to, and fully expect him to progress those 7-10 points like you planned - instead, he grows a measly 3 points. This would be the Matthew Stafford example - lots of production but not necessarily caused by any elite skill or growth. (Not trying to hate on Stafford, he’s just a good example). Example 2, one of your star wideouts gets hurt for the whole season, you put in a low rated guy who you didn’t have much hopes for - just a depth guy. He puts up good production mostly just from being in the right place at the right time and at the end of the season his overall jumps by 11 points! He had a breakout year entirely by happenstance. Now you have this new weapon that you didn’t expect. This happens in the NFL all the time.
I don’t think all progression should be based on stats. I think a random system of progression/regression with varying speeds and limits should occur (to simulate hidden talent, potential, and good practice). However, this system should run alongside a statistics informed system that is not highly predictable. This way you have the possibility of a bench or practice squad guy developing quickly into a good player even if he gets no stats, but also you can have “breakout” years from low rated players who put up big numbers. The key for the stats driven system is that it’s less predictable so we are disincentivized from “forcing” breakout years through stat padding (since we wouldn’t have to force a specific type of production, since we wouldn’t know the cutoff, and since we wouldn’t know the payoff).
|
08-17-2018, 10:43 AM
