The push for complete "Fog of War" in Madden 21 CFM

[Skyboxer]

I'm all for a better system over just ratings ..
Example: one where rooks through year 1 or 2 they are hidden.
Then we see over time the ratings pop in.. based on play time, scouts, pre season, a training camp implementation and practice squad time..

Just throwing ideas out there...
Just would like something that gets us more involved in real player evaluation time.

[BleedGreen710]

I tried to make a mod on pc madden 08 that turned all ratings into question marks but sadly could never get it to work out the way I wanted it to. But yeah I've wanted this kind of thing for a long time. A lot of immersion and exciting unpredictable moments both on and off the field are taken away by being able to click on a guy and see every thing there is to ever know about him.

Sent from my SM-J336AZ using Tapatalk

[TarHeelPhenom]

Waiting for EA to actually do this....

via GIPHY

[Mikiboi2020]

True analog control passing might work for franchise and fog of war

[Mikiboi2020]

[quote=TarHeelPhenom;2049819005]Waiting for EA to actually do this....

via GIPHY

[/QUOth the key legend is Miles Tails Prower from the sonic universe

[xCoachDx]

NFL Head Coach 06 did this the best. Huge rating gap until you spent more and more time with them. Then it would gradually enclose the player’s true overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tg88forHOF]

Overall, there are some good ideas here. Some kind of fog of war is a fun concept if made optional at a highly granular level (meaning you can enable and disable as many components of the FoW system as you want).

My own suggestions, riffing on some ideas that have been thrown out, along with a couple twists. Fair warning, this is a long read, but it feels like it might help sharpen people's thoughts on what they actually want.

I think the underlying idea here is "give us an actionable choice": right now, everything is given to us upfront, so the choices we make feel (and often are) pretty irrelevant. So the goal here should be to introduce some uncertainty, give us tools to solve that uncertainty in a way that involves a meaningful choice, then allow us to act (or not) on that new information in a way that has meaningful consequences.

To do that, I'd:

Get rid of the OVR rating - To me, the OVR rating does more to eliminate choice than anything else in the game. For example, O linemen have different ratings for finesse and power blocking, designed to work against opposing defender's finesse and power moves. In theory, if you're up against Dee Ford, you'd want to use your higher PBF tackle instead of your higher PBP tackle to counter him. In reality, if your PBF tackle is a 65 OVR, and your PBP tackle is an 85 OVR, you're going to start the 85 OVR 99 times out of 100...you know the higher OVR guy has some combination of STR, AWR, whatever that combine to completely override the PBF/FMV interaction.

There's very little choice to make there....you build the players with preferences for certain sub-ratings, but higher OVR is always the goal. Scheme fit is designed to help create that need, but implementing it as an XP benefit, rather than a performance benefit, works against that intention.

Instead of a single OVR, use several Attribute Group Ratings - Group related ratings into "group headers", and rate those using less granular ratings. Some examples....Athleticism (SPD, ACC, AGI), Conditioning (STR, STA, INJ, TGH), Route Technicals (SRR, MRR, DRR, RLS), Ball Skills (CTH, CIT, SPC), etc.

These can be grouped and named many different ways....the idea is, these Group Ratings give a fairly broad rating (1-10, A-F, whatever), and are what you see by default when you look at an unscouted player card. We all know Tyreek Hill is fast (A+ Athleticism), but his Route Technicals have improved (B+). What you don't see by default are the individual ratings...you can't tell whether Hill's B+ is due to DRR, RLS, or a combination.

In the Dee Ford example above, Ford might be an A Athleticism and maybe a C+ Pass Rush. As a known Speed Rusher, we can assume that C+ is probably a higher FMV and a lower PMV, and that his A probably indicates at least a high ACC, but which rating is where is hidden by default. Your two tackles might both have a B Pass Block, but which number is where isn't immediately visible.

This system works at a "casual level" as a replacement for OVR...somebody who wants to play the game at this level can get ok just based on these ratings....there's enough information to make basic decisions effectively.

Give us multiple paths to unlock more granular ratings, but force meaningful choices when doing so - A user's own players' ratings could be unlocked via a snap count counter or by investing a certain number of Practice Focus weeks. These should be tiered...to reveal Dee Ford's actual SPD, ACC, and so on under Athleticism, I either need to see 50 snaps from him, or focus him for 2 practices. To get the ratings under Pass Rush, I need another 50 snaps or another 2 practices.

To get more granular ratings for opposing teams, let us hire scouts with different strengths and weaknesses...and limit points so that we have to choose how to scout opponents. If I'm especially worried about my protection holding up, I'd scout my opponent's Pass Rush...but don't give me so many points that I can reveal everybody's ratings.

Again, this is all additional, targeted information...I can play fairly successfully with just the Group Ratings. But this system would not only allow me to be smarter if I want, it lets me choose where to be smart.

To answer the concern raised above, about how players want to feel a sense of progression, keep progression as it is now. Archetypes still exist, are still weighted across multiple Attripute Groups, and are still semi-random. Allow users to see the results as an amount gained. If I spend one of Dee Ford's skill points on Speed Rusher, show me that I got a +2 AWR, +1 ACC, and +1 FMV. If I haven't unlocked Ford's Pass Rush group, I can't see what that +1 FMV gets added to, but I know it got better, and if his Pass Rush group goes from C+ to B-, I'll see that too.

In order for any of this to work, we also have to

Keep making small ratings differences matter, but shift that ratings focus to individual ratings instead of OVR. - Under this system, you'd want Dee Ford to absolutely own a high PBP/low PBF tackle, but struggle with a high PBF tackle. Today, that's a challenge....if Ford destroys an 85 OVR tackle, but struggles with a 65 OVR tackle with a really strong PBF, people are on these forums claiming that "pass blocking is broken".

But remember, in this system, OVR is gone...by forcing our attention to individual ratings, EA can now focus on making those ratings matter more.

That's a lot of meaningful choices a user can now make. Do I want a scout with more total scouting points, or one that specializes in a specific position group? If I'm worried about pressure on my QB before playing SF, do I invest scouting points in their EDGE, or in their DBs and go with a quick passing game to counter? Do I consider playing a different tackle on Ford's side...one who might not be as experienced, but have much better finesse move counters? And what do I lose by taking the snaps away from my normal starter?

Now pretend any or all of those choices could mean the difference between a clean pocket, or a miserable day of sacks and pressures.

[tg88forHOF]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

First off, fog of war for player ratings isn't "sim". Football scouts quantify literally everything about a football player - not just his 40 time and other measurables, but more qualitative things such as arm strength, pass accuracy, ability in zone coverage, etc. etc. are ultimately given a numeric value. Notably, the biggest scouting agencies which the vast majority of NFL teams use for their draft scouting data (National, BLESTO) do this. Effectively, scouts create and change ratings for the real life athletes, just as Madden does. If you want an authentic NFL football team-building experience, you should use player ratings.

Don't disagree with any part of your post really, but a quick note here...

This is why a focus on "expanded meaningful choice" is maybe more productive than a focus on "more sim".

"More sim" is a critical priority to a portion of the playerbase. "More meaningful choice" has a much more universal appeal.

Incidentally, that approach addresses one particularly strong point you made: more filler, button-pushing time in CFM in between the business of playing and winning games is absolutely sub-optimal. Taking some of that fillet time and transforming it into activities with meaningful choices with meaningful consequences for winning games is much better design.