production based progression

[sportzbro]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

The only problem with this is I don't want to be forced to waste time going into practice mode just to have a solid progression system. Also this goes back to basing progression off of user stick skills which I fundementally disagree with because it takes away any real need for drafting well or making good personel decisions or in any way properly running your NFL franchise.

Then what do you suggest?...you are contradicting yourself here. How do you go about mirroring the progression of real life NFL players (which is what you want) without this part?

Practicing is a fundamental component of getting better at something > PROGRESSING. As for practice in the game itself, idk how they could set it up, but just to have your player do it is what is important.

I really believe there are too many factors involved in a players growth to be fully represented accurately in a video game such as Madden.

[monkeybutlerz]

Quote: Originally Posted by FadeEmAll

Not at all, in these instances the player would have progressed due to his own the field performance.

I disagree with you assessment. They produced because they had become better players and had time to develop. Carson Palmer sitting out a year, are you telling me he would've necessarily been a better QB if he had played his whole rookie year? I think not.

Terrell Suggs was a 3rd down player as a rookie and was not a complete player. But getting to learn the system and working hard with the coaches in the offseason allowed him to become the complete package and a 3 down player. He didn't become a great player because he had a ton of rookie sacks, he was already a great pass rusher, but it was his only strength at the time (and the coaches took advantage of this). Getting sacks in the nickel packages is not what turned him into an all around and every down player. Progressing by developing as a player with time in the system, understanding of the playbook and working on technique with the coaches allowed him to produce big numbers in the future.

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by FadeEmAll

Not at all, in these instances the player would have progressed due to his own the field performance.

They didn't HAVE any on-field performance before those years.

[FadeEmAll]

Quote: Originally Posted by monkeybutlerz

I disagree with you assessment. They produced because they had become better players and had time to develop. Carson Palmer sitting out a year, are you telling me he would've necessarily been a better QB if he had played his whole rookie year? I think not. Terrell Suggs was a 3rd down player as a rookie and was not a complete player. But getting to learn the system and working hard with the coaches in the offseason allowed him to become the complete package and a 3 down player. He didn't become a great player because he had a ton of rookie sacks, he was already a great pass rusher, but it was his only strength at the time (and the coaches took advantage of this). Getting sacks in the nickel packages is not what turned him into an all around and every down player. Progressing by developing as a player with time in the system, understanding of the playbook and working on technique with the coaches allowed him to produce big numbers in the future.

I think you are missing my point. I'm referring to game progression. In Madden Franchise if I take a guy rated 76 OVr and kick *** my guy should get better. Whether it's his awareness his catch rating or whatever else the guys should improve. You don't recognize anything about anyone until they get on the field. You shouldn't be able to get a guy, have a bunch of crappy years, and still have him be a 90 just because the game decided he was that good.

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

They didn't HAVE any on-field performance before those years.

Michale Turner did but the others you are correct. What I'm saying is that the first game they played they might have come in at a 68 but after kicking tail they would improve in their ratings. I'm not saying performance progression is perfect but it does reward stats. Face it no one knows what a player is until he does it, the internal video game CPU shouldn't determine it I should. Matter of fact I wouldn't care if they dropped potential altogether.

[mavfan21]

If on the field performance is the main factor the game will be unrealistic and easy to exploit. You can force feed players the ball and watch them sky rocket.

Lot's a TD's doesn't mean you improved, look at Marion Barber. Tons of TD's in his role as a back-up, in Madden he would have progressed like mad...but in real life he wasn't getting much better. Got more carries at the start of this season and was very average before and after injury. In Madden he would have been faster, had a better stiff arm, trucking, agility...

On field performance should be 25% of the formula, with intrinsic potential, coaching, and scheme making up the rest. I know there's no plans to include scheme as a factor any time soon but in a perfect game it would matter.

Like adembrowski and helisan have said, in Madden the performances Brady, Warner, Romo, and Turner had would have been impossible. They would have entered their first start as a 70 OVR player and been awful. In real life they were progressing without ever performing on the field.

[FadeEmAll]

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

If on the field performance is the main factor the game will be unrealistic and easy to exploit. You can force feed players the ball and watch them sky rocket. Lot's a TD's doesn't mean you improved, look at Marion Barber. Tons of TD's in his role as a back-up, in Madden he would have progressed like mad...but in real life he wasn't getting much better. Got more carries at the start of this season and was very average before and after injury. In Madden he would have been faster, had a better stiff arm, trucking, agility... On field performance should be 25% of the formula, with intrinsic potential, coaching, and scheme making up the rest. I know there's no plans to include scheme as a factor any time soon but in a perfect game it would matter. Like adembrowski and helisan have said, in Madden the performances Brady, Warner, Romo, and Turner had would have been impossible. They would have entered their first start as a 70 OVR player and been awful. In real life they were progressing without ever performing on the field.

you guys act like a 70 OVR player never dominates in Madden, I've sen it a million times. I'm convinced there are anomalies int he game that make some players peform better than their ratings. Never forget back in Madden 04 or 05 (vick on the Cover) had a randomly generated DE named Joe Hill rated 76 OVr come in and get 13 sacks his first year and like 20 the second year. you people say he should have never been able to do that because his rating was low, but I say he outperformed and was handomsely rewarded with the proper rating.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by BORN4CORN

Then what do you suggest?...you are contradicting yourself here. How do you go about mirroring the progression of real life NFL players (which is what you want) without this part? Practicing is a fundamental component of getting better at something > PROGRESSING. As for practice in the game itself, idk how they could set it up, but just to have your player do it is what is important. I really believe there are too many factors involved in a players growth to be fully represented accurately in a video game such as Madden.

I am all for a practice system in a way similar to what 2k5 did, or what CH 2k8 did. I just don't want to be forced to go through the repetitiveness of actually doing the practices myself. Also, running through the normal practice mode really gives no way to direct the progression of your team. You only force them to progress. There is one of the major differences I am looking for there.

As far as the number of influences as long as they can all be named then there aren't too many to add. With all that can be done with software development this is actually something that could be done correctly in a pretty straightforward mannor.

[seveb]

People may like player progression based on performance on the field, fine. That's cool. To each his own. But there really is no logical basis for it.

Imagine I have a great offense. The line opens holes, the QB is great and has a good receiving corps. My rb retires and I grab a mediocre guy in the middle rounds of the draft.

Now, it's going to be hard for the D to bring up an 8th cause I can pass. My line is gonna dominate. So my middling back is gonna get some yards. Maybe even more than some really good backs on teams where the the D can totally key on him. That doesn't actually make him better at football! That wouldn't make him faster, stronger or smarter. He's just the beneficiary of being in a great system.

Similarly, sometimes an average DL will get a lot of sacks because there is another stud getting all the blocking attention. This doesn't make my average guy better - it's the stud that is making him better!

Experience, coaching, physical and emotional maturation, and just plain old chance - all these things could contribute to some system of progression. But basing much of it on performance is the very definition of circular logic.

Plus, I don't want to overly penalize my young guys who might be backing up some veterans. They still practice. They still study playbooks and lift weights and all the things that really make you better.

As it stands, I'll have to use my starting rb for cheap goal line TD's when I'm way ahead just to pad his stats so he gets better. To reward the guys abilities for getting those TD's is to penalize him for not getting them. That just ain't no fun.