Update on feedback from yesterday's franchise blog...

[Steeler99]

Quote: Originally Posted by Josh_Looman

Wanted to check in with you guys and clarify some points from yesterday's blog. First...Potential and Progression. Would you rather see something like a letter grade? A lot of other sports games that show potential show a letter grade (like MLB the Show) instead of a hard number. That would still give you an clue about why a player is not progressing but not give too much away. I'm not promising that I can do this, but if that's an acceptable alternative, I'll see if I can get it in there.

I like the letter grade idea, but I'm also ok with a number.

Quote: Originally Posted by Josh_Looman

Another thing to think about that I didn't mention in the blog was that we also set a minimum overall rating for each player. That will be HIDDEN. What this allows us to do is ensure that players like Fred Taylor and a Tiki Barber type back never drop below a certain overall rating. For example...Peyton Manning's minimum overall rating is currently a 92. That means he'll still play at a high level even when he gets a little bit older. Some players will have a much lower minimum overall rating and they'll drop once they get older and less productive.

That sounds great!

Second...Premade Rookies.

Quote: Originally Posted by Josh_Looman

Premade rookies have had a huge impact on franchise mode so far and it's mainly for one reason...game balancing. When players are randomly generated, it's impossible to know what you're going to get. You could get 40 players with 99 potential or no players with potential greater than 75. In the case of the latter, that many players with huge contracts would have a devestating effect on the salary cap in future years. Using Premade draft classes solves all of those issues. There's also massive problems with ratings (remember when you'd draft a WR who had 99 speed and 65 acceleration? ) and you get some weird stuff with how players look on the field. Strange facemask/gear combinations, etc. Creating these guys by hand makes them like just like their NFL teammates, which makes the game much more realistic and authentic. We're very aware of the possibility of repetitiveness, also. To combat that, we're not using the Head Coach system of predetermined draft class order. We're randomly grabbing one class when you start your franchise and you'll get a random draft class every year after that. We built in logic to make sure that you never get the same draft class twice in the same franchise. The chance that you'll see that one player that some guy is talking about on the message board is slim to none. I've started franchise after franchise while testing and I never get the same classes. Hopefully that helps clear up some of the confusion. The premade draft classes also finally make scouting worthwhile. In the past, the randomly generated players were ordered by overall rating prior to the Draft. That meant that you never got sleepers in the later rounds or busts in the first round. No matter what, you always drafted a player in the top 10 with an overall rating somewhere around 85. This year is all about realism and authenticity and the changes we've made to the draft make it as close as it can be to what happens in real life. Sometimes you'll draft Ryan Leaf if you haven't done your homework. Other times you'll find that diamond in the rough that can turn your team around. That's the beauty of the NFL and I think it's going to make a world of difference in franchise mode this year.

One BIG question pertaining to rookies. I have always used NCAA imported classes because I like having "real" college players to draft, but I must say I love the idea of busts and sleepers, as well as more accurate/realistic classes as you mentioned above. The one thing I would really miss though is not having some of the real names of top college players the first few years of the draft.

For example let's say Tebow, Sanchez, and other top players came out this year. Would we have the ability to rename some of these premade players so we have the Tebow's and Sanchez's in the game ... or are we forced to stick with the fake/created names?

[Cryolemon]

I'd like to echo what other people have said about the letter grades, it's a damn good idea. Maybe the 2-8 scale that's used in baseball is a good idea...

I too would like clarification on the length of franchise, is it 15 or 30 years?

[Blazelore]

I just would like to know if these predetermined ratings or ceilings and floors will be applied to the NCAA draft classes. If not then that going to be a real let down.

[ghostlight85]

PGaither, I understand what you are saying, but if he can put up back to back 2,000 yards seasons as a 92, then it shouldn't really matter if he goes up or not. Ratings should determine production as much as possible rather than the other way around. I will concede that you have to have some form of performance progression to ensure things like breakout players, but if a guy is able to have back to back 2,000 yard seasons as a 92, why does he really need to be a 99?

[ghostlight85]

I hate overall ratings. I wish that they were just taken out completely or hidden or estimated or something. Evaluate a player's individual abilities and how they fit the scheme you want to run. NFL players don't have exact ratings, why should they in a video game.

[Steeler99]

Quote: Originally Posted by chase10784

I agree i would like to see the scouting and talent evaulation departments of a team determine how good your view of the potential is too but if thats not a possibility I would prefer a simple A,B,C,D,F rating system. No +/- because that gives too much away. because an A+ would key people in that its probly 97 or above and an A- would key them in that its probly 90 to 93 area. Just simple Letters without +/-'s

Great point ... +1

[g2thecore]

I like the idea of having letters for the potential rating. Thanks for the update btw. I'm also very excited about the premade rookies. If done well, it could mean a world of fun for franchise mode.

[Rico]

I'm fine with premade rookies as described. I never got any decent random players anyway.

On the topic of potential, though, I really feel that making it optional is the best way to go. I get that it's being used as a check/balance to the progression algorithms, which is now clearly handled at both extremes (min and max), and that salary cap algorithms may be kind of wonky...but if people want to turn off the limits to the detriment of realism, I say they should have the option.

Same with letter grades or even visible grades at all. Might as well make them optional. Personally, I like hard numbers. I never felt like they were truly hard numbers in Head Coach because there were so many different schemes that a guy's potential/overall ratings could easily vary by 10 or more points depending on schemes anyway. It meant that I focused less on their overall rating and more on how they fit my system, but the difference between an 81 and an 84 still mattered to me occasionally. Are individual attributes going to still have visible potential maxes, like in HC? I was sad to find that some players were never going to be smarter than a box of rocks, regardless of their 90+ OVR (Vernon Gholston, I'm looking at you) but I was occasionally able to work them in anyway. If two players are graded "A" but you can see the individual attribute maxes, what's so bad about seeing a 94 versus a 97?

For the people who suggest that ratings need to occasionally be wrong...Honestly, I think I'd prefer accurate potential ratings and more random events screwing them up than being lied to by the system. If a guy has 95 potential and he never gets close in his career because he doesn't get touches or maybe he keeps getting hurt and his potential drops (Felix Jones, I'm looking at you), or he's only got 81 potential and I plan to use him as a career backup but his numbers meet some threshold triggering a random chance for his potential to go up (it felt like I never got cool/useful gamebreakers in HC, by the way, only crappy or useless ones), then I'm happy. I feel like the vagaries of fate should be left outside my roster tables, though. If I'm given a number, or a letter grade, I don't want to have to think about whether it's a lie.

I tend to spend at least as much time fiddling with rosters as I do playing the actual games on my schedule (especially with the various issues in gameplay and franchise mode in current editions). Head Coach was immensely satisfying in that regard.

So if making the setting optional (no potential limits, invisible limits, letter grades, or visible numbers) is out, I vote for visible numbers. Yeah, you can "cheat" I suppose, even if in theory you'd be playing with invisible limits the temptation to peek might be there. Whatever. I don't play Madden or other video games for other people's enjoyment, I play them for mine. I like numbers. I have spreadsheets full of the launch roster ratings I pulled from the interweb well before the last couple of launch days, so I could comb over what players I'd try to get. I'd prefer that scheme play a role in rating, like in Head Coach, though.