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

[ghostlight85]

Another solution to this would be that if Player Roles from previous gen were to come back. They could add an Overachiever role for special case players. Guys like you described who had hit their max potential at say 88 and still were performing above what an 88 should be able to do. Slap them with an Overachiever role and bump their potential (temporarily) +5 or so. While they maintain the role they should be able to progress as if they have a higher potential than they really do. But if they have a drop in production and lose the role, they should drop back to their original potential and any ratings increases that they experienced beyond that should be lost as well.

[sportzbro]

thanks for the update josh

i vote letter grade. make it basic though (a, b, c, d, f) I don't think we need a complete breakdown..just an estimate of their skill.

and I would also like to hear a little about the NCAA imported classes and whats going on with that, and how long franchise is...better not be limited to 15 years.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

I wanted to make sure my voice was heard. I openly dislike the idea of Max player rattings. So if my RB is maxed at say 92 and I turn out back to back 2,000 yrd seasons with him, he would be a 99 in madden had he done that in real life, but in M10, he'd be 92.. and that's it no more. That just seems terrible to me. I really like the idea of "potential" as a guideline for messuing players as much as 40 times, jump, and weight liftin, but not a set-in-stone maximum. We will never know how great a player may be untill he actually lives out his carrer. the same should be true for min rattings. Michael bennit had GREAT potential in real life and Madden. he was a 92 back for a few years and then jsut hit a wall and he is a backup jumping from team to team trying to stay relevent. How come in M10 a guy will have a min ratting of say, 82, but after three or so poor years and litle to no play he will stay at that level? he should be so worthless he should retire early. I don't dislike change, but i don't like "fixing" something that wasn't all that broken. You mentioned that players would have 99 speed and 62 acceleration, but my understanding that in 06, 07 and 08 on PS2 and XBox this was no longer the case and there were "atribute sets" where a player had random sets of atributes. SPeed accel and agility were a package not individual. Strength, tackle, break tackle and so forth went hand in hand based on postion. I maybe mistake but I don;t remeber having those porblems after Madden 04 [I hardly played 05 and went right to Madden 06 after playing 2k5].

Yes, but how often does that 2000 yard back ever even hit 1500 again in their career? The last 3 backs to hit 2000 yards in a season never hit 1500 after that. Sure Lewis still could but he won't. Running for 2000 yards in real life does not cause a player to come back better the next year or at any later point in their career.

[Vikes1]

I gotta say...this is the kind of thing thats going to make Madden this year, and hopefully well into the future, a vastly improved game...Dev's that are willing to listen, and respond.

I doubt I'm alone, in that this simple follow up to the original blog has calmed some concerns about such an important thing to so many of us, as franchise mode. I know I feel a lot better, knowing theres a reasonable chance this exact potential number, may die a quick an painless death.

I don't think a reasonable person can question if this "Interaction" has great value to us...the longtime loyal customers.

[PGaither84]

Quote: Originally Posted by ghostlight85

Yeah, I admit I like building up players, but not every player has the potential to be a 99. Regardless of how well he plays, for instance, I don't think that Kyle Orton could ever be a 99 overall type of player. He has physical limitations that he wouldn't be able to improve enough. I think potential should be partially derivative of other things. A player's max potential should be a calculation of what would happen if he had a hall of fame career and all of his POSITION RELATED technique skills were maxed out. Some guys still wouldn't be 99 overall because their physical abilities (which really have no business improving because of production) would limit their overall. In some previous Maddens progression was far too liberal. I hated when my franchise was too successful because I would end up with teams with every starter over 90 and backups in the high 80s and 90s too. It's just not sim. Even the best of the 49ers teams were built around a good number of stars and a lot of quality role players. Too much progression tied to performance and they become unrealistically good.

I agree with you here. I think that if a player has sub-par physical abilities that should limit how god he gets, but if Kyle Orton some how came out and turned acorner and began throwing for 4,000 yards and leads his tem to the big game and wins it, he ould be severly upgraded in madden. If he kept this up he would be thought of an elite QB suddenly.

This is the Michael Vick situation. the real Vick never truely developed into a balanced passer who could use both an accurate arm and an agressive scrambling style to destroy teams as will. however, when you put Madden 04 into your PS2 ad you take control of Vick and youtake the time to develope him in ways he chose NOT to in real life, you are altering his video game future. he now, under you control or the computer's control [if I were the 49ers or something] begins to really improve as a play, in the video game rality, he would deserve to be that good. I liked to take Alex Smith and turn him into an elite QB in Madden. If Alex Smith had done he things I was doing with him in Madden, he would have beenan elite QB in real life. this isthe seperation between the video game and real life.

Once that game is turned on, the rules have changed and you are now in control. If you do well, or poorly with the player, their "future" should be reflected in your choices. I shouldn't be limited to how god or bad my players will be because of a limit set by someone at EA. How would you like it if your main character in an RPG could only get to level 20 while others could get to 50 or higher? I doubt you would play as the main character any more, adn if you were forced to, you'd push him/her to the back and away from your good characters as often as possible because of how weak he or she is.

This is the give and take with video games. Some people just aren't cut out to be pro football players no matter how hard you work, and to this end I understand the point they are making with this "potential" rating. I just don't like it. I don't like losing that bit of control in turning my team into a great team though proper coaching.

I will concede this, as the more I think about it, no matter how good the Patriots were/are Teddy B. was at his best a low 90's MLB, but one of my all-time favorites. Something about a guy who wins multiple superbowls, suffers a stroke adn comes back to play at an all-pro level. That's a true athelete. However, despite this he was an 89 most of these past several years.

[ghostlight85]

Yeah, it's refreshing to see the developer/community interaction in this way. Although, I don't think knowing a player's potential really breaks the game any more than knowing a player's exact overall.

It's potential. He may or may not get there. But that being said, I would much prefer it to be a vague, somewhat inaccurate projection by your team of his potential.

[Mofficial]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

A- Pro Bowlers B- Good Starter C- Average Player D- Backup F- Temporary filler I could see that. Thanks, Josh. Nice to see you back on the forums. Better if you could use a full scale A+: Hall of Famer A: Pro Bowler A-: Great Starter B+: Solid Starter B: Average Starter B-: Poor Starter C+: Good Backup C: Average Backup C-: Poor Backup D+: Borderline NFL talent D: Stop-Gap/Filler/Temporary solution D-: Training Camp Warrior F: Not NFL Talent

I like this. I realllllyyyyyy want you guys to implement a "staff" like you did in HC 09. Or at least just give the overall and attributes of the GM like you did in 09. Thus, for teams with weak GMs, their gradebooks would be like first, simplified one in adem's post. For great GMs (AJ Smith), their gradebooks would be like the latter scale in broski's post. i really like that scale and its representation by the way. I think it's perfect. A+ means hall of famer (don't know if his overall will be 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, or 99) but you know it'll be up there. "A" being a Pro Bowler (89, 90, 91, 92, or 93) caliber player. I think this would solve the "set in stone" issue that some people are having. I think players should have a range like this for each category.
Also, I think that based on your GM's scouting ability and the specific player, one can range from a B+ to an A- or "A." If the GM's scouting ability is not that great, there would be more of a general grade (like mentioned above) (although the player's potential would be often actually lower than the GM's report grade). With this, a player with a B rating initially could turn out to be an A- player. I also think that based on the coaches you have, and the philosophy of your team, a player's potential would be affected even more. This was all in head coach and I think that if these features were placed in madden, the depth of franchise would be unreal.
Thanks for the post Josh. You guys are really doing a great job.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

To put it simply, it is the REWARD for playing that well. who care is Brady is a 98 or a 99? becasue people like to talk trash and say manning is beter and is a 99 in madden while brady is only a 98. Why become a level 60 in World of warcraft when you have a good level 57? I see your point but the upgrades and progression is part of the reward for doing well in madden. YOU don't "level up" in madden, but knowing that yor players "level up" because of how well you paly with them is cool, and the trash talking of how you just made a SUPER team on all-madden in your franchise, through trades, fre agency, the draft and performance. To me, this was staple of the "fun" of franchise mode, the reward for your hard work in a 30 year franchise. how many superbowls wins before it gets almsot boring? I like buliding and manitaining the best team I can for as long as I can. Can I get the 49ers back to the top and keep them there for 21 years like they did from 81-2002 when they played in 10 [?] Championship games and went to the play offs18 times in that span?

Yes, but then I will always just have a team full of superstars by year 3 and from then on there is no challenge to franchise. What is the point of this replay value that people complain about created rookies creating when there isn't really any single play value good enough to keep a franchise challenging and interesting beyond the first couple years.