What Has Always Bothered Me With Progression

[StormJH1]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

Progression should not be performance based. Your Tom Brady example is dumb here is why. Tom Brady wasn't even in Madden that year but that doesn't matter. In real life he was able to step in right away and be productive because he was already that good. It's not like he got into his first NFL game and could only throw the ball 20 MPH and could only his short passed with any reliability in real life because he never played in the NFL before. Coming into the game he already had an above average level of physical attributes that allowed him to become what he is today. This is why performance based progression doesn't make any sense. A 60 OVR QB shouldn't be able to put up huge numbers in the first place because he doesn't have the physical set of skills to be able to to. Players in real life don't get better by putting up huge numbers, players in real life get better through hard work and good coaching.

Yeah, I have to side with EA on this one. A player's ratings aren't precisely correlated with his on-field statistics. Essentially, you're breaking the game by either playing on a level that was too low (and dominating with the 60 OVR QB) or EA broke the game by not making the ratings matter enough.

Obviously, you were able to replicate that success with the 60 OVR player, so really, your only complaint is that it bothers you that he isn't rated higher. The failure isn't the progression model, it's that EA rated him that low to begin with. Or that having a 60 OVR QB didn't create enough problems with his performance for that rating to be meaningful.

This is kinda like that whole debate over whether or not QB's should see their arm power and accuracy progress over time. A 24 year old NFL rookie can throw the ball about as well as he ever will in his lifetime. It's the intangibles of experience and play recognition (and confidence) that are hard to quantify in video games, but which make the difference in real life.

A.I. is getting better. But since the same human player is going to control EVERY player, the game has no way of making those players different other than to overemphasize their physical abilities.

[StormJH1]

Quote: Originally Posted by PrettyT11

So then what should it be based on?? I'm sorry but this post is very flawed. The Tom Brady example is a good one. First he was in Madden that year as a backup QB. If I remember correctly he was listed as the third string QB and his rating was low. So in your argument there is no way he should have been able to come in a perform like he did. He is not the only example you could use. His former teamate Cassell is another perfect example. His rating last year was pretty low. So according to you he shouldn't have been able to come in a play like he did cause his rating was low. Nobody knew if he had the skills or not to get the job done. He hadn't started a game since high school. Terrell Davis is another perfect example. He was a six round draft pick. Nobody expected him to come in a do the things he did. He also was rated very low to start with. There a tons of examples you can use to fit this mold. Progession should be performance based for the most part. In real life how do you tell if a players has improved?? You tell by his performace on the field. Roddy White improved in a lot of areas over the past couple of years and it showed in his performance and he put up big numbers. You don't improve and your numbers go down. That shows regression not progression.

No. Again, this is confusing real life with video game. The video game world is fixed in the ratings as we interpret them at release time. Madden 2002 reflected the relative skill of players as they were in Training Camp 2001.

As the real 2001 season played out, Brady eventually got the chance to play and it was learned that he actually had the makings of an elite QB. But his rating in Madden 2002 would be the same unless you updated the rosters. (Now, we have roster updates which do reflect progression and regression during the year, but it's still fixated to whatever point in time you rated them).

The original argument was that a video game QB who can put 4000 yards should obviously be rated better than 60 OVR. Why? The ratings give him his attributes in the game. If he is able to consistently produce with that mixture of attributes, why do his physical and mental abilities need to dramtically go up next year.

Chad Pennington is a classic example. The guy has zero arm strength. He is what he is. But he makes good decisions such that he can put up numbers similar to QB's with much better arms. Chad Pennington had a great year last year, but nobody suddenly believes that his arm became stronger or more accurate than last year, nor did his ability to read defenses drastically improve as a result of his success. He may bring the same tools to the table and have a crap year b/c of other circumstances.

It's really no different than seeing video game results that differ from what the ratings suggest.

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by StormJH1

This is kinda like that whole debate over whether or not QB's should see their arm power and accuracy progress over time. A 24 year old NFL rookie can throw the ball about as well as he ever will in his lifetime. It's the intangibles of experience and play recognition (and confidence) that are hard to quantify in video games, but which make the difference in real life.

Maybe from a strenth standpoint yes but not for an accuracy standpoint. You hear QB's all the time talk about how they became more accurate passers or need to improve thier accuracy. It happens. The learn way to get the ball to thier recievers in better spots, how to pick out the spots in the defense better, how to get thier throws off better and/or faster along with other things. That type of stuff translate onto the field and into thier numbers by a raise in completion percentage and less interceptions. If you look at most QB's thier completion percentages and interceptions are different in thier later years than in thier early years.

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by StormJH1

No. Again, this is confusing real life with video game. The video game world is fixed in the ratings as we interpret them at release time. Madden 2002 reflected the relative skill of players as they were in Training Camp 2001. As the real 2001 season played out, Brady eventually got the chance to play and it was learned that he actually had the makings of an elite QB. But his rating in Madden 2002 would be the same unless you updated the rosters. (Now, we have roster updates which do reflect progression and regression during the year, but it's still fixated to whatever point in time you rated them). The original argument was that a video game QB who can put 4000 yards should obviously be rated better than 60 OVR. Why? The ratings give him his attributes in the game. If he is able to consistently produce with that mixture of attributes, why do his physical and mental abilities need to dramtically go up next year. Chad Pennington is a classic example. The guy has zero arm strength. He is what he is. But he makes good decisions such that he can put up numbers similar to QB's with much better arms. Chad Pennington had a great year last year, but nobody suddenly believes that his arm became stronger or more accurate than last year, nor did his ability to read defenses drastically improve as a result of his success. He may bring the same tools to the table and have a crap year b/c of other circumstances. It's really no different than seeing video game results that differ from what the ratings suggest.

You are missing the point. But first I will say this. The OP is talking about an extreme cass or circumstance. Unless he is playing on rookie or something his 60 rated QB shouldn't be doing those things. So what he is talking about is a case of extreme measures and shouldn't be happening.

However if a guy is rated low and has a breakout season it is obvious that he has improved in some areas of the game. Take a young T.O. for example. He wasn't putting up big numbers early on in his career and wasn't the go to reciever. The reason was they guys around him where better at that time. He continued to work hard and improved. It showed in a change in his numbers, production, and role on the team. No he wasn't underrated in the beginning he improved so his scouting reports changed, where he was viewed amongst his peered changed, and his ratings in the game changed just like they should. All of that was brought about by his performance on the field.

Just like you said about Brady it was learned. Nobdy knew it before hand like the guy I was responding to tried to make it seem. No Brady wasn't an elite QB from the start. He improved and became one. If he was this elite QB and was known as one from the start he wouldn't have been picked as late as he was. He again like the other guys I mentioned improved. When he came into Michigan he was the seventh string QB. He worked his way up. He still was a backup for half his career in college. So let's not try to make it seem like he was some elite guy all along. He worked his way up to that point.

Your Chad example shows how the ratings work in a sense. His arm strenth rating has never really changed. Plus Madden doesn't knock players alot for missing time with injury so his rating haven't changed a whole lot. He has always had high accuracy ratings with low arm strenth. His other ratings changed and that what made the difference in his overall ratings.

[MAzing87]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

Progression should not be performance based. Your Tom Brady example is dumb here is why. Tom Brady wasn't even in Madden that year but that doesn't matter. In real life he was able to step in right away and be productive because he was already that good. It's not like he got into his first NFL game and could only throw the ball 20 MPH and could only his short passed with any reliability in real life because he never played in the NFL before. Coming into the game he already had an above average level of physical attributes that allowed him to become what he is today. This is why performance based progression doesn't make any sense. A 60 OVR QB shouldn't be able to put up huge numbers in the first place because he doesn't have the physical set of skills to be able to to. Players in real life don't get better by putting up huge numbers, players in real life get better through hard work and good coaching.

Some of what you said in the last paragraph makes sense. But if Brady was in the game that year, you better believe he was going to get that 65-70 OVR rating because the world didn't know he was that good.

I think the idea of a 65-70 OVR player to lead the league or win honors at the end of the season should be rewarded with a spike in his OVR and potential (My idea I just thought of the top of my head). If that player was user controlled that is. The CPU controlled players would have 1 or 2 random players excel past their expectations and get a slight bump in OVR also.

Say a WR with 70 OVR (usually they are fast but can't catch as well as the elite WRs) does well and lands top 5 among the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, or Larry Fitz, after the first season, his potential grade should change for that first year with a minor increase in OVR. If it was an F, it should change to a B because he produced way beyond his expectations. If he lands top 5-10 the following year, then it should change to an A and then spike up his OVR, along with the key attributes a bit. Now at some point there will be a cap and as that player gets older, his potential should go back down to C and stay that way, with a decline to his OVR and other attributes.

What do you guys think of that?

[mmorg]

Quote: Originally Posted by PrettyT11

So according to you he shouldn't have been able to come in a play like he did cause his rating was low. Nobody knew if he had the skills or not to get the job done. He hadn't started a game since high school. Terrell Davis is another perfect example. He was a six round draft pick. Nobody expected him to come in a do the things he did. He also was rated very low to start with. There a tons of examples you can use to fit this mold. Progession should be performance based for the most part. In real life how do you tell if a players has improved?? You tell by his performace on the field. Roddy White improved in a lot of areas over the past couple of years and it showed in his performance and he put up big numbers. You don't improve and your numbers go down. That shows regression not progression.

Yeah those guys were rated very low in the video game of Madden. In real life they were a lot better than their virtual representation in a video game. People need to realize that Madden is a completely separate reality in which we can look at a players ratings and see exactly what they are capable of. In real life we don't have the luxury that's why you always have those Gems and Busts in every draft.

Now we can change this easily by introducing a scouting system that I alluded to earlier. Let's use Derek Anderson as an example. According to everyone before the 2007 season Anderson was a pretty bad QB and would be rated in the 70s in Madden. By the end of that season he was one of the best QBs in the game, earned a trip to the Pro Bowl and would probably garner an 85+ rating going into Madden 2009. Then based upon his 2008-2009 season he was one of the worst QBs in the NFL and he is currently rated lower than Brady Quinn in Madden 10.

Now with a scouting system this would be awesome because the ratings would change in the game much like they did from Madden 08-Madden 10. Derek Anderson would start out as a decent QB then as the 07 season unfolded the scout would re-evaluate him and bump his ratings up to reflect his performance. Then as the 09 season unfolded the scout would see how inept he was and start lowering his ratings based on his performance. Do you see where I am getting at?

The way the ratings system is set up right now is very definitive in the physical abilities of the virtual football players. If a scouting system can be introduced and have the ratings that we see be based upon the opinion of a virtual scout then a performance based progression system can work very well.

[mmorg]

Quote: Originally Posted by MAzing87

Some of what you said in the last paragraph makes sense. But if Brady was in the game that year, you better believe he was going to get that 65-70 OVR rating because the world didn't know he was that good. I think the idea of a 65-70 OVR player to lead the league or win honors at the end of the season should be rewarded with a spike in his OVR and potential (My idea I just thought of the top of my head). If that player was user controlled that is. The CPU controlled players would have 1 or 2 random players excel past their expectations and get a slight bump in OVR also. Say a WR with 70 OVR (usually they are fast but can't catch as well as the elite WRs) does well and lands top 5 among the likes of Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, or Larry Fitz, after the first season, his potential grade should change for that first year with a minor increase in OVR. If it was an F, it should change to a B because he produced way beyond his expectations. If he lands top 5-10 the following year, then it should change to an A and then spike up his OVR, along with the key attributes a bit. Now at some point there will be a cap and as that player gets older, his potential should go back down to C and stay that way, with a decline to his OVR and other attributes. What do you guys think of that?

See this is not representative of real life because the ratings in the game are definitive. The ratings system in place now are a 100% true representation of the player you get on the field. Texas Tech QBs are products of their system. With a progression model like this in place every Texas Tech QB would become the GOAT, each right after the next. Sorry, but it doesn't work like this.

[kingkilla56]

Maybe they should change the number rating system to a skill system where players have specific skills to differentiate them rather than this 97 versus 89 arm strength crap that really doesn't affect the game as it should.

Like have D Russell have the skill of rocket arm and a guy like Peyton have a lazer precision arm, composure, pocket awareness or something like that that a guy like Russell wouldn't to differentiate.

They could even have like a caliber system for specific skills like a 3 star lazer precision arm for Pennington and a 5 star precision arm for Tom (I guess hes that accurate idk the scouting report on him lol)

And give a guy like carolina steve smith a 5star speed, 4 star hands, and compare him to new york steve smith with a 3 star speed, 3 star hands. And give player specific perks like a "3rd down genius" to clutch wrs qbs and hbs.

This could translate to defense too. Give Nnamdi a 5 star shutdown with a long arms perk i guess maybe too crazy to get that detailled.

Bottom line, this number system is weak, not effective, and outdated.