What Has Always Bothered Me With Progression

[reyes the roof]

Quote: Originally Posted by ACardAttack

So I guess Tom Brady shouldnt have had that great year the year he took over for the Hurt Bledso because he was some scrub with no exp and under the radar.

Statistically, that wasn't really a great year. In 2001 when he took over he put up numbers that were very similar to what Kyle Orton put up last year

[MAzing87]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

He will perform to his true ratings, not the ratings your scout perceives him as. This will make playing pre-season games and playing with your 7th round draft picks actually important so you can actually see what their talent level is on the field of play.

So if that's the case then, if I was the Lions, and they are a bad team, and I controlled a no name QB with poor ratings (not Stafford or Culpepper), is his "hidden" ratings much lower than what was perceived or will he have higher ratings?

[joet6683]

Here's how I see it:

Take a Brady type example. You currently have 2nd/3rd string QB, who has never taken a snap in the NFL. So Madden 10 has him rated in the 60's. Then during this season the starter gets injured, and the backup comes in to play. He puts up amazing numbers, maybe wins a superbowl or mvp.

The next season he is the starter, and in Madded 11, he will undoubtedly be rated MUCH higher, in the upper 80's or possibly even in the 90's.

Let's evaluate real life. The NFL team had him as a backup in year 1 because they seemingly thought that he wasn't better or as good as the starter, and with no real in game experience, they couldn't totally evaluate him. Once he got on the field, they realized he was a star and became the starter in year 2. Did he become the starter because he progressed? No. Sure maybe his play recognition got better with time on the field, but for the most part he was what he was, and the team just didnt know it without seeing him on the field too much.

Let's evaluate Madden. They had him rated in the 60's in year one because he was a backup, and with no on field experience they could only get estimated ratings, and since he was a backup or 3rd string he probably should have been rated low. Then after the amazing season, the next year's madden has him rated in the 90's. Again, is this because he progressed and got better? NO. It was because they realized with the year he had last year, the team realized he wasn't rated highly enough. With his 60's rating there is no way you should be able to have an MVP season. That's why they increased his ratings in year 2. Not because he got better by putting up huge numbers, BUT BECAUSE HE WASN'T RATED HIGHLY ENOUGH TO BEGIN WITH IN THE FIRST YEAR.

The rating numbers are definitive, and based on an estimate of a real player. Because the estimate of this player was so far off, you shouldnt be able to put these kinds of numbers up with this player. If you are, then you should make the game a little harder. Because if they make all his attributes take a huge jump because of that season, he should put up much better numbers the next year. That makes taking a HUGE jump in ratings based on that unneeded.

So really, since the ratings are definitive, the only way to replicate something liek that is to have rating numbers hidden, so you dont know exactly what he is rated. they need to have it based off of scouts. You can see what areas he is good at (written 'notes' from the scout, or based on a skill system like APF), or just have the attribute numbers you see based off of the scout, and have it more accurate and closer to the real definitive attribute the code is using the better the scout is.

Then progression of the real numbers can be based off of progression rating and performance to take care of the small changes from year to year, and have the big changes handled by you not having the correct information on the player.

[mmorg]

Quote: Originally Posted by MAzing87

So if that's the case then, if I was the Lions, and they are a bad team, and I controlled a no name QB with poor ratings (not Stafford or Culpepper), is his "hidden" ratings much lower than what was perceived or will he have higher ratings?

If he is a no name QB his perceived ratings will probably be pretty low until proven otherwise. Much like the underrated Tom Brady. Nobody thought he was going to be who he was until he stepped in and started performing at an above average level.

Though, I am not sure what you are asking.

[tlc12576]

Quote: Originally Posted by shigogouhou

Progression needs to be subjective, it needs to be mutable, and it needs to be a range of values. Nobody's a 99OVR potential in every team's system in every team's situation; some of them need to ride the bench for a year or two before they can produce, some can Matt Ryan it and start immediately. Some of them need to be in West Coast offenses, some of them just won't develop the timing & accuracy to be successful in that offense.

Now I agree that OVR rating should be based on the team that the player is playing for.I dont know if anyone noticed but in madden 09 and 10,i think,your players OVR is different in your depth chart than your player management.The depth chart rating is based on your coaching staff enhancements.(This is in franchcise mode.)

That being considered,I think the current system is pretty realistic but IMO the OVR rating needs to be completely separate from the players other ratings.OVR should NOT be a sum average of all the players key ratings at that position but should be an overall rating for the player at that position,on that specific team.For example,a QB more suited for the west coast offense should have a higher OVR with a team that runs the west coast offense but that should not make his throwing power,accuracy etc any different just because the OVR changed.

If it was done like that,it would allow for a players OVR to increase/decrease by large margins based on yearly stat performance with their team but not increase/decrease by large numbers their individual ratings,ie accuracy,throwing power etc.Those could still increase/decrease like they do now.

[mikeveli20]

Quote: Originally Posted by MAzing87

So if that's the case then, if I was the Lions, and they are a bad team, and I controlled a no name QB with poor ratings (not Stafford or Culpepper), is his "hidden" ratings much lower than what was perceived or will he have higher ratings?

Being a bad team has no effect on whether or not his hidden ratings are higher or lower than his perceived ratings. His hidden ratings will be the same no matter what team he is on.

As far as determining what his actual hidden ratings are, this of course would be decided by the game or EA before hand. As much as we want it to be as real to life as possible, it's still a video game and a lot of things have to be pre-coded into the game. Whatever method they use to determine the player's potential rating as it stands now, could be used to determine the player's hidden ratings.

So with the proposed progression method, if the game determines a player's concrete potential to be an 85 (or B), it would then create his hidden ratings accordingly to whatever would make that player an 85. So with the no-name Lions QB, his current perceived rating after you draft him might be a 50 with a potential of D. During pre-season he plays a lot better than a 55. He's got more Throw Power and Accuracy than originally scouted and a lot more awareness. As this type of play continues, the organization constantly re-evaluates him so by Week 1 of the regular season, the perceived ratings might be a 62 overall with a potential of C.

And it works in reverse like I said with the Ryan Leaf example. He's drafted in the high first round and comes in with a perceived overall of 85 and a potential of A. However, his hidden ratings are an overall of 55 and a potential of F. You don't know this though until you play him and find out. You notice you're throwing a lot of INTs with him because of bad accuracy. So then the organization re-evaluates him and says this guy isn't as accurate as we thought, he's more of a 75 overall right now with a potential of B. Then after a few years when it's clear this guy is a complete bust, the perceived rating could be a 53 with a potential of F which is much closer to his actual ratings because you've now had the time to evaluate him and see what he can and can't do.

[Phife1442]

FYI, I started this thread after reading the simmed Lions franchise thread. Graham Harrell was rookie of the year in the first year and didnt progress much. I just dont like that EA determines who the current young crop of NFL players will be future stars. It should be us, the coaches, to play the players we want to succeed and be rewarded with progression. Training camp is gone, so we cant target our favorite players.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Let me know when you actually dominate like that with a 60 overall QB and then I'll give you my opinion.