Home

Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

This is a discussion on Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression within the Madden NFL Last Gen forums.

Go Back   Operation Sports Forums > Football > Madden NFL Football > Madden NFL Last Gen
ESBC Roster - The Best We've Ever Seen in a Boxing Game?
PES 2021 Team Spirit Guide - Understand Chemistry on a New Level
MLB The Show 21 Diamond Dynasty Budget Beasts
Poll: What's more important to you, when the time comes to purchase a game? (Click to vote)
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-07-2009, 03:14 AM   #257
Rookie
 
OVR: 2
Join Date: Apr 2009
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamBuilder
Bingo, I don't like having a potential rating because it's setting franchise mode in stone. It's saying player X can become a star but player Y can't. It's too black and white, it's a system that's pre-determined, it's predicting the future. And I do think, that if there absolutely has to be a potential rating, it shouldn't be set in stone, it should be able to change based on performance. Really, this sums it up for me...

Madden 10 has pre-determined potential. I know who can become a star because it says "A" next to his name. I also know which players are completely pointless to use because it says "D" or "F" next to their name. In other words... I know how the league will look, I'm the best G.M. in the world, I can predict the future. For everyone crying about "sim", do you honestly think NFL general managers have a sheet telling them who will be a star on their team and who will be a bust? I start a franchise with the Redskins, first thing I see is Fred Davis and his "D" potential... Obviously I'm going to cut him and use the extra cap space to find someone who can actually become something in the league. Why? Because it's pre-determined that Fred Davis is a failure. My main point... It wasn't pre-determined in Madden 2006 and I liked that better.

I am truly sorry that I don't agree with you on how progression should work. But on the other hand I am extremely pleased that we have been able to discuss it rationally. I hold you in high regard, I enjoy reading your posts, even if I don't always agree
What about if we had potential, but it was hidden (as I believe it's been in the past). That way not everyone gets to be Adrian Peterson, but at the same time, you're not the omniscient GM, who knows exactly who's a superstar and who's a bust.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that GM's by and large know where players ceilings are. They don't get it right all the time, but maybe certain players could display "F" potential when they're really "A" potential, or something like that.

But I wouldn't necessarily say that D's and F's aren't total failures. Sure, long term a 78 OVR with A potential is better off than an 81 with F potential, but if you're looking for a short term, stop-gap player for a year or two, you might be better off with the F potential. Plus an 80 OVR with F potential should be easier to sign than an 80 OVR with A potential, especially to a long term deal (if cash is tight). It's another layer of strategy that way.

Last edited by jip4; 09-07-2009 at 03:17 AM.
jip4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 03:57 AM   #258
Rookie
 
OVR: 2
Join Date: Apr 2009
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

By the way, here's a PBP tip: If you ever find yourself with a sizeable lead, put your kicker at punter and punt line drives on 1st/2nd/3rd down. With no return man back, you'll boom 70 yarders on the roll all over the place. And with a punting average of 73.2, your kickers KPW will skyrocket, perfect for nailing those 64 yard game-winning field goals and kicking it out the back of the endzone off the tee.

"Unfair," you say. "Abuse of the system," you cry. Well, is it really that different than turning your 60 OVR WR into Larry Fitzgerald by throwing him 6 million balls?

And before anyone says "one's a legitimate NFL strategy and one's not," funneling the ball to a crappy player to turn him into a superstar is most certainly not a legitimate NFL strategy.

Last edited by jip4; 09-07-2009 at 04:00 AM.
jip4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 06:57 AM   #259
Banned
 
OVR: 7
Join Date: Oct 2005
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Potential should be predetermined but re-evaluated after every season and it shouldnīt be absolute.

1) Players should start with Very High, High, decent, Low, Very Low.

2) After a certain amounts of games played the player gets his absolute potential alas "know you know what you have with him"

3) Some players should get a random potential boost but only if they played a lot of minutes alas "Hey coach, i think this player is much better than we though heīd be" , also after a certain amount of games

4) High and Very High potential players not playing in a lot of games and just being backups should get a lower potential after a certain number of games/season.

5) After a certain rating Players shouldnīt progress without playing time at all.


EA shoould take a good hard look at some soccer games and itīs not FIFA i am talking about.
Whoman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 07:15 AM   #260
Rookie
 
OVR: 3
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Northampton, England
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Quote:
Originally Posted by jip4
What about if we had potential, but it was hidden (as I believe it's been in the past). That way not everyone gets to be Adrian Peterson, but at the same time, you're not the omniscient GM, who knows exactly who's a superstar and who's a bust.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that GM's by and large know where players ceilings are. They don't get it right all the time, but maybe certain players could display "F" potential when they're really "A" potential, or something like that.
I think that would be the way to do it. Also, perhaps just not revealing the potential rating of your roster players for a year, then perhaps narrowing down to a range. Potentials of other teams players should be hidden too, and perhaps even their ratings clouded over a little bit.
Richieh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 01:02 PM   #261
MVP
 
OVR: 26
Join Date: Sep 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Quote:
Originally Posted by jip4
What about if we had potential, but it was hidden (as I believe it's been in the past). That way not everyone gets to be Adrian Peterson, but at the same time, you're not the omniscient GM, who knows exactly who's a superstar and who's a bust.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that GM's by and large know where players ceilings are. They don't get it right all the time, but maybe certain players could display "F" potential when they're really "A" potential, or something like that.

But I wouldn't necessarily say that D's and F's aren't total failures. Sure, long term a 78 OVR with A potential is better off than an 81 with F potential, but if you're looking for a short term, stop-gap player for a year or two, you might be better off with the F potential. Plus an 80 OVR with F potential should be easier to sign than an 80 OVR with A potential, especially to a long term deal (if cash is tight). It's another layer of strategy that way.
If you have F potential you are overall 1-59 lol. But I understand the concept of your argument.

So going back to HC 09(seriously why didnt they import at least a quarter of that game to franchise is beyond me) they had the ability to hire HCs, OC, DC, positional coaches, GMs, and trainers. The GMs skill not only helped with scouting good talent but also with figuring out how good your team really is.

A player's overall and potential ratings were almost always in a state of flux. With a poor GM you could have an amazing player whos overall/potential rated by the GM is in the 70s when that same player with a great GM would be rated in the 80+. The Real attributes of a player(awareness throw power ect ect) were static(unless they were increasing). Therefore, if you were not lazy you could become the GM and judge what player is going to become great or not but if you had a good GM he could speed things up. Also, each and every single player rating had a potential that it could specifically reach.

Example would be a DE who has a overall potential of a 90. His stats at max would be 68 power move, 98 finesse move, 74 block shed, 78 tackle, 94 awareness. You could draft another DE whos overall potential is 90 but his max stats could be 98 power move, 52 finesse move, 88 block shed, 84 tackle, and 78 awareness. You could draft another DE whos overall potential is 90 and his stats are 90 power move, 90 finesse move, 80 block shed, 65 tackle, and 60 awareness.

Players are 10 times more diverse because each one is unique in the fact that they all max out at different levels on different skills.
Glorious Arc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisements - Register to remove
Old 09-07-2009, 01:08 PM   #262
Pro
 
OVR: 7
Join Date: Sep 2003
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Quote:
Originally Posted by jip4
I posted this on another thread, but I'll repost here:

It's important to realize what "progression" is. It is a player increasing their ability level. It is not a re-evaluation of the players ability level (which is what mid-season roster updates are, and what mid-season/preseason progression simulates). It makes no sense to re-evaluate the a Franchise player's ability level, because we know precisely what that ability level is.

This isn't true in real life. Matt Cassel probably started last season with his Madden rating at ~70. He probably finished it at ~85. Now let's think about what happened. Did he really get 15 points better over the course of the season? Or was he really an 85 all along, and we just didn't know it (this one)?

The difference between real life and the game is that, within the context of the game (and more specifically, within the context of Franchise mode), we do know exactly how good every player is. It's in a nice little spreadsheet, with all kinds of sub-categories that we can sort. It's those numbers that determine how players perform, not how good they "really" are. Give a 70 OVR running back a great offensive line and he can have a great season, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a 70 OVR. And just because I decide on a whim not to throw a single ball to my 99 OVR receiver all season doesn't mean he's suddenly a 65. Or even a 95.

The "performance-based potential" arguments mistake the cause and effect relationship between ratings and performance. High ratings are not a reward for performing well. High ratings cause you to perform well. If a bad player plays well, one of three things is happening:

1. There's a flaw in the game (and this is entirely possible: if you're getting 1600 yards with a 65 OVR running back, something ain't right)
2. You've designed your system around the player, and/or put him in a position personnel-wise to be successful (i.e. he's a product of the system)
3. You just got lucky (i.e. he's a one-year-wonder)

What isn't happening is that the player is suddenly 15, 10, or even just 5 points better. Heck just from knowledge the game, we know that players get better from practice, from working out, from studying film, from training in the offseason; but not from catching 6 balls instead of 3 on Sunday.

Sorry if this seems kind of rambling, but IMO performance-based potential is a franchise killer, and it worries me just how much some are pushing for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glorious Arc
Would it matter? His overall back then would have been poor anyways and would have needed a roster update to fix.

You confuse roster updates and how the real world interacts with the video game. If there are players that are real(not from premade drafts) that perform they will see a ratings boost to correct that.

Once you start playing a franchise, that is when the fantasy world starts. EA then basically turns into an omniscient being with the premade drafts. They know all of the Tom Bradys and Ryan Leafs before the drafts even happen. That is why they can give potential grades to these players. If this was not the case then every single rookie could turn into an overall 99 and that completely unbalances the game and is completely unreal.

In the real world, no one really knows how good someone can really be until the moment of truth. Do you see the difference between RL and Madden now?

For everyone that says performance=progression...I will ask you a simple question. Have you ever played a sport IRL? Heck, I will go as far as have you ever had a job?

I ask this because if you think that if you step onto a baseball field and hit four home runs or if you go to work and make a really good presentation....That it means you are now a better baseball player or a better person in the office then your reason and logic are flawed.

People perform better by practicing, gaining knowledge from others, and getting experience. The fruits of their labor are 4 home runs and a good presentation at work. Madden should base it's progression system on those factors...Not how well a player does in a season.

jip4, I completely agree.
i completey agree with both
RavensFan2k3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 01:10 PM   #263
Pro
 
OVR: 7
Join Date: Sep 2003
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richieh
I think that would be the way to do it. Also, perhaps just not revealing the potential rating of your roster players for a year, then perhaps narrowing down to a range. Potentials of other teams players should be hidden too, and perhaps even their ratings clouded over a little bit.
oh ****...i completey agree with this aswell
RavensFan2k3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2009, 01:16 PM   #264
Pro
 
OVR: 7
Join Date: Sep 2003
Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamBuilder
My main argument is that no single player should have a Capped potential rating. Take what I said about Tom Brady for example. If a rookie player that is 61 OVR and a "D" potential has the same exact career as Tom Brady he won't even progress into the 70s because of his "D" potential. Don't you think there is something wrong with that?
the thing is in this secenario, the low rated player would have a A potential. Say Tom Brady would have started at a low overal rating, but had a A potential. If he had a low rating AND D potential, he would not have become great. But I do agree that the potential should be hidden. Because like was said before, we dont know who is going to be good, and who isnt.
RavensFan2k3 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

« Operation Sports Forums > Football > Madden NFL Football > Madden NFL Last Gen »


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:26 PM.

Top -