If I'm Josh Freeman or Ziggy Hood I'm Angry

[kingkilla56]

I just don't understand why progression in madden games matters all that much. Why I say that isn't because I dont want to see Graham Harrell become a monster after 2 years. But because who can ever really get into a franchise mode when all you will do is start all over with the next madden.

Who knows how good Ziggy and Josh will be IRL when nobody has seen them play. Next year, Madden 11 will respect their skills according to how they perform. Don't lose sleep over your Buc's franchise never having Freeman at 97 ovr. If he ever gets that good, the games will respect that.

[sois]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bruin26

The problem with me with performance based rating increases is the fact that especially at the QB position players progress in the NFl without playing. Guys sit for a year or two then are ready to start in the league. McNair did it and many have. There should be a happy medium of course, because performance should come into play, but the way it has always been in the video game world as far as Madden, if a guy doesn't play he isn't going to progress at all and that just isn't realistic.

That is why I would go with an 80/20 mix. In season performance based progression and then a progression/regression period after the season based on the potential rating. That would capture that "sit and learn" period.

[K-train]

Quote: Originally Posted by NorrinRadd12

I know someone who uses the Bucs on their franchise. He won MVP with Freeman and he only progressed to a 78.

Dude was a MVP in ESPN 2k5 in is 2nd year in Franchise mode.

[deadlyCane]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bruin26

The problem with me with performance based rating increases is the fact that especially at the QB position players progress in the NFl without playing. Guys sit for a year or two then are ready to start in the league. McNair did it and many have. There should be a happy medium of course, because performance should come into play, but the way it has always been in the video game world as far as Madden, if a guy doesn't play he isn't going to progress at all and that just isn't realistic.

You're obviously a sensible football fan who happens to also play video games. It seems like most of the people who post on this board no little about the actual game of football or just aren't sensible. It is a common perception among NFL coaches, GMS and analyst that some players and some positions progress better by not playing rather than getting thrown to the wolves. The QB position is the most notable. Many times a team will not start or even play their big name QB his first year out of fear he will be ruined by playing too early. Carson Palmer is a classic example of a player who was held out his first year and had immediate success. THen you have Matt Lienart and Vince Young who were thrown to the wolves from day one. That experience has probably ruined their careers.

The other negative with performance based ratings is you have to remember that YOU are controlling the players. If you are good at running all the runningbacks you control will likely improve rapidly.

And you don't need performance based progression. It's quite possible that an 80 OVR rated player who wins the MVP is a player that just plays beyond his capability or ratings. Besides, the overall ratings in Madden means little anyway. The most important ratings are the attributes specific to each position. A 75 OVR WR with 90 catch ratings, 90 RTE ratings but 60 AWR could be much better than the 85 OVR rated WR with 80 catch ratings, 80 RTE and 95 AWR.

I like the potential rating with a little modification. What I think they should do is still give out the ratings but just don't make it an automatic that a player with A potential will improve to a 90+ player or a player with B potential can never become a 98. The way it should done is to have the player with A potential have a better chance of improving to 90+ and a B a lesser chance, etc. For instance, an A potential player has a 80% chance of improving to 95+, B potential a 70% chance, and so on until you get to say an F potential guy who maybe only has a 5 or 10% chance of getting to a 95+. On the flip side, an A potential player could have an 20% chance of never reaching his full potential of 95+ and may never improve much if at all past his rookie ratings. This is the best way to have gems and busts. Even real NFL scouts never know the real potential of a real player or whether that player can reach his full potential. My idea would better simulate that.

The problem with my idea above is video game freaks can't see past their linear line of thinking. It's either black or white for most. If they draft an A potential player that only improves from a 75 rating to a 80 rating they will cry foul that the potential rating is broken. Hopefully EA has more common sense than that.

[Sanchez_Mareno]

Im not quite sure what the OPs problem with this is.
IRL the 1st rounders are expected to be cornerstones of the franchises they were drafted to. Thus they are believed to have high potential. Some have higher potential than others obviously. Not everyone will be elite hence these two not making it

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Faizon

I had Josh Freeman, and through three played season he was up to an 86. He just can't go up as dramatically as an A potential guy, which I agree, is stupid. Something interesting... I noticed if you switch Manny Lawson to DE he goes from B potential to A.

It is actually something very broken with how they do the potential rating. If head coach 09, for instance, where potential was done much better each player had a potential for each rating and the overall potential was determined the same way the actual overall was using those potentials. That way, if you changed a players position the actual rating's potentials would stay the same so the overall potential was just recalculated. Here, however, the potential is a hard number set in the same way as an individual rating. That said, potential is also the cap to how high the overall goes. Therefore, if you do something that will raise the overall beyond the current potential it will raise the potential to whatever the overall is.

However, if a position change lowers the overall or even doesn't raise it enough to increase the potential, the potential will not change. Therefore if you move lawson to DE his potential increases to an A. If you then move him back to LB his potential as a LB will now be an A.

As much as I am against giving ideas to help people who believe such unrealistic things as "any player should be able to become a star" or "every current player should have 99 potential" I think I know a way to edit potential, at least moving it up. I don't know how to move it down though. Keep in mind I have not tried this so I will not guarantee results but I think it could very likely work. Take the player whose potential you want to raise and raise their overall up to wherever you want their potential. The best way of doing this is probably just change their awareness for most of them, especially rookies, as it only requires editing one rating. Then close the edit player screen back out to the player management screen. This should change their overall and potential back up to where you want. Then just go back in and lower their ratings back down to where they started.

[TeamBuilder]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sanchez_Mareno

Im not quite sure what the OPs problem with this is. IRL the 1st rounders are expected to be cornerstones of the franchises they were drafted to. Thus they are believed to have high potential. Some have higher potential than others obviously. Not everyone will be elite hence these two not making it

It's not so much about these 2... it's about how there is a set potential for everyone that's like trying to predict the future.

[kwpit79]

Aren't the Steelers one of the better drafting teams in the NFL? I would believe that's the case, since they're not winning Super Bowls by bringing in free agents. So in the case of Ziggy, wouldn't you assume the Steelers know what they're doing until proven otherwise? It is odd that if you're going to single out only a small handful of 1st round picks, they would be the team that you give the B to. Just my 2 cents.