Franchise Progression

[Boregard]

It occurs to me that within the forum communities there are very different opinions on how the "progression" system should work.

Some guys think that on field production should override the POT rating, some guys feel that POT should be the only factor and there are tons of people in the middle who hold a wide variety of opinions that fall in between.

So why not have a slider of sorts where you could tweak the progression to your liking, you move it all the way to POT and you get progression based on that alone, move it all the way the other way and the players stats completely control it and then you have a wide range where you could set it where you like it in the middle???

Now don't beat me up if that isn't feasible within the programming cuz I don't know anything about programming video games! OK

The other thing that is often left out of these discussions is the effects or lack of on progression by the coaching staff you have, how much does that play in currently - anyone?

The one big problem I have with 83 rated guys having monster seasons and not progressing is that say that player does that on a CPU controlled team. The CPU sees a 83 rated player that goes up say to an 84 after a "pro bowl" season and grabs an aging 89 rated player in FA to "upgrade" that position and does not take the fact that that player is producing way above his rating into account! So the next year he sits the bench for that CPU team after a "pro bowl" year which makes no sense, especially if the 89 rated upgrade does nothing in his place! So how do you fix that?

I have an idea - have stats factor into the players' trade value, IMP to current team, and contract demands - although I have no idea how to make it work or even how that might be accomplished.

You could have awards factored in some way by the CPU for that players value, but then what about the guy who has a great season, but just misses the PB?

Another thing is that I feel the CPU team's players should get a bonus or something to their players' progression/POT so that the bad CPU teams can be turned around by the CPU - Every franchise I play the Lions, Raiders, Bucs, Rams never seem to turn the corner and I see the same handful of teams in the playoffs every year which gets old after a while!!

[KBLover]

I think Progression should be modified by playing time (i.e. the actual gains you get would be "penalized" if a guy didn't play X number of downs, and since the game tracks downs played...)

As far as performance - I think certain skills could get some increase if a player is consistently good in an area and if that makes his OVR go up, so be it. Likewise if he struggles.

But I think it should matter only to a point. A good player with a stretch of bad games shouldn't be crucified just as a some good games shouldn't make a bad player awesome.

This could put skill set into the mix. Maybe that high Pot guy just never figures out your team's scheme. Maybe that "average and nothing more" prospect has a skill or two that let's him overachieve and be a deadly specialist type player - things like that.

[WG5516]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

The only place overall comes into play is in progression. If a player's overall has reached his potential he can't progress in any area.

That's not true. I've had two players so far. Martellius Bennet, TE for Dallas and a LG from the Buccs both progress PAST their potential. Their potential ratings were a B but after the season they came back with 90 ratings and a potential of A.

[stux]

Quote: Originally Posted by TeamBuilder

What I love about Franchise Progression is that it's all pre-determined, EA chooses who can be a star and who can't... Just like real life.

EA chooses who is a star and who isn't in real life?

damn that is a real talent....

[MasterX1918]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

I think Progression should be modified by playing time (i.e. the actual gains you get would be "penalized" if a guy didn't play X number of downs, and since the game tracks downs played...) As far as performance - I think certain skills could get some increase if a player is consistently good in an area and if that makes his OVR go up, so be it. Likewise if he struggles. But I think it should matter only to a point. A good player with a stretch of bad games shouldn't be crucified just as a some good games shouldn't make a bad player awesome. This could put skill set into the mix. Maybe that high Pot guy just never figures out your team's scheme. Maybe that "average and nothing more" prospect has a skill or two that let's him overachieve and be a deadly specialist type player - things like that.

This is how it was in NFL 2K5. Another thing Madden should adopt from that series.

[klo626]

Quote: Originally Posted by stux

EA chooses who is a star and who isn't in real life? damn that is a real talent....

ya they buyout the players they want to be busts

[P. Hays]

I don't mean to get too far off subject but I did a little test with player progression today and I found out that the preseason most likely does have something to do with development. I played Rashad Jennings in a few preseason games and he averaged around 3.3 per carry. I simmed the entire regular season and made sure Jennings didnt play a single down. At the end of the year he had improved by 2 points overall. I know its not much be for only playing the preseaons its not too bad.

He either progessed from the preseason action or sitting on the bench all year.

[Senior Whitebread]

Quote: Originally Posted by MasterX1918

I really think the progression system is broken. I had 2 linebackers, 1 with C potential and one with B potential. The player with C potential started every game and recored 60 tackles, 11 sacks and 2 INTs and made it to the pro bowl and won defensive rookie of the year for the AFC. He only progressed 2 points and is now a 79. Meanwhile, the player who had B potential played sparingly and finished the season with 15 tackles and 1 sack. He progressed 6 points and is now an 83. What the hell? I'm not complaining since the guy with B is nasty and will probably start for me but it's annoying that my other rookie stud is barely progressing because his potential is low. It's the same thing with Jonathan Wilhite; he leads the league in INTs and makes the probowl but only progresses 1 point to be an 81? cmon

Thats pretty logical. Look at Lawrence Timmons and Stephen Tulloch, for example. Tulloch has played since he was a rookie, but is only in the 70-75 range (cant remember the actual number), while Timmons has played sparingly but is around an 83. Some players are just plain and simple destined to be stars, while other players simply overachieve.