My attempt at cleaning up the mess that is Franchise Mode

[charlie247]

Quote: Originally Posted by I Peench

First of all, I want to acknowledge the improvements to last years mode. Josh Looman inherited an absolute disaster, so kudos for him to getting franchise mode back on track. There is still a lot of work to be done, however, and I am optimistic this will be a central focus of the dev team this year. I do always prepare myself for disappointment with Madden, though. I believe franchise mode is the most important aspect of Madden. Yes, gameplay is essential as well. But with the way Madden is now, improve the gameplay and it’ll still bore me after a month. There is no sustainability. Franchise is terrible, and there are way too many glitchers online. I just don’t get satisfaction out of playing single CPU games, and don’t have enough buddies as into Madden as they are other games like Fifa/NHL. Therefore, franchise (to me) is essential. Here is a long-winded attempt to sort out what I consider to be improvements essential to an entertaining franchise mode. They say brevity is the soul of wit. For my sake, I sure hope that’s not actually the case Coach Ratings/Schemes/Potential As I’ll touch on later, I think it is imperative that coach experience be taken into account. Head coaches need leadership ratings, and their assistants ratings need to be flushed out and really matter. I feel as though scheme and coaching should impact development, rather that potential. If you break it down, all these players are exceptional athletes. All have the ability to thrive and be productive given the right role, system, and coaches. I highlight this point with the Colt McCoy selection in the draft. I can’t tell you how much I read about how McCoy’s skill set played into the W.C. offense perfectly. Stats, schemes, and coaching should play a big role in development. However, younger players who sit shouldn’t be inhibited by the fact that they aren’t putting up stats. They should be able to sit , learn, and develop. As I said, all of these guys are exceptional athletes. There are freaks, however, like Jason Pierre-Paul and Taylor Mays. These guys should come in a bit raw (with low AWR and technical ratings), so some potential should play a part in determining their overall. I don’t think potential should put a ceiling on someone’s development, though. Also, it is essential that “A” potential players can absolutely fail. Start a franchise and in 5 years there are a disproportionate amount of players rated in the 90s. This is because all the 1st round rookies come in with A potential. Schemes are even more important with gameflow. I personally feel as though this makes the game MORE SIM (though I’m sure some respectfully disagree). Of course we’ll have to wait and see how it all pans out, but coordinators are very, very important this year. Their ratings need to be detailed and really matter, as should their schemes. There is a great thread on schemes by xblake16x here: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...play-idea.html Team Chemistry/Player Morale and Personality The latest off-season demonstrates just how imperative team chemistry is. Individual player happiness can affect the locker room atmosphere, and GMs are forced into difficult situations a la Brandon Marshall and have to make very hard decisions that make franchises and, more specifically drafts, exceptionally interesting and unpredictable. Starting from the top down, a head coach should be given a leadership rating. I’m of the school of thought that believes one can lead on the field, and as such I don’t find a need for a player leadership rating. However, your captain should have a high morale in order for chemistry to be maintained. Player morale ties into playing time, touches, contracts, and player interests ( i.e. winning franchise/city and climate preferences). I truly believe players need some amount of personality and preferences in order to make franchise interesting and create story-lines. I know the NFL won’t allow Madden to put in shenanigans like the escapades of Big Ben. As such, giving players preferences and personalities can create situations where I have to trade Jay Cutler for a first rounder even if I might not want to. Player morale will affect team chemistry, especially with a new coach like McDaniels. On the flip side, a veteran coach like Bellicheck can afford to bring in a Randy Moss and because of his leadership, it won’t affect chemistry that much. Oh, and please bring holdouts back. This will alleviate the issue of signing that steal of a 5th round pick (that you know is a steal) to a 7 year deal cheap. Gives the player an inherent advantage due to the fact that CPU logic dictates they sign these later round picks realistically to 1 year deals. Seeing as NCAA does a fantastic job incorporating personalities into their players (preferences like playing time/tradition/etc), I see no reason why the same can’t be done in Madden. Doing so would increase the importance of the head coach and captains, while creating interesting story-lines that keeps franchise fresh. Drafting and Scouting The drafting process is the foundation of any successful franchise. I was very hopefully with Josh Looman hopping on board, and it is clear many strides were made. There are several things I’d do differently/add however. The first is to remove the potential bar for these players in pre-draft scouting. It was full proof, and an awful way of organizing players. I suggest a different mode of organization. I think there should be multiple boards/positional rankings/projected rounds with Kiper and Mcshay (throw in Mayock and I’d be ecstatic). Something like this from MORE THAN ONE SOURCE: http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09...s&confirm=true. This forces a player to scout thoroughly and sort things out for themselves. You really need a working board you can reference for organizational purposes during the draft. Obviously, any presentation upgrades to the draft would be more than welcome. It is clearly a very entertaining and important aspect of the NFL, and I’m sure the Madden team will do something in this respect. In a thread I saw LSX propose the following: “I want to have a team of scouts who suggest what players to watch for, more info on what type of player they are and who they are comparable to (West Coast Offense QB, 3-4 defensive end, slot receiver, etc), their college stats, ASSUMED potential (not locked in), and what we can expect from them in the NFL.” Couldn’t agree more. You should have different coaches/scouts vying for “THEIR GUY,” as each decision is ultimately a difficult one for the user. Again, detail each players projection in terms of scheme. “this guy is a tweener DE/OLB could play in a 3-4 as an edge rusher.” I want very detailed scouting reports…”This guys strength and explosiveness allow him to set the edge, but his motor is suspect.” Or, “with exceptional accuracy and mobility but suspect arm strength this guy fits into the west coast offense.” Lastly, I think one of the coolest moments I’ve ever had in any sports game was the All American game I could play in College Hoops 2k8. The ability to play with players you could potentially sign was just epic…there is simply no other way to put it. Give me an Army All American Game and I’d be absolutely thrilled. This would add a totally new facet to scouting, as you could get a real tangible “feel” for each player. Other stuff that comes to mind: -Contract holdouts -Expansion mode back (teambuilder, anyone?) -Rebuilding stadium/relocating options expanded (ability for commentators to pronounce new cities and teams) -Training camp/positional battles -Restricted free agents -I don't know how to feel about pre-made draft classes. If they are to remain, however, names and schools need to be randomized to maintain unpredictability. -Online franchise should include everything offline does Lastly, I took some ideas from some other guys and tied them together with my own wishes. I tried to give credit wherever I took stuff, but if I left you out my apologies.

All what your saying equals HEAD COACH 09. thats how it should be so MADDEN 11 should jus bring back HEAD COACH and intergrate into MADDEN forever

[thudias]

Quote: Originally Posted by charlie247

All what your saying equals HEAD COACH 09. thats how it should be so MADDEN 11 should jus bring back HEAD COACH and intergrate into MADDEN forever

Yes

[xblake16x]

Quote: Originally Posted by nuckles2k2

This is what we need more of. I also feel that franchise mode needs to have some sort of a calendar in it to pressurize contract situations. Say you have an aging vet that is due a roster bonus by some date before the draft, do you let him go to avoid that roster bonus or are you aiming to draft his replacement in a few weeks? What if you aren't confident that his replacement will be ready to step in week one? Is avoiding his roster bonus worth the risk? Right now we can't have a situation like that because the off-season is based on stages as opposed to an actual calendar. Just my 2 cents.

IRL i dont really understand this could you explain?

[I Peench]

Quote: Originally Posted by charlie247

All what your saying equals HEAD COACH 09. thats how it should be so MADDEN 11 should jus bring back HEAD COACH and intergrate into MADDEN forever

I never played Head Coach (mostly due to the fact that I knew it would make Madden more dissapointing), so I'm not trying to rude here...but most of this was in HC09? The biggest thing for me is "potential" and how players progress. It should be more about schemes/coaching/stats than potential. In M10 it was mostly driven by potential. All "A" potentials shouldn't progress into the 90s, it throws off the balance with the incoming 2010 draft class because they are all A potentials. So, everybody ended up drafting for potential, which was full proof because that's how players were arranged. That's why I recommended different rankings like Mel/Mcshay. I think potential should play a minimal role in all players except guys like Taylor Mays, raw but could boom or bust.

[sniperhare]

Head Coach did have different schemes, a player might be 73 OVR in one and 83 OVR in another.

Franchise needs to fix the offseason and roster problems, lack of PS, not having TC or 80 man rosters, no UDFA's and the Free Agency tenders and RFA's are broken and don't award compensatory draft picks.

[PacMan3000]

I think your franchise suggestions were really, really good. I'm big on franchise, and I'd love to see these ideas implemented.

I think what franchise needs is a strong balance between having control and having no control. Meaning, I want to be able to have control of who I hire for my offensive coordinator, but I want his impact to be more than just a random boost of awareness points.

Conversely, I also want to be out of control when playing franchise mode. I want my first round stud to hold out until the first game of the season, causing him to not know the playbook and thus not come into the league and instantly light it up. I want to be out of control in that players demand to be traded and some, like Brandon Marshall or T.O, simply can't be reasoned with.

Personalities with players would be a very interesting dynamic to have to deal with. I remember the day Kellen Winslow was drafted to the Browns in 2004. I loved his ability but I said on draft day that the team wouldn't have him for more than five years due to his maturity and personality. Several injuries (one is own doing) and personality clashes with management later, he was gone. After five years. So I think personalities of rookies would add a new gambling aspect to your franchise. Do you draft a Dez Bryant WR with the 26th pick in the draft, knowing his "issues?" Is it worth the risk? Can he be with your team long term? That's the risk you take.

I wouldn't even mind have personalities for the agents of players. Maybe certain agents are known for holding out their players more than others. Or maybe that guy who you want to take #4 overall has an agent who always demands more than his player is slotted. Is the player good enough to be worth the trouble? Might the agent's stubbornness aid in actually slowing the development of your player? That's a risk you take.

Another thing I'd like to see is lingering player injuries. As it stands, your players never get hurt, but on the rare occasion that they do, they're either playing or not playing. There's no in between. I'd like to see guys get a wrist injury but have the ability to play through it for multiple weeks, putting off surgery till the off season. Maybe it increases the propensity for more fumbles, but your star player is at least still on the field.

Going deeper with that, if a guy tears his ACL, I want to see that have ramifications on the NEXT season. Injuries should linger, especially big injuries. If your star QB gets a massive concussion, it should unfortunately make him susceptible to more concussions. If your star QB has had three or four concussions in just three seasons, it might be wise to start looking at drafting a future QB. And if a player has a injury risk red flag coming out of college--again, that would be a risk that you'd have to be willing to take.

To me, franchise mode is all about creating new wrinkles that essentially make it become a game within a game. A mode that forces you to build a strategy both on and off the field.

[I Peench]

Quote: Originally Posted by PacMan3000

Do you draft a Dez Bryant WR with the 26th pick in the draft, knowing his "issues?" Is it worth the risk? Can he be with your team long term? That's the risk you take. I wouldn't even mind have personalities for the agents of players. Maybe certain agents are known for holding out their players more than others. Or maybe that guy who you want to take #4 overall has an agent who always demands more than his player is slotted. Is the player good enough to be worth the trouble? Might the agent's stubbornness aid in actually slowing the development of your player? That's a risk you take. Another thing I'd like to see is lingering player injuries. As it stands, your players never get hurt, but on the rare occasion that they do, they're either playing or not playing. There's no in between. I'd like to see guys get a wrist injury but have the ability to play through it for multiple weeks, putting off surgery till the off season. Maybe it increases the propensity for more fumbles, but your star player is at least still on the field. Going deeper with that, if a guy tears his ACL, I want to see that have ramifications on the NEXT season. Injuries should linger, especially big injuries. If your star QB gets a massive concussion, it should unfortunately make him susceptible to more concussions. If your star QB has had three or four concussions in just three seasons, it might be wise to start looking at drafting a future QB. And if a player has a injury risk red flag coming out of college--again, that would be a risk that you'd have to be willing to take.

Excellent ideas. I couldn't agree more.

[Boregard]

I always thought injuries should be more fluid. Like you said ACL injury maybe the guy comes back, but he has lost 2-3 points of SPD, AGI, ACC and his injury rating should take a 10 point dive. Maybe the guy has a high TGH rating and comes back as good as ever, but still takes that 10 point INJ rating dip.

Some player who gets a couple big injuries might retire way ahead of when you expected leaving you scrambling to replace him - in fact even if he never gets hurt - retirements should be "calculated" at random at the start of each franchise. So maybe there is a stud RB who retires after just a nine year career - why? I am not sure, go ask Barry Sanders. The point is I should not know when I start a franchise that player X retires after 2 years every time. It should be random to a point with a "base year" calculated and then factors like - injuries (number of and severity of), declining skills, won Super Bowl within two years of "calculated retire year" - does he come back to try a repeat or hang the cleats up while at the top?

Some positions can play further into 30s, OL, K/P and QBs quickly come to mind so the position should be factored into the "calculation".

For a position like RB, the number of carries should be a factor - Eddie George?

just some random thoughts of mine.