FIX FRANCHISE MODE: Remove Potential Rating.

[lilgame06]

Quote: Originally Posted by aTTckr

They should make the Potential rating similar to NBA 2k10 where the potential rating of player can change if he does well. In Madden it's very frustrating to have a player with D or F potentail, because you know we will never have a good overall rating or won't progress much even if he has a breakout season.

Yea, I don't understand why it can't be like this, or like it was in Head Coach 09. I mean lets look at it this way...

One of my favorite receivers to pick up late in fantasy drafts is James Hardy of the Buffalo Bills. Yes, he's rated at a 61 OVR, but he's 6'5'', can jump over small corners like its nothing, and is a good redzone target...(well at least he will be in Madden 11 since you can actually catch passes in the corner of the endzone).

Now, as a person who keeps up with what's going on with the Bills, I know that the organization has big hopes for James Hardy, and looking at their depth chart for the 2010 season, he's likely to get a lot of playing time if he can stay healthy this year. He's a big lengthy guy who can tower guys in the redzone and could have a good season.

So lets go out on a limb and say by week 8 of the season, James Hardy has about 35 to 45 Receptions, 4 to 6 touchdowns, and around 500 yards. What is EA Tiburon gonna do in the Week 9 roster update? They're likely gonna bump him from a 61 OVR, to 70+ OVR and raise his Potential from a 'C' to a 'B'.

Lets say he ends the entire season with 16 games played, close to 1000 yards receiving, 70 catches, and close to 10 touchdowns...

"WOW GUYS, WE SHOULD BUMP HIM TO AN 80! HE'S A RISING STAR!"

It's like what happened with the Cowboys WR Miles Austin this year...those guys at EA Tib likely knew nothing of the guy until he got 200 receiving yards against Kansas City in that OT Win. and he skyrocketed in his ratings.

Same thing with Chiefs RB Jamaal Charles, Browns RB Jerome Harrison and Ravens RB Ray Rice. These guys ratings at the start of the season were crap. But Charles runs for about 1000 yards in less than 10 starts, Harrison runs for almost 600 in the final 4 games of the season, and Rice surpasses 2000 yds from scrimmage, and their ratings go through the roof when compared to what they were at the start of the season.

So why can't my franchise (online or offline) be like this? If my starting running back goes down in week 1, and my back up comes in and rushes for 1,300 yds in 15 starts, why should his D potential keep him from becoming better?

And I know that people say "Well if your able to get 1,300 yds with him as a 69 OVR, why do u need him to progress?" For the exact reasons stated above, thats why. It's logical that if a player performs well, that he is becoming a better player. EA has set that standard by providing us with roster updates. If they didn't want that to be in our franchises, maybe they shouldn't provide us with roster updates.

And there are things in madden that contribute to players becoming better such as awareness, route running, play recognition, etc. I would understand if things like speed, acceleration, and jumping stayed the same. those are the kinds of things you generally don't get better at unless your body type adjusts accordingly.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrewsLions

I've been on board with the removal of potential for a while now. The thing is, IRL when you draft someone in the second round, you are drafting him because of potential. You think he has A or B potential. Until you see different on the field, you believe that he has the potential to be a starter or eventually be a starter. Otherwise, you wouldn't draft him.

That sounds like an argument to hide the potential rating, not delete it.

If people want ZERO potential rating in the game (i.e. not hidden, but it doesn't exist at all) how would you cap player ability to make sure every player didn't reach 99 and do it realistically?

In real life, every player has a limited amount of potential. Not all WR are Jerry Rice or Drew Pearson. Not all QB are Dan Marino. Not all MLBs are Mike Singletary.

So something needs to limit players and in a computer game, that requires a number since that's what computer games work from.

As far as the idea I've seen saying stats should = progression, I don't find that realistic. A WR doesn't get better at catching balls by catching more balls in a game. A WR gets better at catching balls which then means he's better at catching them in the game. Stats driving progression is doing it backwards imo.

Plus, just because a player is struggling on the field doesn't mean he's not learning off it. It just means he's not starting caliber yet. Yet the stats = progression idea would make this guy suck and lower is ratings, making him suck worse, which lowers ratings worse, etc.

Madden needs a more in-depth system for player development across the board.

Some ideas on what this could be:

-Yes, I do think there should be potential ratings, one for each and every skill. Make them hidden, however, and available - as a GUESS - based on scouting you hire and time the player has been in the league. Rookies should almost always have "fog" around them - vets (i.e. players who have played a lot, use downs played stat) should almost always be easier to scout.

-Dynamic development. Injuries should have a chance to damage potential. A guy with bad knees might never be what he could have been if he never got hurt or before the injury. It should go the other way too, guys should "get it" sometimes and boost their upside in skills. Make it vary based on age (mental should "click" after some years most often while raw physical skills should "click" on younger players more often)

Likewise, aging should impact this. Older players should lose potential faster in physical skills but maintain/increase mental skills (if they have the capability). Younger players should be more raw physical talent until they learn the nuances of the game and develop their instincts (if they have the capability). Of course, have some randomness so more career arcs can happen and keep things interesting.

-Skills Training System. Much like the weekly prep of NFL 2K5 or the Practices of HC 09, players need a way to train off the field. This could impact week-to-week progression as well as the chances of potential increasing (or maybe decreasing depending on what you focus on during training and some areas get neglected, maybe borrow RTTS mode as well for this aspect)

-Stats could impact POTENTIAL not actual ratings. Why? Because scouts use performance to determine upside/project FUTURE performance. So a young guy that has a great rookie year is more likely to have his grades maintained/increased (especially if he surprised in an area). Likewise, a kid that disappoints could have the risk of potential lowering. However, if he has a great 2nd season, it could swing around, or he gets higher grades in other areas that might have emerged. A vet that's constantly performing year after year and maybe even getting better would maintain his grades and maybe even grow a few.

This could be governed by some sort of expectations system, based on draft slot for rookies/young players, and last 3 seasons average once a guy gets X years in the league.

However, the player would have to keep working hard to reach this potential and meet expectations that come with it - or else it might fall again. So the skills training will be what helps (or hurts) the player being able to get to/maintain his ratings, which determines if his stats have a good chance or not to meet expectations, etc.

[DrewsLions]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

That sounds like an argument to hide the potential rating, not delete it. If people want ZERO potential rating in the game (i.e. not hidden, but it doesn't exist at all) how would you cap player ability to make sure every player didn't reach 99 and do it realistically? In real life, every player has a limited amount of potential. Not all WR are Jerry Rice or Drew Pearson. Not all QB are Dan Marino. Not all MLBs are Mike Singletary.

Yeah, maybe I should have put "hide" instead. I agree that most players do have a potential cap, but there are also many examples of those whose potential shifts... i.e. Tony Romo.

What I don't like about the potential rating is that the caps are so stringent. A "B" potential player can never be a 90 rating. How about a little randomized fluctuation? Like player X who is a "B" has a potential spectrum of 75 to 93, while player Z has a potential spectrum of 70 to 86. Both can still be a good "B" level players, but each has his own randomized cap.

The worst thing about Madden (well, there are many to choose from, so that's a little hard to say) is that you immediately know the highest value that player can be the second after you sign him to a contract. Even if he is a "B" talent, you immediately know he can't be a star (from a ratings perspective). I think potential should be hidden AND have a randomized range.

[Xeper84]

i don't get it. Why was there a potential shift with romo? He always was a A potential player but started with a low ovr and had to learn the NFL.

the difference between roster updates and player ovr in franchise:
-If tib. changes a player, it is because they saw that he was faster or jumped higher as they thought he could. NOT because he improved!
-yea if a player does well with his 69 ovr in franchise why should he improve? He will not jump higher or run faster because he had a good season!

[adembroski]

I actually sent Ian, Phil, and Josh a 6,000+ word document outlining how I'd replace potential. God I need a life.

[boyce1602]

Here's the way I would adjust the potential rating:

1. It's true that we don't see a person's true potential after about 3-4 years, so why not have it to where potential is shown after a period of time? You could accelerate or decelerate the time until shown by playing time (A large contributor may have his potential shown after year 2, but a bench warmer may take 5 years to show).

2. Instead of potential being a ceiling, make it dictate progression speed. That way, an A potential starter would be 90+ after three years, but a starter with C potential may take 7-8 years. You could also tie it to regression if you wanted to, so a C potential player spends less time playing at a high level.

A thought on draft gems:

I also thought about draft gems coming in at 80+ overall. What if you had a hidden trigger that accelerated progression dramatically after a player has so much playing time? That would make people use their 4-7 round picks more often instead of cutting them all and stocking up again in the next draft. Would you keep a lowly rated corner if he had the chance to become a great player with playing time? This would stop people from being able to instantly know gems and playing them immediately and cutting everyone else. Think about Tom Brady. Would he be as great now if he had never got onto the field? He wasn't immediately known to be a Super Bowl winning QB...

[GreenReign86]

I totally %110 agree. I mean it wouldn't or shouldn't be all that hard to make it simular to NHL's progression system. Now eventhough NHL has potential, a large part of the progresssion system is based on XP points which are gained by the in game performance of your players.

Saying that, I wouldn't get rid of potential entirely, and this is why. Say a QB you draft in round one, isn't going to start right away, you would still want him to progress, while he sits and learns, with his A or B potential. That's where potential comes in. Aaron Rodgers is the perfect example of this. Whereas, a player coming into the league as a mid round pick, say a Dan Lefevour, would have to get playing time and play well in order to progress, with his C or lower potential. He'd still be able to progress on the bench, but not as much as that 1st round stud, who everyone expects to be good anyways. Poor play would also decrease your XP. Potential should only matter for players that don't recieve much playing time.

Just my $.02

[GreenReign86]

Quote: Originally Posted by tseliottt

Once I see that my 3rd round pick has a D potential, I cut him immediately before he even has a chance to play. Real NFL teams never do this,

Marice Clarrett would like to speak with you.