Potential a real franchise killer

[paul the gall]

First off, I would like to thank the OS community for the awesomeness of this site and the amount of knowledge I have gained over the past few months. I found out about OS from a friend the day of Madden 11's release when we were discussing ways to make Madden a more SIM EXPERIENCE and to my amazement there was a community of gamers just like myself. Now in my early thirties, I am beginning to fear that the Madden of the future that we once dreamed about is still just that, dreams of possibility but not reality.

There are so many things that bother me when it comes to the franchise mode in Madden 11, but the potential grade that has been in madden games for some time and the progression of players based on these grades has ruined the franchise mode for me, which is pretty much the only reason I buy sports games. I mean, if the game play was an amazingly accurate portrayal of what we see on Sunday, and the bugs and glitches were non-existent, and I actually had the feeling of being at a real NFL game with real crowd animations, realistic weather, fields degrading and uniforms dirty, and commentary that rivals that on Sunday afternoon..........well then I guess a bare bones franchise mode wouldn't be such a big problem for so many gamers.

A lot of the most passionate Madden heads are the same gamers that grew up without game saves and stats being kept track of. I kept track with good old pencil and paper. Tecmo Bowl had one season and that's it. The early Madden games introduced so much for the sim fan that we began to dream of what a game would be like ten, fifteen years down the road. We got new stuff like a realistic off-season with a draft, control over many different aspects of owning a team, and franchise modes that allow up to 30 seasons of play with stat accumulation and everything else. As well as next gen consoles and high-definition televisions that make game play look as close as ever to a t.v. broadcast of an actual game.

And yet gamers are more and more giving up on Madden, going to other sports games for a more true sim experience. I can easily see why. EA has made it much too difficult for the average gamer to enjoy the franchise mode, and the hardcore gamer is getting fed up with having to put in so much time waiting for patches to come out, adjusting sliders, making game plans, editing players, controlling 32 teams, making trades for all teams and drafting for them, adjusting depth charts, and so on. Trying to make this game fun is such a chore, and the rewards for most who do put in the time do not justify the efforts, as the end result is still a very weak representation of what a true NFL sim video game should feel like.

I beg EA to abolish the potential grade, that would be my first wish for revamping the franchise mode. It just ruins my franchise two to three seasons in, making it too easy to build a juggernaut. AI for the cpu regarding free agent signings, drafting, and making trade offers also needs to be relevant to the teams needs and style of play. If anyone has ideas for house rules on making franchise mode fun again I would like to hear them. I miss having fun like I use to playing Madden.

[KBLover]

Potential doesn't need to die. It exists in real life. Not all players become HoF players, or even consistently solid guys.

The problem is we know what it is and it doesn't change.

We should have to scout in order to have an IDEA of what potential is, but it shouldn't be thrown in our faces. The AI needs to consider it more highly for sure. Of course, AI needs a lot of work in itself in franchise, potential or no.

To me, the problem is that potential is unchanging and we aren't ever wrong about it. That A guy might not be an A - the scout could be wrong. Or maybe he gets hurt - and now he's a B...or worse. Maybe the C or D guy was just woefully underrated for whatever reason (unknown school - bad combine, whatever) but get him on the real field and he looks way better and just improves year after year. Suddenly you have Brady as a 6th rounder all over again.

I think Madden needs more stuff in franchise that clouds the picture and throws in uncertainty we have to deal with, like real franchises do. To me, that's the franchise killer.

Potential existed in Head Coach and it's never struck me as killing that game - mostly because it wasn't a certain thing with a lot of variables.

[ESPN_NFL_2k5]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Potential doesn't need to die. It exists in real life. Not all players become HoF players, or even consistently solid guys.

It doesn't need to die but it needs to be better. For example EVERYONE had the idea of RYAN LEAF becoming a better pro then PEYTON MANNING and we all know how that truned out. With potential it needs to be tied in to what the player does year in and year out to make it real. AND yea when i see the potential it kind of stops me from signing a player, TOM BRADY would not have been A potential coming out of the draft and look what happen 3 superbowl rings and 2 superbowl MVPs later out of the 6th round. I've been playing madden for a while now and I dream of HEAD COACH and MADDEN becoming one game. Dosen't any one else?????

[youALREADYknow]

Potential doesn't even need to exist as a rating. Every player has a physical upside limit, a level of work ethic, and a mental/learning rate of progression.

These factors combined should dictate upside/progression, not a separate rating.

Obviously a 99 SPD, 99 STR, 99 ACC player would have more potential than a 60 SPD, 60 STR, 60 ACC player. The progression should come in skill ratings and awareness, not in physical ratings such as SPD, ACC, STR.

Of course, this game doesn't include such basic concepts as work ethic or mental aptitude and that is why the game feels stale and core ratings become the only things that matter on the field.

[moylan1234]

I disagree with the premise of this thread. Neither the potential grades or the OVR guarantee a good player. I drafted a DE named Mack very high and he came in with an 85 OVR and B pot, but on the field he was terrible he couldn't get off blocks and consistently got steamrolled so I traded him away and now 2 1/2 years later he has the same rating and the team I traded him to is trying to get rid of him as well

[BigUnit]

Quote: Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

Potential doesn't even need to exist as a rating. Every player has a physical upside limit, a level of work ethic, and a mental/learning rate of progression. These factors combined should dictate upside/progression, not a separate rating. Obviously a 99 SPD, 99 STR, 99 ACC player would have more potential than a 60 SPD, 60 STR, 60 ACC player. The progression should come in skill ratings and awareness, not in physical ratings such as SPD, ACC, STR. Of course, this game doesn't include such basic concepts as work ethic or mental aptitude and that is why the game feels stale and core ratings become the only things that matter on the field.

This is true, physical ability should determine potential. Also would love to see the Production rating from Head Coach.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

Obviously a 99 SPD, 99 STR, 99 ACC player would have more potential than a 60 SPD, 60 STR, 60 ACC player. The progression should come in skill ratings and awareness, not in physical ratings such as SPD, ACC, STR.

I think that physical/mental/technique could be a factor in basically everything a player does as well as why it goes wrong. I don't think there's any (or at least there's very few) "mental only" or "physical only" ratings since most everything on the field requires both mind and body (both strength and technique/speed/agility).

I think you'd need multiple growth ratings (Technique, Power, Intelligence) which would indeed be interesting - or just take the potential mechanic we have and put it on EVERY rating like in HC. Some ratings would almost always be close to potential (like SPD) while other may...or may not have a lot of room to grow (like AWR or RBF).

It would simulate the same idea and differentiate players on technique/intelligence when comparing similar physical traits while still allowing for higher chances for a 90+ SPD/ACC WR to be more successful than a 80 SPD/ACC WR.

To me, what you describe is less "potential" than a chances of success. 90s give higher chances than 80s but both could really be suckers and not NFL material. The difference is more that the 80 has less forgiving "mechanics" (i.e. he has to do more non-physical things very very right), and I think that could be represented with individual potential ratings.

To the person who mention Production - the only problem with that rating is that it only reflects what's been done lately. The reason that's a problem is system. If a guy is a West Coast mediocre-armed QB and is used in a vertical push it down the field passing game - yeah, he'll probably suck, but if I use my WC scheme, he'll shine. However, he PRO will be low and it will make him look worse than he is. Likewise if I have that QB, he'll thrive and then I can pawn him off on the CPU for waaaaay too much. Then again, I guess that's realistic too

[mavfan21]

Work ethic needs to replace potential. It should effect how much a player improves regardless of PT. Give it a letter grade or a number but make it so that it can't cap out and is accelerated or DEcelerated by performance. Have a player with a high work ethic get better even if they don't play for years (See: Romo, Austin) but have them get profoundly better if they have a high work ethic AND they perform well.

Make Draft and FA signings matter
For example:
A rookie WR comes in with a an "A" for work ethic. Say he's 70 for Route, 70 catch. He sits all year, never plays...increases by 3 points in each. In his 2nd season he's 73 in catch and route, plays a bunch, 90 catches, 1000 yards, 8 TDs...that off-season he jumps 6-8 points.

Have age affect it as well. Have high work ethic players lose ratings at a slower rate than low rated ones.

Some rookies should come in as 83 OVR but an F work ethic...they're good right away but they never get a lot better. See Roy Williams (either one!). Under the current system all 80+ rated players have to have B or A potential which is unrealistic. Likewise some rookies should come in at 65 OVR but with "A" work ethic have the ability to get to 90 OVR in a few seasons with a little PT. (again, see Austin and Romo and Trent Cole, and Tom Brady...)

Make personnel/coaching moves matter.
It should also be influenced by coaching!!!! Have a coach rating that MATTERS in development. Give all coaches a +/- for work ethic and the offensive and defensive ratings effects.

For example:
Wade Phillips increases Defensive AWR +5, LB PWM, FNM +5, CB MCV +5, Work Ethic -2. So "A" players progress as C players would. If I want to take a veteran team and roll the dice on an X's and O's coach that isn't a personnel specialist make it a risk. likewise, have a Raheem Morris or Bill Cowher type coach with a lower effect on ratings but a high effect on work ethic who over time helps players reach potential but isn't a big X's and O's guy.



Lastly...make big injuries MATTER. If a player has a big knee injury they should lose ratings/OVR points permanently that they can earn back.

Example: Carson Palmer is 90 OVR, has a season ending knee blow-out. He comes back the next season at 85 OVR with loses in AWR, THP, THA, SPD, AGI, JKM. If he has a high work ethic and plays well he can get back to his old form...but if not, he's never the same.

Realism....make it happen.