Will Break-Out Years be Reflected in the New Progression Tuning?

[CajunPunk]

Quote: Originally Posted by RaiderKtulu

Why does everyone want to be able to pad stats to increase player ratings? If you can put up god-like numbers with a 70, you don't need him to be any higher. Progression should be fairly random, mixed with a potential and a consistency rating, or with rating ranges rather than a solid number. Higher consistency = smaller range. So an A potential with a 50 consistency might range from 70-95 (with the user having no way to tell at any given point), while a B potential with a 90 con would range from 80-85.

Because if I release that 70, he disappears into oblivion and doesn't hold any value with anyone else among the NFL, and if I trade him (no trade value), he won't put up even close to the numbers he would if I had him, let alone be listed on the depth chart.

[CRMosier_LM]

Quote: Originally Posted by CajunPunk

Will Break-Out Years be Reflected in the New Progression Tuning? I ask this questions because I haven't seen appealing progression in a while. For example, last year, if your starting HB got injured and you played a 67-rated HB in his place and picked up 1,200 yards, 12 TDs and a Pro Bowl, his player rating wouldn't improve at all because all progression/potential was predetermined. From what I understand about this year's Madden, player progression is linked not only to production but also to a player's age and how his production and age is compared to other players in his same age group. For example, "if a rookie running back rushes for 500 yards and that is the best among his peers, he will progress the most in his age group." (taken from the Madden 12 Franchise Mode Blog) Here is an example for my original question: Let's say my star HB goes down in the preseason with a season-ending injury and my backup HB (age 26) rated at a 67 takes the reins and racks up 1,200 yards 12 TDs and a Pro Bowl. Will his player rating increase significantly to accommodate his production? If Adrian Peterson (also age 26) had 2,000 yards and 20 TDs, will my HB's ratings not increase because his yards/TDs aren't as good and they are the same age? I ask this because it's pretty frequent that, in the NFL, we see nobodies turn into stars (Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Arian Foster, Priest Holmes, Matt Schaub, Matt Cassel, Tony Romo, Marques Colston, Jared Allen, Shannon Sharpe, Terrell Davis, and the list goes on). However, in the newer versions on Madden, you never see this. I can remember, in Madden '05, drafting a lower-rated QB in a late round to a short contract. He is very productive during the season, his ratings go up, I release him and he would get picked up and start for another team (ala Matt Cassel). Next gen Madden has killed this possibility. Last year, if I released a low-rated player that was extremely productive and went to the Pro Bowl, he would get lost in free agency and never be picked up by another team ever again. This is extremely unrealistic. I guess I'm hoping that with this new progression system there is a return of the "hidden treasure" the old gen Madden's used to allow for. Not really a hidden, predetermined potential rating, but an ability to see low-rated players become stars because of their production, rather than what they were only programmed to be. Anyone else have a similar curiosity?

I don't believe so, progression was based on those last year as well so stat padding won't make a C potential go up 7 points. If a guy rushes for 1200 yards at 67 overall it really doesn't matter off his overall goes up since he is already producing. That is why I would rather see overall ratings disappear, but for the purpose of trading to the CPU they are necessary.

[adembroski]

I really focused on balance and making sure it made sense.

The scope of the cycle was such we couldn't overhaul progression, we had to figure out a way to better manage what we had. I think we came up with slight tweaks that will result in the progression and regression you're seeing make more sense.

Progression is basically split into two parts- there's an evaluation part which is a huge spider web of code we couldn't do much with (though we did make it a bit smarter), and then there's a smaller section that uses the evaluation to assign progression. This is what we rewrote, because it was small and manageable.

That said, it's not vastly removed from what was there before, unfortunately. With the addition of cut days, larger rosters, scouting, dynamic player performance (very labor intensive feature!), etc.., the franchise team was rather swamped.

11 is about the absolute maximum you'll see anyone improve in a single season. 12 is theoretically possible, but I've never seen it occur.

Progression is a big target going forward, as Josh and I are both intensely dislike how it's done now. I think we've squeezed absolutely everything we can out of the existing code and this will be the best progression Madden's ever had if you evaluate it by balance (i.e. there'll be roughly the same number of 90+, 80-90, 70-80, etc. players each season from 1 to 30). Because that was achievable under the existing system, that's what I shot for.

Had I made it more dynamic, more able to reflect those Foster/Brady edge cases, I'd have had to do the same in the other direction, which would have made the league nothing but Superstars and Scrubs by about year 4. I absolutely wanted to avoid upsetting the roster balance.

[CRMosier_LM]

Quote: Originally Posted by CajunPunk

Because if I release that 70, he disappears into oblivion and doesn't hold any value with anyone else among the NFL, and if I trade him (no trade value), he won't put up even close to the numbers he would if I had him, let alone be listed on the depth chart.

That is exactly how it should work, just because a playwt is valuabke to you doesn't mean he will hold the same value in another system.

[CRMosier_LM]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

I really focused on balance and making sure it made sense. The scope of the cycle was such we couldn't overhaul progression, we had to figure out a way to better manage what we had. I think we came up with slight tweaks that will result in the progression and regression you're seeing make more sense. Progression is basically split into two parts- there's an evaluation part which is a huge spider web of code we couldn't do much with (though we did make it a bit smarter), and then there's a smaller section that uses the evaluation to assign progression. This is what we rewrote, because it was small and manageable. That said, it's not vastly removed from what was there before, unfortunately. With the addition of cut days, larger rosters, scouting, dynamic player performance (very labor intensive feature!), etc.., the franchise team was rather swamped. 11 is about the absolute maximum you'll see anyone improve in a single season. 12 is theoretically possible, but I've never seen it occur. Progression is a big target going forward, as Josh and I are both intensely dislike how it's done now. I think we've squeezed absolutely everything we can out of the existing code and this will be the best progression Madden's ever had if you evaluate it by balance (i.e. there'll be roughly the same number of 90+, 80-90, 70-80, etc. players each season from 1 to 30). Because that was achievable under the existing system, that's what I shot for. Had I made it more dynamic, more able to reflect those Foster/Brady edge cases, I'd have had to do the same in the other direction, which would have made the league nothing but Superstars and Scrubs by about year 4. I absolutely wanted to avoid upsetting the roster balance.

Cmon AJ.... You have work to do ;P you know you miss your "break time pal" lol

[MagicMan1315]

Yea... EA really made progression an afterthought by allowing to edit ratings... In a way, they took the easy way out... But I really think by allowing people to edit ratings, they have hit the nail on the head. That way, people can determine progression on their own if they don't agree with the natural progression. And since the majority of people that play franchise do it offfline, they all get different results and can have the overalls reflect that accordingly.

Good Job EA... You have given control back to the gamer! Right where it should be.

[PGaither84]

Another progression thread. People have a hard time understanding that players put up good numbers in real life because they are good/got better through hard work. They don't get better because they had a good game/season. As a famous coach once said "The only place results come before work is in the dictionary."

Also, players can put up better numbers than their talent may imply because they are in a system or on a team that can get the very best out of them. If your 70 OVR HB is gaining over 1,200 yards in a season, that doesn't mean he should get a ratings boost. There are many factors that could cause this: the difficulty you are playing on, the fact that the computer is bad at football, user control, and that he may have key ratings you are able to take advantage of to gain extra yards [For example. he may have 97 trucking which allows you to "always" break the first tackle]

One of the "problems" people have is that they want their special snowflake player to be rated higher than he is. Well, EA lets you edit your player, so now nothing is stopping you.

The other "problem" is that people like the idea of "I made my player better by playing good games." I know what that feels like ,i used to enjoy doing that too on last gen Madden. It had a very RPG like feel to it which was a lot of fun. However, it is unrealistic. Now that I am older and have played with this "new" system of progression, I like it a lot more.

My problem isn't with the system. My problem is that we can see the potential of our players. That, in my opinion, should be hidden from the user just like the OVR rating... or at least have an option to hide it when we start franchise mode for the more "hardcore" players.

[MagicMan1315]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

Another progression thread. People have a hard time understanding that players put up good numbers in real life because they are good/got better through hard work. They don't get better because they had a good game/season. As a famous coach once said "The only place results come before work is in the dictionary." Also, players can put up better numbers than their talent may imply because they are in a system or on a team that can get the very best out of them. If your 70 OVR HB is gaining over 1,200 yards in a season, that doesn't mean he should get a ratings boost. There are many factors that could cause this: the difficulty you are playing on, the fact that the computer is bad at football, user control, and that he may have key ratings you are able to take advantage of to gain extra yards [For example. he may have 97 trucking which allows you to "always" break the first tackle] One of the "problems" people have is that they want their special snowflake player to be rated higher than he is. Well, EA lets you edit your player, so now nothing is stopping you. The other "problem" is that people like the idea of "I made my player better by playing good games." I know what that feels like ,i used to enjoy doing that too on last gen Madden. It had a very RPG like feel to it which was a lot of fun. However, it is unrealistic. Now that I am older and have played with this "new" system of progression, I like it a lot more. My problem isn't with the system. My problem is that we can see the potential of our players. That, in my opinion, should be hidden from the user just like the OVR rating... or at least have an option to hide it when we start franchise mode for the more "hardcore" players.

Could not have said it better. From the system players to the RPG play (which I have never thought of that but now I will probably start) to hiding the overall which I think is kinda pointless... The real factor is players is their heart which can never be measured.