Player Potential

[Kegthaplaya]

Quote: Originally Posted by pointNumberOne

If that 60 overall HB is capable of becoming great (i.e. high potential) he will... Not all players are capable in real life, so why should they be in Madden? Steve Slaton put up huge numbers one year... but he didn't get any better.

Steve Slaton is VERY capable, he just lost his chances due to fumbling problems, and his problems werent half as bad as others who repeatedly got chanes (tiki barber is a great example, 35 fumbles in 4 years vs slatons 7 in 1). Just wait til he gets a realistic chance again.

On topic though, i agree that potential is silly and that countless players have proved it. With edit player in im happy i can correct that. I think they need to weigh skills a little more on production, and a little less on a made up number.

[ghostlight85]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kegthaplaya

Steve Slaton is VERY capable, he just lost his chances due to fumbling problems, and his problems werent half as bad as others who repeatedly got chanes (tiki barber is a great example, 35 fumbles in 4 years vs slatons 7 in 1). Just wait til he gets a realistic chance again. On topic though, i agree that potential is silly and that countless players have proved it. With edit player in im happy i can correct that. I think they need to weigh skills a little more on production, and a little less on a made up number.

I think skills should have more impact on production than production should have impact on skills. To each his own, I guess. I just don't understand how people want a game to have a 67 player be able to perform like he's not that. What's the point of the ratings at all then?

If you change overall into value then I think I understand, but you guys don't seem to want that. You just want production to dictate ratings even if it defies the glaring issue of why these garbage players are producing in the first place. Arian Foster and Tom Brady and the "countless" players that "proved" that potential is wrong weren't proof of anything other than the fact that people were wrong about how good they are. Madden doesn't have the luxury of being WRONG. It can only translate a 67 overall player as a 67 overall player. If he's going to put up 2,000 yards and 18 touchdowns as a 67 overall then it's probably because the settings are way too easy or the game engine is broken. The way to recreate Tom Brady in the game is not to have him come into the league as a 67, play well with him and then have him go up. Realistically he was good when he came into the league, but no one knew it. And he has gotten better. But he didn't come in as garbage and get a chance to play and instantly become better. His skills were just underrated. Madden isn't estimating a player's value, it's giving him an exact set of skills and abilities and he should perform within those.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

I think quite the contrary to those of you who think the Potential rating is realistic. It's actually very unrealistic.

Ryan Leaf? Not everyone in the NFL has unlimited potential. Unlimited potential is what's very unrealistic. Or everyone would be in the HOF.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

It's like putting a limit on a player and saying he can't progress past a certain mark.

Everyone has a limit on their potential. That's life. If everyone had unlimited potential, you and I would be tearing it in the NFL. We'd be HOF'ers. Everyone has a potential max. We are ALL limited.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

There are tons of players who were rated low and progressed to All Star status in one season.

And there are plenty of these in the game. Every draft has some of these. Laurence Guy of GB was rated at 59 with "A" potential. There you go, they exist. You just can't pick and choose who you want them to be. Seems highly realistic to me.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

Tom Brady is probably the best example. Ratings on Madden reflect performance.

Tom Brady is a good example of someone who's perceived potential and ability did not match up to his actual potential and ability. Tom Brady was always an "A" potential in real life. Stats didn't all of a sudden make Tom Brady better. Other things made Tom Brady what he is. His stats followed his ability, not visa-versa.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

If someone performs very well, their rating should indicate how well they played. That's how it works from each version of Madden to the next, why shouldn't it work that way in franchise mode?

Because, each new version of Madden is a re-evaluation of someones actual talent. Madden modifies it's best guesses using real data. The developers are improving on the previous years best guess. The game is a progression system, not a real life re-evaluation.

Many things determine progression (including potential), progression determines ratings, ratings determine stats/production. That's the best way to simulate how real life works.

[quote=macbranson;2042927778]
Here's an example. I have Jimmy Clausen with a Potential of C and he's rated 73.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

If Cam Newton got hurt and Jimmy Clausen played like 15 games and threw for 4000 yards and 30 TDs with 8 INTs, then goes to the playoffs and wins the Super Bowl, shouldn't he be rated well over 90?

If you are tearing it up like that with a 73 rated QB, getting MVP type numbers, then you are on the Wrong difficulty, with wrong sliders or THE GAME IS BROKEN. That's what ratings are for. To determine how well a player plays in the game. If a player is playing way beyond there capability like that, then the game is BROKEN and needs to be FIXED. Don't break it even more with an arcady, unrealistic, unlimited potential, stats based progression system.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

If that happened in real life, I assure you that he would be rated well over 90 in Madden 13. But that can't happen in franchise mode because of Potential capping his overall rating.

If this happened in real life, then Clausen was never a C potential player in real life. The game CAN'T look into the future and determine what every players REAL potential is. At best, the game gives a best guess. Real life has the advantage of Hindsight to correct flaws in perceived/guessed potential. The game does not work with perceived ratings, only actual ratings. The game CAN NOT MIMIC REAL LIFE EXACTLY as real life plays out. A stats based progression system with unlimited potential DOES NOT fix the game not having a crystal ball to be able to see into the future.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

That doesn't make sense and it's inconsistent with the game's method of assigning overall ratings.

Limited potential makes a lot of sense if we want realistic franchises.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

What makes even less sense is that you'll have guys who did little to nothing progress a lot, like 8 points, while players who have great seasons don't progress at all.

Really? It happens ALL THE TIME IN THE NFL. Guys on the bench that don't play much progress in the off season/training camp/pre-season to challenge the starter (that has hit his potential limit), for the starting position. You don't get this with unlimited potential, stats based progression. You just get starters getting better, and bench getting worse, EVERY YEAR. Now that's highly unrealistic.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

This game should just have progression during the season and get rid of this Potential nonsense.

This statement is true if you want arcady, unrealistic, stick skills progression. But if we want any kind of realism (the game to simulate realistic progression), then non stats based, limited potential is ESSENTIAL.

The limited potential should be enhanced, not removed. The game should be adding a perceived potential for every player on how your team views that players potential. Your perceived potential for that player should only be as accurate as GM, Scouts and Coaches are at evaluating potential/talent. Whether the perceived potential is a number range, or letter grade, or some other representation, it should be added to the game. Overall, and current ratings should also have a perceived ratings. Hid the actual potential, overall and individual ratings, and add perceived ratings to the game.

Bring in more of a role for GM's, Scouts, Coaches (including position coaches) for evaluating and teaching. Also make player mentors effect progression and not just in game ratings.

Base progression off of real life things like
Players ability to learn,
Mentors at the players position,
Coaching staffs ability to teach,
Players ACTUAL POTENTIAL, not perceived potential,
Playing time, etc, etc, etc,

Then have ratings drive stats/production.

Even introduce a perceived ratings/potential for a player in specific offense/defense scheme's. Give a player more value to one team vs another team.

Just don't make progression unrealistic with an unlimited potential, stats based system.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by Argooos

I think the main problem with potential is that it was called potential in the first place. As it stands now, though, the cap on ratings (potential) should not be a hard one. A soft cap would more accurately simulate real life and would be the next best thing to a properly balanced progression system

I strongly disagree with this. A soft cap is just like not having a cap. It does absolutely nothing, and makes things very unrealistic. Real life doesn't have soft caps. In real life, everyone has a potential that you can not exceed, you can only reach.

I think the game needs to add the variable you mentioned if it wants to realistically simulate real life. Add the progression variables you mentioned and show the gamer perceived ratings and potential, and hide the actual.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by goravens2052

I wish they just get rid of the Potential and go back to the old Progression system where you could see the progression and decide who to keep based off that. Now with this potential system, as long as you cut your F, D, and C potential players and keep your B & A potential players your going to win easily.

I can understand why you would want this. Makes it easier to decide who to keep and who not to. Also it pretty much guarantees that starters will not regress, but prob progress. But I want more realism, and this is highly unrealistic.

[xblake16x]

Why can't the game be wrong? Sure if we have perceived ratings for potential, it can be. But after one season, we know who will and won't progress past a certain point. I want some sort of replayability... I usually do play more than one franchise, whether it be with friends, family, or alone. As we have it now, almost nothing is different from franchise to franchise.

Why can't Ramses Barden become a stud in one franchise and stay a dud in another? I don't want to be in control of that... I want position battles to decide that, based on production? yes. Again why can't the game be wrong? Is that too silly to ask for?

Don't say, that's what allowing us to edit players is for... I don't want to play god. And how do you know everyone has a cap? Maybe we just aren't dedicated/interested/hardworking/ambitious/brave enough to be able compete at a pro level.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

Why can't the game be wrong? Sure if we have perceived ratings for potential, it can be. But after one season, we know who will and won't progress past a certain point. I want some sort of replayability

Then, you don't want real rosters that reflect the real life players actual ability? If that's what you want, then ask TIB/EA to have the option to randomize players ratings and potential.

And doesn't randomly assigned draft classes add to the re-playability? How does me choosing who I want to be great, any player I want, and stick skilling them to great stats help re-playability?

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

But after one season, we know who will and won't progress past a certain point. I want some sort of replayability...

For the real players likenesses, maybe. But after the first season...Randomly assigned draft clases? Re-playability?

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

I usually do play more than one franchise, whether it be with friends, family, or alone. As we have it now, almost nothing is different from franchise to franchise.

I just don't see how you can draft the same players if Madden randomly assigns draft classes.

Other sports games, mainly text based, allows an option to randomly assign ratings to players. Ask for that as an option. But please don't screw up my realism (potential, progression) over this.

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

Why can't Ramses Barden become a stud in one franchise and stay a dud in another?

Because, with the NFL license, and simulating real players, the game should try and be as accurate as possible. It just sounds like you want randomly inaccurate rosters, which is OK. But ask for that, don't ask for an unrealistic, arcady, stick skills, unlimited potential, stats based progression system. That just mucks up realism.

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

I don't want to be in control of that... I want position battles to decide that, based on production? yes.

Then have a production value added to the game. A value given based on production and how your team values that player. Sounds like that, along with randomly assigned ratings at the beginning of the franchise is what you really want. Not a stats based progression system.

Stats based progression, with unlimited potential doesn't even come close to giving you postition battles. If fact, it takes away position battles. You will always know the guy that plays will get better, and the guy on the bench will get worse. How does that help position battles.

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

Again why can't the game be wrong? Is that too silly to ask for?

Well, the game is wrong on it's best guesses. But it seems silly to demand accuracy from D. Moore on players ratings, and then want the game to be wrong. It sounds like you want an OPTION to have the game give randomly assigned ratings to players when you start the franchise.

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

Don't say, that's what allowing us to edit players is for... I don't want to play god.

I didn't say edit anyone. I said, ask for what you really want. An option to randomly assign ratings and potentials at the start of a franchise. There is your re-playability and makes the game wrong/inaccurate as far as trying to rate the real life NFL players.

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

And how do you know everyone has a cap?

Because that's how it works in real life. Everyone has a different IQ. Everyone has different physical attributes and abilities. Everyone has a different capacity to understand different things. Some are great artists, some are great mathematicians.

Quote: Originally Posted by xblake16x

Maybe we just aren't dedicated/interested/hardworking/ambitious/brave enough to be able compete at a pro level.

Or just flat out not good enough. Plenty of HS kids that don't make it in college. Plenty of college kids that don't make it in the pros. And dedicated/hardworking/ambition is part of ones potential.

[xblake16x]

Randomizing potential would actually be a great idea. And I'm not just talking about stick-skilling someone to be great. Have you ever had a franchise where you sim all but one or two games?

After the first season, more than 97% of the players were there to begin with, you are acting like its brand new rosters season after season.

I dont understand why Donny is the end all, sole decider for potential... it would be great to have it randomized to some point. Maybe keep the 1st rounders to low B to high A. 2nd rounders mid C to A. 3rd - low C to A. and so on.

What i also hate, which is highly unrealistic is the fact that no matter who it is that has A potential (as long as they are young) they will progress. Cam Newton throws 20 picks 3 straight years, he will be a 90 in no time. I hate that... if attributes are based off of statistics, year after year, than in game progression/evaluation, whatever you want to call it, has to have some sort of statistical basis. If attributes were based on 'soft' data (not hard) than i can see your point where we have a perfectly fin system as is. We dont right now though, not close.