Why not get rid of potential?

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

I'm not forcing you to role play, but don't complain when you don't. The answer has been said countless times, that potential should be HIDDEN not removed.

I wish we could get an EA rep to chime in because I want to know what makes EA's virtual scout different than the user? What is that virtual scout looking at to come up with a potential grade? Is it based on what it is IRL, size/strength, speed & perceived learning curve?

And are we talking about a player's true or perceived potential?

A player's true potential shouldn't be capped. Can't imagine Joe Montana is not one of your favorites, PG. What would his potential grade have been in Madden? Without the work ethic & coaching, he's Chad Pennington, maybe C potential. We need a method that allows the Montan's of the world to become stars under the right circumstances. In that case, I don't see the need for a virtual scout, hidden or not.

[Broncos86]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

I wish we could get an EA rep to chime in because I want to know what makes EA's virtual scout different than the user? What is that virtual scout looking at to come up with a potential grade? Is it based on what it is IRL, size/strength, speed & perceived learning curve? And are we talking about a player's true or perceived potential? A player's true potential shouldn't be capped. Can't imagine Joe Montana is not one of your favorites, PG. What would his potential grade have been in Madden? Without the work ethic & coaching, he's Chad Pennington, maybe C potential. We need a method that allows the Montan's of the world to become stars under the right circumstances. In that case, I don't see the need for a virtual scout, hidden or not.

Potential is a pre-determined rating within the draft classes. THe only time it's random is when importing NCAA classes.

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Broncos86

Potential is a pre-determined rating within the draft classes. THe only time it's random is when importing NCAA classes.

Can you tell what the grade is based on? Are big, strong, fast players getting the higher potential grades?

Also, can it be overcome? Can a C potential player develop into a 90something? If not, that's the MAIN issue. Fix that and the virtual scout's guess is as good as ours. I don't see the need for a potential grade, hidden or not.

Seems like EA gets ahead of itself with some features. IMO, they need to go back to why the ratings don't work (I have my theories), then come up with a good progression system, and THEN work on potential. And then they need to realize that there are some current & past greats that would've been C potential players, and not put a cap on potential.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

I wish we could get an EA rep to chime in because I want to know what makes EA's virtual scout different than the user? What is that virtual scout looking at to come up with a potential grade? Is it based on what it is IRL, size/strength, speed & perceived learning curve?

The scout shouldn't even be giving 100% perfect information. It should have a "fog of war" around it based on his ability, but never 100% spot on accurate, especially for technique ratings on young/inexperienced players.

As far as Montana - that's not an issue with potential existing, imo, that's an issue of lacking individual potential ratings, not just one global grade.

In that system maybe a QB gets 80 THP, 95 SAC, 90 MAC, 65 DAC, 90 AWR and you put him in a west coast scheme and he flourishes, but in a vertical passing game, he struggles. A player probably wouldn't get those 90s unless he had "A" potential in the existing system, but then he wouldn't have those "weaker areas" either in all likelihood.

But if the player had THP/C potential, AWR/A potential, SAC/A potential, MAC/A-B potential, DAC/C-D potential, it could possibly happen.

Individual potential along with a "fog of war" around what the scout shows would help a lot. Then throw in the fact that potential is not fixed forever, but mutable based on things that happen (injuries, individual career arc, age, position coach changes, HC changes, changes in role or playing time, etc), along with the growth/development of the various abilities, and I think the system becomes more developed and fleshed out.

[Broncos86]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Can you tell what the grade is based on? Are big, strong, fast players getting the higher potential grades? Also, can it be overcome? Can a C potential player develop into a 90something? If not, that's the MAIN issue. Fix that and the virtual scout's guess is as good as ours. I don't see the need for a potential grade, hidden or not. Seems like EA gets ahead of itself with some features. IMO, they need to go back to why the ratings don't work (I have my theories), then come up with a good progression system, and THEN work on potential. And then they need to realize that there are some current & past greats that would've been C potential players, and not put a cap on potential.

It's based on whoever makes those draft classes. They're not based on the ratings of the players. Why should speed or strength matter? I've seen plenty of physically-gifted players absolutely tank.

I like what how the NHL series does potential. Madden's potential isn't perfect, but I like what it adds over the alternative. Like I said before (I always feel like I repeat myself), as gamers we have a bit more of a God-mode POV, so we do make concessions in that regard. For those who don't like potential being seen, perhaps you should suggest hiding ALL ratings?

The thing is, true potential IS capped. That's reality, that's life. Some people are just faster, stronger, smarter, quicker, better hands, or whatever. That's just what it is. By the time they hit the NFL, guys have a ceiling.

[BezO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Broncos86

It's based on whoever makes those draft classes. They're not based on the ratings of the players. Why should speed or strength matter? I've seen plenty of physically-gifted players absolutely tank... The thing is, true potential IS capped. That's reality, that's life. Some people are just faster, stronger, smarter, quicker, better hands, or whatever. That's just what it is. By the time they hit the NFL, guys have a ceiling.

Make up your mind.

And of course gifted players tank. Underrated players also excel. That's my point. You can't hardcode someone's potential.

IRL, a scout is simply looking at a player's physical gifts, mental capacity and attitude and guessing how good he will be. Fortunately for the less physically gifted, sports is not only about being big, strong & fast.

And what's the cieling on someone's aptitude & technique?

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

The scout shouldn't even be giving 100% perfect information. It should have a "fog of war" around it based on his ability, but never 100% spot on accurate, especially for technique ratings on young/inexperienced players.

I think we're saying the same thing. A scout can only make an educated guess.

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

As far as Montana - that's not an issue with potential existing, imo, that's an issue of lacking individual potential ratings, not just one global grade. In that system maybe a QB gets 80 THP, 95 SAC, 90 MAC, 65 DAC, 90 AWR and you put him in a west coast scheme and he flourishes, but in a vertical passing game, he struggles. A player probably wouldn't get those 90s unless he had "A" potential in the existing system, but then he wouldn't have those "weaker areas" either in all likelihood. But if the player had THP/C potential, AWR/A potential, SAC/A potential, MAC/A-B potential, DAC/C-D potential, it could possibly happen. Individual potential along with a "fog of war" around what the scout shows would help a lot. Then throw in the fact that potential is not fixed forever, but mutable based on things that happen (injuries, individual career arc, age, position coach changes, HC changes, changes in role or playing time, etc), along with the growth/development of the various abilities, and I think the system becomes more developed and fleshed out.

Agreed, but I think they could add just an Attitude or Coachable rating and accomplish the same thing as individual potential grades. And I don't think the technique or mental ratings should be capped by "potential". IMO, only physical ratings should be capped; speed, elusiveness, strength, etc.

KB, I think we are saying much of the same thing, differently.

[Broncos86]

Quote: Originally Posted by BezO

Make up your mind.

Come on man, don't be snippy.

Okay, here's how I explain this. Let's start with the game and the "potential" rating. In Madden, why does being stronger dictate your potential at all? Potential covers all aspects of a player. It's the "sum" of it all. This is why I like NHL's potential: they split up potential into three categories. Someone can be physically gifted but not have much hope for technique in the game. In Madden, that's not possible. If strength or speed or hands dictated the rating, then suddenly you have one aspect affecting another. Just because a player is a behemoth of a player, that doesn't mean he has great footwork.

Now, addressing my second section you quoted: that was a metaphysical statement. Everyone has a ceiling on abilities. No matter what, I had no hope of being faster than Devon Hester. The man was born with speed. I have a biological ceiling on that.

See what I mean now? Those were two statements that were not meant to be compared because they were two different aspects of "potential." One was with regard to how the rating of "potential" works, the other was a metaphysical statement about reality.

[mpeterso]

Quote: Originally Posted by wEEman33

Madden has major long-term progression issues even with its potential system. By only year 2 of an online franchises, about half of the 32 teams are full of players with only 80-99 overall ratings. By year 3, pretty much all teams are maxed with 80-99 overall players. Some of Madden's progression decisions also defy all logic. I was in an online franchise with the Lions, and Suh (A potential) had something like 15 sacks and 5 forced fumbles. Then the end of the season progression comes, and Suh regressed like 5 overall points lol

Not knowing what Suh's ratings were in your franchise I can't comment on the specifics other than to say maybe, just maybe that was his peak performance career season. 15 sacks in a season for a DT is all time great territory; it would be pretty hard for him to ever reach that level again. Regardless, there are dozens and dozens of examples of players regressing (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot) after having great seasons (Shaun Alexander 2005 to done by 2008, LT from 2006 to 2007, Randy Moss from 2007 to out of the league, by 2010 etc). The fact that the game can mimic this piece of reality is a good thing imo.