Why Madden Desperately Needs Morale, Chemistry, Penalties And Multi-tiered Injuries

[macbranson]

I think the problem is that a lot of us want more realism and depth in franchise mode, but EA is more concerned with making the game fun. And let's face it, dealing with player issues and workouts and gameplanning isn't fun for a lot of people. EA has to find a way to straddle the line between simulation and fun and that way they can satisfy the diehard sim guys and the players who just want to jump online and play a game against their friends.

The only way I see Madden doing this is to make the game way more customizable. On the old gen system we had morale, gameplans, QB Vision, progression multiple times per year and a bunch of other stuff. It was a step in the right direction for a lot of us, but apparently, it didn't test well and a lot of people didn't like those things so they got rid of them. What I propose is that they make Madden a real deep simulation game and give players the option to turn all of that stuff off. Don't want to gameplan for your next opponent? Set gameplanning to CPU instead of User. Don't want to scout players every week? Set Scouting to CPU? You want to trade 10 players? Turn off the Trade Logic setting. Don't want your star QB to get hurt? Turn off injuries. You don't want Pass Interference? Lower the slider.

What bugs me, though, is that EA says Pass Interference wouldn't be fun. But why have a slider for it, if the penalty doesn't exist in the game?

A few of these things are already in the game like injury sliders. But if they really create a virtual world where there is immense depth like player morale, not wanting to sign with certain teams, player chemistry, working out, dealing with injuries, unable to trade for the players you want, lots of people will be turned off from the game. How many people start a franchise and trade like 3 or 4 players? How many people simulate the draft and then go back and draft according to the player ratings they saw? Has anyone played a franchise and not won a Super Bowl or not gotten deep into the playoffs within 2 or 3 seasons? All of the realistic things that the game is lacking would make it a lot more difficult and, honestly, take away a bit of the fun factor. So, EA would have to give people the option to turn all the virtual stuff off and just play a video game.

[Big FN Deal]

@macbranson, I think you hit the nail on the head about creating the game with as much realistic depth and immersion as possible while allowing things to be automated or completely turned off. I have never understood what was so hard about that, which has kept EA from doing in Madden for the last 7 years.

Why won't they just give the simulation gamers a separate "non-fun" (according to them) challenging time consuming factory Simulation setting?

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

The only way I see Madden doing this is to make the game way more customizable. On the old gen system we had morale, gameplans, QB Vision, progression multiple times per year and a bunch of other stuff. It was a step in the right direction for a lot of us, but apparently, it didn't test well and a lot of people didn't like those things so they got rid of them. What I propose is that they make Madden a real deep simulation game and give players the option to turn all of that stuff off. Don't want to gameplan for your next opponent? Set gameplanning to CPU instead of User. Don't want to scout players every week? Set Scouting to CPU? You want to trade 10 players? Turn off the Trade Logic setting. Don't want your star QB to get hurt? Turn off injuries. You don't want Pass Interference? Lower the slider.

Imagine that.

Options. Customizable game. In regards to the older Madden's...weren't those things you mention in for at least three seasons? I can't remember a PC Madden where it didn't have the morale and such in. I know Vision was the newest thing, but still...

And I don't think people would be all THAT much turned off. Sounds like EA is having fear more than anything else. I mean I know OOTP isn't as "big" as Madden, but...OOTP is praised FOR things like players getting pissed or not wanting to sign with some teams over others, etc.

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

What bugs me, though, is that EA says Pass Interference wouldn't be fun. But why have a slider for it, if the penalty doesn't exist in the game?

With PI, at least DPI (I don't think I have ever, once, seen OPI in Madden), I think that's more a "check" problem, i.e. when does the game check for when it can occur and then have it occur. That and there's not enough simulation of player mistakes.

Plus, since it has to be an animation, unless that animation somehow occurs, then it won't get checked. Of course, if the game just respected hit boxes, it probably would shoot up 1000% with the "technique" used by defenders, especially in trying to pick off passes. Maybe that's the ultimate reason...

But DPI IS in the game, it's just castrated probably because of the engine and "balancing".

What gets me is Intentional Grounding. CPU QB and be in the center of the pocket and throw it away to the sideline to no one. No call. User does it, Intentional Grounding.

And there's penalties that aren't even listed on the sliders. A couple times, the CPU QBs got on an illegal forward pass kick. Yes. Illegal Forward Pass. The referee didn't even say it, just hand gestured.

WTF is that?

Quote: Originally Posted by macbranson

A few of these things are already in the game like injury sliders. But if they really create a virtual world where there is immense depth like player morale, not wanting to sign with certain teams, player chemistry, working out, dealing with injuries, unable to trade for the players you want, lots of people will be turned off from the game.

It's franchise mode, not football-version-of-sandbox-game. This stuff should be in and do what you said, people that don't want to deal with it can turn it off.

But franchise mode SHOULD be hard by default. Fair, but hard. But of course, the biggest thing they can do with that is teach the CPU how to run a team. Even in the existing mode, if the CPU wouldn't do so much damn stupid crap, at least running 32-teams would be left for the completionists, not just to get a basic "decent" franchise challenge.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by 1D4ever

I moved Taylor Mays to corner one game because of an injury and to see if he could perform he actually became a beast his rating was terrible but he had a pick six the immediatly, so far he on the Pro bowl list. I can't remember him getting burnt in coverage either.

I moved Mays to OLB and he's wildly inconsistent. I figured since I was using him as the "8th man" and had a better SS languishing around, better try it.

He's great at blitzing (sometimes), and decent at ZCV (for a LB) but he's not beast mode for me. He's "sometimes he's charging around the field getting 8 tackles and 2 sacks" and "sometimes...did he even play today?"

I usually play LBs in zone and have better safeties, so I moved him. I could not tolerate him at safety. No, noooooo. He got burnt too much, especially since my scheme sometimes necessitates the SS play man coverage.

No way in heck I put him at corner with his craptastic MCV. In MCV as a LB, he's left behind, 95 (now 91) SPD and all. His AWR has him getting lost in space, even with his ZCV. Buzz zones are the worst. He's not far enough to the sideline and doesn't close on the ball.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

@KB, I am not sure but the difference may be that you are playing the CPU and I am playing HUM. However, that just seems strange because even when playing against HUM the other 10 players are CPU controlled so it's odd that they don't behave accordingly.

Or maybe franchise vs ranked games? I don't know. Wouldn't surprise me if EA coded the modes differently. That said, if the User is controlling the weak player, the weakness probably won't show up, no matter what the mode. It's the reasoning behind Playmaker coming up with the "no-switch rule" and I try to follow it always.

Granted, I do play on 100 fatigue, so perhaps the ratings are effectively lower than their listed values for 90% of the game (a lot of the reason why I do it is that theory/thinking). That 60 AWR might be effectively a 40 by the third quarter, the SPD/ACC/AGI are lower so they can't "outrun their mistakes", etc, so they show up more and in bigger ways.

But I DO see the difference in AWR in my players. Gibson, my MLB, does things my other LBs can't - because of his "mental ratings". He has elite AWR and PRC - the other LBs don't. (ROLB is good, but not elite, and Mays...well...moving on...). My Elite CB is plastered to his man, the rest leave openings and are overly aggressive in trying to get picks. My Elite CB is also Aggressive when playing the ball, but picks his spots MUCH better. When he's thrown at, it's usually a pick or incomplete. Even the CPU QB avoid him. Not the others at all.

Like I said, since they all have high+ cover skills and speed/quickness (because I accept nothing less in my franchise), AWR is the only meaningful variation.

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Just to be clear, I am not advocating that every low AWR player consistently get penalties just by virtue of being on the field but that AWR actually allow for advantageous match ups when applicable. Like if Revis goes to the sideline to be evaluated and a nickel back with low AWR gets matched up on a starting WR with high AWR, I want that to matter. The defense should have to adjust to that offensively advantageous match up by rolling coverage help or changing the assignment and if not, that DB should be easily exploited if left alone to cover that WR.

Wouldn't the ability to stay with a WR be better expressed as going against the WR's RTE and AGI vs DB's MCV + PRC + AGI (with some considering for the SPD/ACC of the two)?

To me, AWR for the WR is for adjusting his route (to get enough for the 1st down, reading space to where he can burn the defense, picking the proper variation on an option route and being decisive so he defines his movement to QB, etc) more than specifically beating the guy across from him. About the only aspect I would assign to "field awareness" in that regard is if the DB is taking inside/outside/over the top/trail position technique in coverage - and then that applies mostly to man only.

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

Maybe 10 AWR was too extreme but I honestly haven't seen anyone in an offline or online franchise I played in, suffer any ill effects from starting a 65 AWR player with 80+ positional skill ratings and good speed over a player with 85+ AWR, comparable positional skill ratings but slower.

I agree he should make mistakes in ambiguous situations, fall for double moves more often and probably get sucked up too far in play action (peaking in the backfield), but if there's a straight forward situation he can be put in, he should excel. If the offense can't confuse him, he should be tough.

That said, I'd probably get MORE upset if that kind of thing happened because of the fact that I can't just give a player like that a simple assignment where he has less to think about like a coach might in real life (since you know Madden is likely just going to take the "oh he should screw up more" without the balancing "let's make a way for the User to simply the scheme/assignment" that happens in the real game). It would limit how I can fully exploit his skills until (and if) he learns the game more, but I wouldn't just have to put him out there and watch him turn around like an idiot unless he's forced into that harder role by injuries.