I'm tired of the excuses.

[Franchise408]

Quote: Originally Posted by jpdavis82

Potential is not in Connected Careers, and yes there will be busts in the game. Do your research guys. Players don't progress a whole bunch because of XP when you are the coach. You get more XP for your coach when you play as a coach, you get more xp for your player when you are a player. Do your research, you guys don't even know what you are talking about and are making blanket statements like they are fact. Your player gets better through practicing and playing in games and it is done in a reasonable and realistic rate unlike how it was done in the past. When you are a coach players get XP if they meet their season goals, but it's not a ton of XP, players aren't going to jump 10 points ovr in a few months or even a season. Like I said the XP system progresses at a realistic rate.

I'm not worried about the rate of progression, I'm worried about the method of progression.

The method of me just pumping arbitrary XP points, and having direct control over an area that in real life is impossible to have direct control over. It is completely unrealistic.

Without "potential" for certain guys to be boom or bust, there is no need to carefully draft or sign free agents. It puts all players on an equal level, the only difference being how I choose to distribute XP points.

What happens to regression in this case? If progression is all XP based, then how do players begin to regress?

And if players regress the same way they did in the past, then why is it okay for regression to keep the same formula, and outweigh XP distribution, but not progression.

The entire concept of XP to progress players on your team makes absolutely zero sense. It is not realistic in the slightest bit. It totally takes out the immersion when basically I determine a players Potential rating, and how good he is going to get, by deciding how many XP points I'm going to pump into him. It's meta gaming at it's absolute finest, and as far as I'm concerned it's an absolutely horrible idea.

I should absolutely have to worry about a guy's potential when signing him, drafting him, or trading for him. If I want a guy that has a skill set that fits my needs, but he has low potential, I should have to weigh whether or not giving him a big contract is worth it to get his talents now, but knowing that he may regress and become worse before his contract is over with. Instead, in CC, I just give him that fat contract and don't have to worry about consequences, because I'll just pump XP points into him to keep him good. During the draft, I should have to weigh the difference between a player with a lower ceiling, but more "pro-ready", versus a player who is a project, but has tremendous upside. None of that matters anymore, because all I have to do is put XP points into guys to make them the players that I want them to be. It completely ruins the fundamental aspect of franchise mode for me, which is strategic team building and weighing the pro's and con's that each individual player brings to my team and how they fit into my scheme.

But now I can't even implement a scheme to fit players into, because I can't even incorporate a custom playbook. Now I don't have to carefully scout players to fit my scheme, because I can just pump XP into them to make them fit my scheme. I don't have to consider high ceiling project rookies versus pro ready. I don't have to consider a player with appropriate skill sets but a low potential. All the dynamics of actually strategically building a team are now out the window. Now, I'll just draft whatever player is considered "best" in the draft and pump XP into him, without ever having to worry if I just drafted a bust.

[baller7345]

Quote: Originally Posted by Franchise408

My opinion has plenty of base, because I know that a coach doesn't point to a player and say "you now catch the ball better", point to another player and say "you now throw more accurate passes", and then pick out a defensive player and say "you can tackle better". However, players do get better by having a strong work ethic, and natural ability, and the drive and determination to work to get better. Something that is more accurately portrayed by a "potential" system, than just tossing out XP towards guys ensuring that you'll never draft a bust, because you can make any guy you want good.

You can set it up so that its done by the cpu meaning that it doesn't guarantee that every player you want to get the XP boosts will get them thus allowing you to think of the ones that do progress the most with XP as the ones with the hardest work ethic.

Quote: Originally Posted by Franchise408

Why is any of that needed? That is the definition of "fluff". It's all cosmetic stuff, and has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay. I don't need a fictional Skip Bayless talking about Drew Brees having an MVP season, when I can look at the stat lines and the MVP voting to determine that Drew Brees is having a great season. I don't need to having a fictional Skip Bayless talking about how great a performance Drew Brees had in week 4 when I can look at the weekly leaders and see what kind of performance Drew Brees had. Twitter is cosmetic fluff. It has absolutely zero depth what so ever.

The fluff adds a sense of immersion to the game that was severely lacking. I would never get into the next gen franchise experience for more than a year because unless I was playing every game it was just a list of menus, it might of well be ran out of a spreadsheet because it would have been easier to get to everything and would have still felt as stale and lifeless as it did since M09 (my first next gen madden).

Think of it like this, Skyrim is a game that is loaded with fluff. Each NPC has a life to live during the day which for the most part has nothing to do with the player and a good deal of each of these NPC's has some form of dialogue with other NPCs that again has nothing to do with the player character. Things like food items, cooking, operating a wood mill, operating a flour press, cutting wood, drinking, eating, harvesting crops, etc. have very little effect on the player character. A few of the things listed above can give either a very small payment if they player chooses to do the activity or things like food and drink have a small effect on the players health and stamina but for the the most part these things are fluff added to the game.

All of this fluff however plays a very important role in the experience that one gets from Skyrim. This fluff allows the player to suspend reality for the duration of the time they are playing the game and immerse themselves in the world of Skyrim. It makes the world come to life and makes the characters that the player interact with seem more lifelike. All this fluff makes the game world one of the biggest draws to playing the game.

Madden's game world is harder to peg down since it isn't an open world game but franchise has tried fairly hard over the years to allow players to feel like they are a part of the NFL. The twitter feed, reworked storyline central feed, player backgrounds (to some extent), and anything else I'm missing is all of the stuff that attempts to bring the NFL experience to life. For the last few years the game mode did a very poor job of making the experience immersive and it never seemed like there was a league running around my actions. Other than my little bubble it never seemed like the rest of the league really was there outside of the stat sheets and the very stale extra point show. This fluff should give the rest of the league more life, or at least that is my hope.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Franchise408

What happens to regression in this case? If progression is all XP based, then how do players begin to regress?

It's been made abundantly clear that player regression is tied to A - failure of a player to meet his lower-tier goals, and B - player aging.

Quote:

And if players regress the same way they did in the past, then why is it okay for regression to keep the same formula, and outweigh XP distribution, but not progression.

What's a more appropriate counterpart besides natural ratings decline based on failure to meet goals and player aging that would fit into the rest of the structure of the mode? Further, why is this model a bad idea? I don't think it is.

Quote:

I should have to weigh whether or not giving him a big contract is worth it to get his talents now, but knowing that he may regress and become worse before his contract is over with.

You do. If the player doesn't perform on the field, he doesn't earn XP, and he regresses. Simple. The emphasis is placed on on-field results - something within the control of the person playing the game - rather than something intrinsic to a football player. Speaking with my video game designer hat on for a moment, any instance where the player has control is immediately and obviously better than that same instance but with player having no control - football video game or otherwise.

Quote:

Instead, in CC, I just give him that fat contract and don't have to worry about consequences, because I'll just pump XP points into him to keep him good. During the draft, I should have to weigh the difference between a player with a lower ceiling, but more "pro-ready", versus a player who is a project, but has tremendous upside.

You still do. Player have a "development" attribute that in effect provides an XP multiple. Players with a high development attribute earn more XP for the same goals as players with a low development attribute. Ergo, the decision to choose between drafting (high initial ratings + low development) vs (low initial ratings + high development), or foregoing both of those players and signing the free agent who has extremely high upgrade costs to every stat due to age but has reached high ratings, is still there.

Quote:

None of that matters anymore, because all I have to do is put XP points into guys to make them the players that I want them to be. It completely ruins the fundamental aspect of franchise mode for me, which is strategic team building and weighing the pro's and con's that each individual player brings to my team and how they fit into my scheme. But now I can't even implement a scheme to fit players into, because I can't even incorporate a custom playbook. Now I don't have to carefully scout players to fit my scheme, because I can just pump XP into them to make them fit my scheme. I don't have to consider high ceiling project rookies versus pro ready. I don't have to consider a player with appropriate skill sets but a low potential. All the dynamics of actually strategically building a team are now out the window. Now, I'll just draft whatever player is considered "best" in the draft and pump XP into him, without ever having to worry if I just drafted a bust.

This "pumping of XP" you keep referring to isn't possible according to every video I've seen as to how the mode is constructed and balanced. Foremost, XP is earned based on players meeting statistical and team goals; i.e. the player has to play and perform as-is in order to improve, and the team must succeed in order for players to improve. You as a coach have to put the player in a position to succeed - and then the player actually has to succeed - in order for him to have the opportunity to develop. XP isn't just handed out for nothing. Thus, scouting and scheme are both still massively important.

It also appears (my observation) that it is going to be easier to gradually round out a player's skill set with XP rather than explode him into a superstar (unless you go bonkers with a guy, Victor Cruz style). Further, a player's higher ratings are more expensive to upgrade, and position-specific skills are also more expensive to upgrade. It will take time and effort to build a player up, and he has to perform to expectations at his current skill set to begin to improve.

The strategic team building facet of the mode, as I explained in the many other points above, is very much still there. It is clearly in a different form than you are used to, as you the user have much more control over the direction of the mode, the direction of your team, exactly what areas you would like to your team to excel at.

I wholly disagree that, based on what we know of progression in CCM, that it is fundamentally flawed. It's far from it, at this juncture. We won't know until release date if it is. Even then it's quite honestly too late to debate about the merits of the mode anyway; the design decision has already been made so it may be quite pointless to continue harping on it.

The fundamental difference is that control has been put in the hands of the player, and the means by which a player may improve has been made transparent. For any video game - football or otherwise - I would very strongly argue any scenario where the player has control is better than the same scenario where the player does not have control.

[Aftershock9958]

@Franchise408:

I'm going to start off by saying you're a smart poster. A lot of people who post with unhappiness do so in a way that makes it seem like they're either just EA-haters - you know the crowd who, no matter what EA did, would always complain - or bandwagoners, who are just jumping in because it's the hip thing to do. You don't appear to fall into those groupings. That being said, this post makes it seem like you're somewhat uninformed on CC.

The method of me just pumping arbitrary XP points, and having direct control over an area that in real life is impossible to have direct control over. It is completely unrealistic.

On this point you're completely correct - but this is one of those areas that EA, let alone any company who attempts to make an NFL game, past, present, or future, will never be able to replicate realistically. The simple reason for that is because there is no reasonable explanation for a player's potential, ever. Who saw Tom Brady or Miles Austin coming? On the opposite side, Joey Harrington? David Carr? In 1996, 25 players were chosen ahead of Ray Lewis, and other than Indy I'm sure 24 of those teams would like to have those picks back. You can't accurately replicate real-life potential - it's impossible.

What happens to regression in this case? If progression is all XP based, then how do players begin to regress?

And if players regress the same way they did in the past, then why is it okay for regression to keep the same formula, and outweigh XP distribution, but not progression.

This is something I haven't seen much said about, so I can't say if regression is the same as it used to be. What I can say is this: If regression is the same, what is the issue?

The entire concept of XP to progress players on your team makes absolutely zero sense. It is not realistic in the slightest bit. It totally takes out the immersion when basically I determine a players Potential rating, and how good he is going to get, by deciding how many XP points I'm going to pump into him. It's meta gaming at it's absolute finest, and as far as I'm concerned it's an absolutely horrible idea.

This is where I start to get the idea that you may be uninformed. Continuing:

I should absolutely have to worry about a guy's potential when signing him, drafting him, or trading for him. If I want a guy that has a skill set that fits my needs, but he has low potential, I should have to weigh whether or not giving him a big contract is worth it to get his talents now, but knowing that he may regress and become worse before his contract is over with.

Skill sets matter a whole lot more now with schemes. Overall hasn't really meant a whole lot recently, and that isn't going to be a whole lot different come M13. The guy could have a lower ovr. He might fit your needs. But there's a pretty good chance he's not going to be a superstar. A lot of starters in the NFL fit a skill set, but don't have a high potential, and will likely be worse off than before their contract ends (something like Keith Brooking or Kenyon Coleman).

Instead, in CC, I just give him that fat contract and don't have to worry about consequences, because I'll just pump XP points into him to keep him good.

This is of course assuming you hit the highest level of his goals. And also assuming that you play him in every practice session. And last but certainly not least, forsaking anyone behind him on the depth chart - so now his contract is up, or even worse he retires - and because you spent so much time trying to maintain him, there's no one on the depth chart to replace his production and now you go into the draft and/or free agency hoping and trying to fill a need.

During the draft, I should have to weigh the difference between a player with a lower ceiling, but more "pro-ready", versus a player who is a project, but has tremendous upside. None of that matters anymore, because all I have to do is put XP points into guys to make them the players that I want them to be. It completely ruins the fundamental aspect of franchise mode for me, which is strategic team building and weighing the pro's and con's that each individual player brings to my team and how they fit into my scheme.

This is absolutely wrong. The very first thing is that you're assuming that every last one of you players is going to meet their highest goals. Not going to happen. The second thing, is that there is mechanics in place that will add to the amount of XP a player can earn - the two things I know for sure so far being that they match your scheme, and their development rating. So if you just decide "Hey, I'm going to draft this 4-3 OLB and he'll play OLB in my 3-4 defense", he's not going to earn as much XP right off the top. If you're looking at an OLB who will be drafted at a 76 ovr with a low development rating, he might not hit the career-high overall that a 69 ovr with a high development rating might hit. Or he might, depending on what you were to do with each player.

That's not even taking into account that during the draft in M12, you couldn't weigh pro-ready versus project. The potentials were never shown until after the 3rd or 4th preseason game. The only mechanic in place to help with that was one of the offseason scouting tasks, which revealed the overall without question - and that is pretty unrealistic.

But now I can't even implement a scheme to fit players into, because I can't even incorporate a custom playbook. Now I don't have to carefully scout players to fit my scheme, because I can just pump XP into them to make them fit my scheme.

As I said above, players who fit your scheme will gain XP at a higher rate than those who do not fit your scheme.

And sure, you may not be able to select a custom playbook, but at this point it sounds like you'll have easily 45 - 50 playbooks to choose from.

I don't have to consider high ceiling project rookies versus pro ready. I don't have to consider a player with appropriate skill sets but a low potential. All the dynamics of actually strategically building a team are now out the window. Now, I'll just draft whatever player is considered "best" in the draft and pump XP into him, without ever having to worry if I just drafted a bust.

Again, 100% wrong.

The development rating as well as the scheme allows you to consider high-ceiling versus pro-ready. For instance, you may draft a DE who is pro ready even though he doesn't fit your scheme. And he will probably help you out a bit. But because you drafted a guy who doesn't fit with your scheme, his ceiling is instantly lower. Or, you can draft a guy who is not pro ready and may not fit your scheme, but if his development rating is high you may be able to make him fit your scheme.

As far as busts and gems, they are still going to be there. You can try to draft the "best" player in the draft - but you'll be disappointed with your first rounder when not only does he not fit your scheme, but his production rating is gimped. At the same time, you'll be happy when you find that 7th round upper 70 who fits your scheme and has a high production rating.

In that sense, it more closely relates to real life. There have been an infinite number of players who, because they were coached by a certain guy, or drafted to a certain scheme, or whatever, became more than they were thought to be. There have also been an infinite number of players who were coached by the wrong people, drafted to the wrong scheme, or whatever, became much less than they were expected to be. That aspect of potential is now represented.

[PVarck31]

This turned into one of many connected careers threads we already have. You can find this exact same discussion in one of them.