Team goals are Tough!

[Matthewkyleyoung]

Its very realistic in the way the goals are set up. There are team achievement as well. So you don't necessarily need to hit these massive goals for XP. Not to mention weekly goals

[joet6683]

Quote: Originally Posted by DukeC

Basketball is about as close as you can get. If you don't put in the work to increase your dribbling, shooting, etc in drills you aren't going to be successful in games or in a 1 on 1 situation. Football also. Especially at the QB and WR position. The game is mostly mental at that point. For a QB he has to read coverages (Film Room Study), and get his timing right with the Reciever (Which you can only do in practice). For a reciever the only way to improve is to get your route running to perfection (This is what separates the Scrubs from the Good to the Great recievers). Which involves running the same route over and over...in Practice. What you do in practice THEN translates to a game setting. This should really only affect AWR and other ratings like that (such as Play Recognition, Route Running, Tackling, etc).

Like. In game should increase the mental stuff slightly, or have a new game experience rating. Otherwise most everything else is done in training. Value of players should be highly stat based with a production/consistency rating which are determined on field, but otherwise all the other ratings should be mostly increased by training. A RB doesn't play a game and say...hey I increased by break tackle skill because i played well today! He says...good thing i worked on my breaking tackle the past few weeks, it paid off this week breaking a few extra tackles and getting a lot more yards than i think i would have previously.

[steamboat]

Anyone who has said that the only way to improve in a sport is by playing in a game has never played a sport. Why the heck did my parents spend about 2 grand on summer camp? Why is 80% of the time you play a sport you are practicing. What exactly do you think you do in practice if you are not playing the sport and working on things. You can be much more specific in practice and it is more valuable work to improvement then in game. For instance take Tim Tebow. Tim Tebow will for his entire career have to work on his throwing motion. Does he work on that in the game? No, he uses the motion most comfortable to him at the time during the game, and tries to improve it mainly in the offseason. He threw for a low completion percentage, but he had success on the field. Does that success make him a better player? No. He outperformed in some instances people who were a better quarterback then him at the end of the game. Does that mean the better QB was Tebow? No.

In the case of running backs in particular this is especially not true. One of the reasons that running backs have short careers is because of wear and tear. The more successful an individual season the shorter they can perform at that level and its very often that a running back regresses greatly the year after their BEST season in their career. Why? Because they exerted so much effort and got hit so much the previous season. Did Derek Anderson become a better quarterback after his first season in cleveland? No.

Some things do get better from playing time. Playbook knowledge? Sure. Doing that in game melts it into your mind better. Awareness? Sure. Playing gives you a degree of comfort with playing in game thus letting you think more clearly. Maybe ball carrier vision could be helped by playing time more then practice (outside of scrimmages). You don't get stronger, faster, more accurate, stronger armed or any of that by playing any game.

I am for a blended system, with hidden potential that is variable and ratings that are not exact even for players on your own team until they have played with you for a while. Playing games should help immensely with things like awareness and playbook knowledge. There should be some sort of intangible rating that takes into account a persons ability to absorb things that changes the progression of mental ratings. I don't like the long and drawn out practice assignments and favor more varied but vague directions each player should take in individual practices along with simulated or played out practice each week.

I hated the potential based system because there was no variance. Two 72 rated A potential players would largely be the same rating 4 years later. Noone exceeded their potential, no one fell short. But, this system, while fun, no one can ever truly claim it is in any way realistic or an accurate representation of development.

[brandon27]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerzeyReign

I disagree with the potential system being a better way. Players get better by playing, not sitting on the sideline. Their isn't one sport that I know of that you get better 'just because' -- you improve by playing. So far, from what I've been reading, this system seems to be more of step up from the progression system. I've really wanted a system like this for awhile, hopefully its implemented right. I'll see tomorrow.

Are you kidding me right now? So.. Aaron Rodgers you think would have been just as good as he is now, had he started day 1 and not sat? He sat for what... 3 years? Clearly he got better during his time on the bench while he was learning how to play and prepare from his coaches, and team mates. The other example I gave above is Jake Locker. He wasnt ready last year, but he's good enough this year to be named the started. Why? Because he sat most of last year, and improved his preperation, his physical skills, his awareness, and likely his accuracy and arm strength. He didn't do that by playing in the games on sundays because, well... guess what? He didn't play! He was coached up all year as the back up, and developed into a better player while on the bench!

To say nobody gets better at any sport outside of in game action is just ridiculous, and not realistic. If they sat on the sidelines and ate popcorn all week during practice and team meetings, and the games, then sure... but that's not what happens. If the purpose of this CCM junk is to be the head coach, and improve the team, then some of the emphasis when it comes to player progression should come from developing the depth players who don't get game time every Sunday. Not all players enter the league talented enough to be starters, nor do they get to be starters because they perform in game situations. They perform and impress coaches by learning, and improving their skill to put the in the position to get on the field on Sundays. However, the way progression is set here in the game, the only way they can earn XP is to reach game, and season goals that are unattainable for them being a backup. Just look at your own favorite teams, there's players that are starters now, that didn't start immediately. They sat on 2nd and 3rd string while the veterans ahead of them got the game time on Sundays, but guess what, they still progressed as players, to the point where eventually they take over the starters role because they got better, while being 2nd and 3rd string.

In my season so far, Matt Moore and Pat Devlin, my second and third string QB's have gotten no XP since I chose to start Ryan Tannehill as my QB. So how to I further develop my second and third string guys? Regardless of what you want to believe, the things that go on behind the scenes in the meeting rooms and such in an NFL setting go a long ways to progressing players. Without the coaching and practice and learning, these guys never make it to the field on Sundays. They dont get better playing in the game and putting up stats...

[JerzeyReign]

Quote: Originally Posted by steamboat

Anyone who has said that the only way to improve in a sport is by playing in a game has never played a sport. Why the heck did my parents spend about 2 grand on summer camp? Why is 80% of the time you play a sport you are practicing. What exactly do you think you do in practice if you are not playing the sport and working on things. You can be much more specific in practice and it is more valuable work to improvement then in game. For instance take Tim Tebow. Tim Tebow will for his entire career have to work on his throwing motion. Does he work on that in the game? No, he uses the motion most comfortable to him at the time during the game, and tries to improve it mainly in the offseason. He threw for a low completion percentage, but he had success on the field. Does that success make him a better player? No. He outperformed in some instances people who were a better quarterback then him at the end of the game. Does that mean the better QB was Tebow? No. In the case of running backs in particular this is especially not true. One of the reasons that running backs have short careers is because of wear and tear. The more successful an individual season the shorter they can perform at that level and its very often that a running back regresses greatly the year after their BEST season in their career. Why? Because they exerted so much effort and got hit so much the previous season. Did Derek Anderson become a better quarterback after his first season in cleveland? No. Some things do get better from playing time. Playbook knowledge? Sure. Doing that in game melts it into your mind better. Awareness? Sure. Playing gives you a degree of comfort with playing in game thus letting you think more clearly. Maybe ball carrier vision could be helped by playing time more then practice (outside of scrimmages). You don't get stronger, faster, more accurate, stronger armed or any of that by playing any game. I am for a blended system, with hidden potential that is variable and ratings that are not exact even for players on your own team until they have played with you for a while. Playing games should help immensely with things like awareness and playbook knowledge. There should be some sort of intangible rating that takes into account a persons ability to absorb things that changes the progression of mental ratings. I don't like the long and drawn out practice assignments and favor more varied but vague directions each player should take in individual practices along with simulated or played out practice each week. I hated the potential based system because there was no variance. Two 72 rated A potential players would largely be the same rating 4 years later. Noone exceeded their potential, no one fell short. But, this system, while fun, no one can ever truly claim it is in any way realistic or an accurate representation of development.

Since I'm one of the guys 'who has never played a sport' I'd like to point something out -- practicing IS playing a sport. To get better past the practice field/court or wherever you are at you must do it in game. Maybe I'm totally missing your point. Or maybe your point just said exactly what I said in a long drawn out manner?

[debauchlord]

Quote: Originally Posted by steamboat

But, this system, while fun, no one can ever truly claim it is in any way realistic or an accurate representation of development.

I am in the camp that yes, it is indeed fun. Not ideal, never ideal, but then again, it never will be. If i can find it fun, the fan that does not go to OS will have a blast with it. Many, many, many Madden players (the vast majority of non-OSers) "roll" with their "boys"; they care about a select few players on their favorite team. The micromanaging/OCD dream progression will never happen.

Additionally, progression is the least of the problems of 13, to the point where it is probably not a problem at all.

[JerzeyReign]

Quote: Originally Posted by brandon27

Spoiler Are you kidding me right now? So.. Aaron Rodgers you think would have been just as good as he is now, had he started day 1 and not sat? He sat for what... 3 years? Clearly he got better during his time on the bench while he was learning how to play and prepare from his coaches, and team mates. The other example I gave above is Jake Locker. He wasnt ready last year, but he's good enough this year to be named the started. Why? Because he sat most of last year, and improved his preperation, his physical skills, his awareness, and likely his accuracy and arm strength. He didn't do that by playing in the games on sundays because, well... guess what? He didn't play! He was coached up all year as the back up, and developed into a better player while on the bench! To say nobody gets better at any sport outside of in game action is just ridiculous, and not realistic. If they sat on the sidelines and ate popcorn all week during practice and team meetings, and the games, then sure... but that's not what happens. If the purpose of this CCM junk is to be the head coach, and improve the team, then some of the emphasis when it comes to player progression should come from developing the depth players who don't get game time every Sunday. Not all players enter the league talented enough to be starters, nor do they get to be starters because they perform in game situations. They perform and impress coaches by learning, and improving their skill to put the in the position to get on the field on Sundays. However, the way progression is set here in the game, the only way they can earn XP is to reach game, and season goals that are unattainable for them being a backup. Just look at your own favorite teams, there's players that are starters now, that didn't start immediately. They sat on 2nd and 3rd string while the veterans ahead of them got the game time on Sundays, but guess what, they still progressed as players, to the point where eventually they take over the starters role because they got better, while being 2nd and 3rd string. In my season so far, Matt Moore and Pat Devlin, my second and third string QB's have gotten no XP since I chose to start Ryan Tannehill as my QB. So how to I further develop my second and third string guys? Regardless of what you want to believe, the things that go on behind the scenes in the meeting rooms and such in an NFL setting go a long ways to progressing players. Without the coaching and practice and learning, these guys never make it to the field on Sundays. They dont get better playing in the game and putting up stats...

I'm sorry, maybe you think Aaron Rodgers stepped straight off the practice field and got his success? Did he not struggle? Once he got into the game and started playing he got better right? Go look at his stats and PM me to let me know that Rodgers stepped right from under Farve and was the player he is today.

Jake Locker. He played in at least 5-6 games last year. Is he really a starter or the best player they have? If his skills are just about where Hasselback's are, then yes the younger guy will start. Just because he was named the starter doesn't mean he'll be able to put up 'veteran' numbers. He will struggle like all other young QBs who've come before him until he gets used to game speed and being put in other situations with pressure on his shoulder.

I don't have the game yet but the way I've seen it setup from ShopMaster and the others who had the game and posted videos, the XP goals are done by levels. So getting guys in game time is beneficial. Seems pretty realistic to me -- you get in game time to get better.

[ghettoqball]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

Also, ignore his potential. You SHOULDN'T see it anyway. It's bad that EA showed us that in the first place.

Bingo. And that would have been the most realistic way to do player progression... to have a potential rating or something similar, but keep it hidden. That way you can't cut that F potential player as soon as you draft him. You have to wait a couple of years to see whether he improves or not.

But no, we get this incredibly flawed system where backups do not improve (which honestly, we all should have seen coming anyways). LOL at all of this. I will give EA credit though... they are AMAZING at hyping up their product. They almost had me preordering another game. I held off because I knew there would be some massive flaws that pissed me off, just like every other year. And here it is.