Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

[Fr8Train]

I don't think its possible to disagree any more than I do on this topic.

The old progressive system was absolute crap. You had guys that didn't play a single snap progress faster than guys that routinely broke NFL records. You would know what everyone would progress to if you simply created a test franchise and sim'd it 3-4 years into the future...

The old progression system would sometimes progress Awareness for Quarterbacks/Half backs, which play zero role in the performance of the player. But it bumps up the imaginary Overall Rating that the CPU uses to determine trade value.

Now, is this current system perfect? No. But I actually agree with some of the marketing pieces about this progession system. IF you have a Wide Receiver that has trouble catching the ball, u place him in front of a jugs machine and have him practice catching the balls. With the XP progression, you simulate that buy focusing on the CTH trait... (just one example).

I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would like the old way of progression.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

See this is what I was getting at. Let performance allow XP or progression of applicable skill ratings, not some wide open system for every rating. I like that progression/XP allocation is available manually for those that want it but for others that want a more automated process, allow that performance to effect applicable skill ratings. The players 59 OVR would increase but it would be due to their BCV and/or AWR rating increasing, not their SPD, ACC, etc.

I can kinda dig what you're saying, but the x factor in all of this is the human element. You have a human user controlling these players most of the time and all users have different skill levels. If you have any kind of performance based progression you are essentially punishing the less skilled users. What I was suggesting is using performance as some sort of modifier, but in no way would it be the determining factor for any ratings increase. You still need that cap for all ratings IMO. For example, let's say we have a 59 ovr WR this time and he has 60 catches for 1200 yds on the season (which can actually happen in madden based on his speed rating). You get XP points for his yards and decide to raise his low route running rating up. This process continues until his route running is 99 and he's the greatest receiver of all time lol. If you allow any progression based solely on performance you're gonna just make the strong get stronger.

In Madden 13, the development trait is a modifier for progression with performance being the end all be all ultimately. If you have a high development trait (quick, superstar) it doesn't mean nothing if you don't perform. IMO it should be reversed. The development trait should be the most important and performance should be the modifier. For instance if you had a high development trait, you would be more likely to progress, but if you had a high development trait AND performed well you would progress slightly more. That way, even guys on the bench that didn't really play, could still progress a good bit if they had a high development trait. It wasn't based on their performance or the team's performance or anything.

Look at Darren Mcfadden for example. His first few years in the league were anything but spectacular. This is his year to year totals in the NFL:

2008 - 113att, 499yds, 4.4ypc
2009 - 104att, 357yds, 3.4ypc
2010 - 233att, 1157yds, 5.2ypc
2011 - 113att, 614yds, 5.4ypc
2012 - 57att, 201yds, 3.5ypc

As you can see, he was not doing anything special when he joined the league and I'm sure you all know the Raiders certainly weren't doing anything special lol. So what happened in 2010? Hue Jackson did that's what. He became the Raiders offensive coordinator. The scheme changed and he became better. Look at the drop off in 2012. What happened then? Hue Jackson left, that's what happened. He reverted back to how he was before Hue. His progression (and regression) had nothing to do with is performance. So why does it have everything to do with performance on the game?

[TMJOHNS18]

My problem with the new system is how limited the distribution of XP is in the game. I'm on an online CC with Splff and playing as the Jets I prefer to run more than pass (when I can help it). The problem I have with the XP system is the goals don't seem to care what kind of player you are, they just are predetermined regardless of your play style.

For example, I don't pass the ball much. My ideal game would be 10-15 attempts. Yet, weekly goals for my QB want me to throw 250+ yards and multiple touchdowns. 7-8 weeks into the season and I have 1 multi passing TD game and only 1/2 over 250 yards passing. On top of this, my year goal is 35 touchdowns, regardless of how talented my QB is (Tebow). My backup also has a yearly goal of 35 touchdowns, pretty high for someone who should never see many snaps.

As for running, I like to use multiple backs, yet weekly goals want individual backs to go over 100 yards. Doesn't matter if I have 3 guys combine for 150+ yards when none of them eclipse 100 by themselves. At least for the RBs the backups have lower yardage goals.

Team goals on the other hand feel underpowerd. I got 100 XP for holding the opponent under 100 yards total rushing? 100 XP for limiting then to under 200 passing? But, then I allow over 250 yards of offense and I get 500 XP? That doesn't make sense.

I haven't played a CC longer than a year so I don't know if these goals change over time or if they remain the same. One would think that goals should depend on both the rating and past performances of the player.

What I would like to see, other than the suggestions above, is a more dynamic XP system. The system would basically use a combination of the players OVR and previous stats (last years/avg over X amount of games) and it would use this to come up with a realistic weekly/yearly goal and also an XP amount based off the players rating. The goals/XP rewards could also be based off a static amount (say the 35 passing TDs a year) but each "milestone" level (5,10,20, etc) would give out XP at different levels depending on the players OVR and past performance.

Basically, the system would reward "overachievers" more than taking a stud and producing the same results. If MJD runs for 1,100 yards and some 2nd string 70 ovr HB has the same year, the lower rated player should receive more XP for overproducing (say that player never ran for more than 600 yards in a year) versus MJD only going for 1,100 after winning the rushing title the year before. If the HB who had a "breakout" year would now receive substantially less XP (probably close to MJD) if he rushes for 1,100 the following year because he is expected to perform in that range.

Same thing would apply to the "studs" around the league. If a user has a huge year with Megatron, then Megatron's goals the following year would have to be significantly harder to achieve and pay less XP overall until he at least achieves the same performance. This would prevent guys from simply raking up points year in and year out with top players because they can throw 5000 yards easy with their QBs. The way I see it, if player is consistently finishing in the top 5 statistically at their position then there is less of a need for XP since they are already performing at a very high level with their current ratings. I think a system like this would end up with more low 80s rated players and only a few 90s rated players because of the need for them to perform at a very high level yearly in order to gain the XP needed to progress more.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fr8Train

I don't think its possible to disagree any more than I do on this topic. The old progressive system was absolute crap. You had guys that didn't play a single snap progress faster than guys that routinely broke NFL records. You would know what everyone would progress to if you simply created a test franchise and sim'd it 3-4 years into the future...

I agree the old way is flawed as well. I wouldn't say it was crap, but it was flawed. That's why I said it needed tweaking. Why can't a guy on the bench progress faster than a guy that broke records? A team can't have 2 good players on their team? If what you said happened IRL, we would have never heard of a guy name Steve Young and many others. Just because you sit on the bench doesn't mean you can't progress, sometimes faster than the starter that's breaking records. In Madden 13 that can't happen tho. The guy that's breaking records will just keep getting better and better, even tho he's already good enough to break records, and the guy that's on the bench will never progress enough to supplant that starter. Also, performance did influence progression some. It wasn't much, but it did have an impact. Yes soem guys seemed like they had predetermined progression the first season, but what happened after that. It's not uncommon to have predetermined things in the game the first year ala the cpu Cleveland Browns signing Donovan McNabb and the Seahawks dropping TO in every CC in preseason this year.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fr8Train

The old progression system would sometimes progress Awareness for Quarterbacks/Half backs, which play zero role in the performance of the player. But it bumps up the imaginary Overall Rating that the CPU uses to determine trade value.

I agree with this. This is one of the flaws of the old system and would be one of the things that needed tweaking.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fr8Train

Now, is this current system perfect? No. But I actually agree with some of the marketing pieces about this progession system. IF you have a Wide Receiver that has trouble catching the ball, u place him in front of a jugs machine and have him practice catching the balls. With the XP progression, you simulate that buy focusing on the CTH trait... (just one example). I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would like the old way of progression.

Just because a player works on a certain aspect of his game doesn't mean he's gonna get better at it. I'm sure every long time Raiders fan in here knows the name Ricky Dudley. He was big and he was fast, but he couldn't catch a cold. He could be the superstar TE that we needed if he could just catch the ball. I remember them going over and over and over about how he works late catching balls and stuff, but he never learned how to catch lol.

I'll concede to the notion that you want to progress your players YOUR way. I can dig that. Why change the whole system tho. Why not just keep the old way and allow you to distribute the points for each player however you wanted it. If you wanted to get give the WR better catching you would still be able to do it, but his points that he received wouldn't be based on how well he did. Or better yet, a system where there are points that are applied to certain areas automatically then a few few "free" points that you can apply to an area of your choice. There are plenty of alternatives than just performance based progression. With performance based progression, you're essentially saying all other aspects of the game are meaningless as far as progression is concerned and that just isn't the case.

[DUDERMAN]

splff3000, I agree with everything you have stated.

Rewarding players for their superior skill will always create an unbalanced game. It's the main reason I stay away from the Call of Duty games, if you are good enough in those games, you get rewarded with better guns/perks and other special advantages during a game that makes it nearly impossible for an inferior player to ever have a fair chance to build up their skills.

I feel this is the same thing we are doing now in Madden. Unlike COD, I am a very competent player in Madden, and so I'm seeing the advantages when it comes to the XP gain.

This system actually started in last year's Superstar mode. It should have been a sign of things to come but nobody really played the mode to get a feel for how broken this XP system can be. In Madden 12, you could have any superstar have a 99 in every category by mid season of year two. This left the mode almost unplayable because there were no more incentives to play other than for the stats.

I know I started this by saying I agree with everything you have stated so far, however I do disagree that the previous system was good. As many stated before, the old system basically had a predetermined increase or decrease for every player regardless of performance, coaching, etc.

There's a second problem here that needs to be addressed.... player regression. This has plagued Madden for years. Players will progress much fast than they will regress so as long as you keep a young roster, you would be able to have a strong team without fear of any regression. Age is not the only determining factor when it comes to a player losing their skill in real life but it seems to be the only factor in Madden. In the NFL, you see players get worse every year due to a number of reasons. It could be because of a previous injury, or a lack of motivation, or bad coaching, or contract issues, or the occasional mystery reason that can't be determined that will have a good/great player just have a down year. You don't see this at all in Madden.

Winning in the NFL is pretty much a roll of the dice. Everyone believes there are an expert in preseason, only to see their predictions of certain players and teams fail miserably. I see people on this board all the time that want to cry fowl when they get beat as the Patriots against a bad team like the Jags... but this happens in real life every week. I love the DPP that was added last year but it needs to be expanded upon to help with progression/regression.

Whatever the answer is, I feel this needs to be the top priority to perfect for CCM in Madden 14. With a great progression system, everything else will fall into place.

[splff3000]

I agree that regression needs to happen more often and in more cases. I also agree that the old system was flawed as well. I just would have rather them tweaked the old system than trash it in favor of the new performance based system. I know it was flawed. I was just comparing the two progression systems because that's what we know in Madden. Ultimately tho, like you, I just want a more balanced progression system.

[GiantBlue76]

I haven't read EVERY post in the thread so forgive me if this was mentioned. However, one of the biggest problems with this is that it's too universal. Players should have different progression options available to them based on many factors. These factors should include age and position (30 years old for an OL or a QB is still very young as opposed to a HB), injuries, playing time, player character (hard worker/slacker), etc. etc. I think it's ridiculous that you can make CJ get to 99 speed. In real life, how much faster can an NFL athlete make themselves? Sure, they might be able to shave off some of their 40 time, but they aren't going from a 90 to a 99 - EVER! This is something that should be capped realistically or have a threshold for improvement.

I also agree with what one poster mentioned about using multiple backs and things of that nature.

Basically, there are not nearly enough differing factors involved to make this progression system work well.

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by splff3000

I can kinda dig what you're saying, but the x factor in all of this is the human element. You have a human user controlling these players most of the time and all users have different skill levels. If you have any kind of performance based progression you are essentially punishing the less skilled users. What I was suggesting is using performance as some sort of modifier, but in no way would it be the determining factor for any ratings increase. You still need that cap for all ratings IMO. For example, let's say we have a 59 ovr WR this time and he has 60 catches for 1200 yds on the season (which can actually happen in madden based on his speed rating). You get XP points for his yards and decide to raise his low route running rating up. This process continues until his route running is 99 and he's the greatest receiver of all time lol. If you allow any progression based solely on performance you're gonna just make the strong get stronger.

I cut it down for size but the main caveat to my point was that ratings need to effect in-game player performance. That is why I normally don't get into player progression discussion much anymore because it's all kind of moot the way the game play is, imo. Picture the system I am advocating for, where ratings actually differentiate the way players play, not just the end results and I think it all makes more sense in that context. If a User can take control of a lower rated WR and be successful within that players limitations, then that should be rewarded. The repetition of the User catching passes and running route routes with that receiver, should inherently make that receiver better at those things over time. The key is those other variables I mentioned earlier and the level at which the receiver is at to begin with.

Using the original example of a 59 OVR RB having 1200 yards, with the proper system to make User controlling that player different than say a 92 OVR, would mean the User earned progression for that lesser player. Again, there is only so many snaps and so much time to improve all players so IF the game play system accounting for ratings better, getting a 59 OVR RB 1200 yards, would have rhyme and reason, like a ton of carries, which should put more wear-n-tear on the player in the long run and mean less touches for other players.

In a nutshell, with a better ratings based performance system, where for example a lesser WR triggers lesser pass catching technique animations, solid stats would be a reflection of a User putting in the work with that player, not just overriding their limitations with stick skill.