The Evolution of CCM: Schemes

[splff3000]

Well, if you bought Madden on opening day like myself you are very familiar with CC now. The devs have stated that they spent the time to create CC so they could be more efficient with their time when it comes to updating offline franchise, online franchise, and superstar mode. They're all into one now. We all know that when it was initially released was quite a mess, but now that a lot of things have been patched(need a patch for the salary cap glitch please) we are starting to really see the potential for some good things here. If you say there is no potential then you really are blatantly hating on the game. Yes this iteration has it's problem, but the potential here is great. Anyway, the potential got me to thinking about the next stage of CC or how it will evolve from this or, more specifically, how I think it should evolve or could evolve. This time I'm talking about SCHEMES.

Note: This stuff only pertains to coach mode CC. I have not played the player mode so I don't know anything about that. If it fits for player mode as well then great lol.

The offensive and defensive schemes idea is a good one. It's a shame that it's so poorly done and that it doesn't affect anything. For Madden 14, I'd like to see schemes evolve more so that they have an actual impact on the game and who you decide to pick up. They should also be more dynamic for the players. Here we go:

- Run schemes/Pass scheme for offense ( Rush scheme/ Pass coverage Scheme for defense)

Schemes need to be broken down to be more specific to certain areas of the game. For instance, right now we have a power running scheme for offense, but what about the pass game on that team. Why should a WR be stuck with a power run scheme, when he catches passes? There should be a run scheme and a pass scheme. In this case, the run scheme could be power run and that applies to all rb's and the oline(since pass blocking is basically the same everywhere you go) and the pass scheme cold be vertical pass and this would be applied to the TE's, WR's, and QB. Now things are starting to make sense. You don't look out in free agency and see a WR with a power run scheme tag on him. You see a Vertical Pass tag on him, which gives you more of an idea of what that receiver is used to.

The defensive schemes are broken down similarly. You have a rush defensive scheme which would be something like base 4-3, zone blitz, or attacking 3-4 or something like that. This would apply to the D line and the LB's. Then you would have a pass coverage scheme or secondary scheme which would b something like Tampa 2 or Man to man or Heavy Zone or something of that sort. So if you saw a safety in free agency it'd say the scheme he was in was Tampa 2 or something like that. You'd have a better idea about that safety. You'd know he's more used to playing cover 2 and prolly has ratings focused more on zone coverage.

- Scheme changes affect ratings

Now we got our schemes more specific for each area, but what's to stop me from just going and picking guys up from a different scheme with no consequence like it is right now. Well now since schemes are more specific for each area, scheme changes should affect ratings. The "INT" ratings like AWR, PRC, PUR, etc should take a hit with a move to a different scheme. This is to simulate a player getting used to a new scheme. The more drastic the move, the more it affects ratings. For example if you sign a man to man CB coming from a man to man pass coverage scheme and you go to a Tampa 2 scheme that has CB player type set to Zone, you should take a pretty significant hit. On the flip side, if you sign a Zone CB coming from a Heavy Zone defensive scheme into a Tampa 2 defense with zone CB player type, the hit should be minimal. Here's a breakdown of all the choices for this scenario:

Old Team Scheme/Actual Player Type - New Team Scheme/ New Team Player Type = Results

- Man/ Man - Tampa 2/ Zone = significant INT hit
- Man/ Zone - Tampa 2/ Zone = moderate INT hit
- Heavy Zone / Man - Tampa 2/ Zone = moderate INT hit
- Heavy Zone / Zone - Tampa 2/ Zone = minimal INT hit
- Tampa 2 / Man - Tampa 2 / Zone = no INT hit
- Tampa 2 / Zone - Tampa 2 / Zone = no INT hit

So you can kinda see what I'm getting at now. This would work for all the schemes and player types.

- Players schemes/types can change

Let's stick with the CB that you just signed in the example above. He is a man to man CB coming from a man to man pass coverage scheme. He has taken his hit for you signing him into a Tampa 2 pass coverage scheme with a Zone player type. Well,he has a good season and by the end of the season, his zone coverage rating is higher than his man coverage rating and his "INT" ratings are back up to were they were before. What happens now? Well on Madden 13, nothing does. I'd like to see that change. I'd like to see him become a balanced CB or some other type of CB because it's obvious that he's not just a man to man CB anymore. Also, he's been in that scheme for a year so he's prolly gotten used to it by now. During the offseason, I'd like to see that CB go from a man to CB that's good for a man to man scheme to a Balance CB (or zone if his zone coverage is significantly higher) or something similar that can play in either a man to man OR Tampa 2 scheme. That way if it doesn't work out in his 2nd season in the Tamp 2 scheme and he goes back to a man to man team, he won't take a hit for changing schemes because he's been in a man to man scheme before.

- Can't change schemes during the season

A player is more inclined to resign with you if you run the same scheme that he's used to. What isn't cool about that is that you can change your scheme anytime you choose. Say I'm running a vertical offense all season, but now in week 8 I see my star WR want's to resign. He like balanced offense tho, so I just go change my scheme for him until I resign then change it back after he signs. That ain't right. The only time you should be able to change your scheme is during the offseason. That way, you're stuck with the scheme for a full season and can't change it at will to help with signings.

- Rookies have college schemes

It irks me to no end to scout a rookies scheme and see vertical offense or something like that. That's not really a scheme I see in college. I wanna see triple option or 3-3-5 or Air Raid or pro style or something like that. Just look at the NCAA football game. They already have all the schemes in there. Then when that rookie joins an NFL team he get's designated a new scheme that matches the club he joined. Of course he would have to be in the scheme for a while (Just like the man to man CB above) before that happens. Also depending on what scheme he joins will determine his initial "INT" ratings. If he was a triple option QB and joins a Spread Pass offense in the NFL, his "INT" ratings shouldn't be that high. It's almost the complete opposite of what he's been doing. On the flip side, if he was in an Air Raid scheme in college and joins a Spread offense, his "INT" should be decent as it's almost the same thing he's been doing.

AND FINALLY..........

- Bring back player morale

For those that don't know player morale was a big thing for Madden on the PS2. It pretty much told you how the player felt. If you had a player that had low morale, there was a good chance that he wasn't gonna resign with you or if he did, he was gonna ask way over the amount he was worth. On the flip side, if a player's morale was very high, he might give you a discount to resign with you. It affected other things like how he performed on the field and stuff, but I'm focusing on the resign part for this. basically I want scheme and everything that I just talked about to be PART of what determines a players morale and have morale determine how much for and how willing a player is to resign. That way if you decide to pick someone up that doesn't match your scheme, it's only part of the equation of his morale and not all.

So there you have it. I know it's long, but hopefully it's not all in vain and one of the devs or someone sees this before it's too late. I talked about a lot of things I'd like to see in the evolution of schemes. What are some things you'd like to see or expect to see?

The 2nd thread in my "Evolution of CCM" series is here:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2044435297

[KingV2k3]

I tried to go Tampa 2 with my CLE CCM, where the D players were Base 4-3 guys...

As you mentioned, it negatively affected Man Coverage / INT / Pass Rush

I also went "Spread" to go with my choice of Playbooks (Vermeil) although default and majority of players are West Coast...

Not a big of a difference, IMHO...

Still:

In 2013, I decided to keep those 2 Books (Vermeil / Tampa 2) but change scheme back to WC / Base 4-3

I noticed immediately that gameflow calls different plays out of those same books...

More of the WC plays in the Vermeil O, which is kind of a pass first / vertical / WC and more Man D out of the Tampa book (which I like because it's 4-3 based with the Tampa 2 Zone D, which I like and 46)...

It's pretty "layered" what imposing scheme on top of player styles, created HCs and playbooks do...

I also have been recommending that you make sure your individual player styles from your depth chart match the setting in the scheme menu...

Makes players play better when the setting is the same as their style...

I even change those when injuries happen and different guys start...

Interesting stuff...

Oh, and nice post, OP...

[DeuceDouglas]

I think they should make the player types adapt and adjust to a players attributes. I just signed a WR in my last offseason because it said he was a "Possession" receiver. Once he was signed I come to find out he has 75 for Catch and 71 for Catch in Traffic. Not a possession receiver.

As for the CB scenario, I feel like the ratings hit is still accomplished somewhat. If he is a Man-to-Man corner, more than likely his zone ratings aren't going to be as high and he is going to suffer from playing in a more zone oriented scheme with his lower zone ratings. The question then becomes, does a CB with 90 MCV and 90 ZCV take the same ratings hit as would a CB with 95 MCV and 50 ZCV coming from the same man-to-man scheme?

[TMJOHNS18]

They should incorporate a learning rating like HC had. Make it so that certain guys can adapt to new schemes while others struggle or can't adapt.

What would be interesting is if they got rid of most of the position ratings (Man and Zone for your CB example) and used learning and scheme in place. A man to man CB who transitions to tampa 2 and has a high learning ability can adapt to it and excel in his new situation. A guy with low learning will struggle and may never truly fit it.

Add in morale, and we can all have our own Haynesworth saga. Get a guy with the talent and ability, but throw him in a new scheme with low morale and just watch him cash his checks and not give a darn.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

As for the CB scenario, I feel like the ratings hit is still accomplished somewhat. If he is a Man-to-Man corner, more than likely his zone ratings aren't going to be as high and he is going to suffer from playing in a more zone oriented scheme with his lower zone ratings. The question then becomes, does a CB with 90 MCV and 90 ZCV take the same ratings hit as would a CB with 95 MCV and 50 ZCV coming from the same man-to-man scheme?

Ah, I thought about this as well. Since the MCV and ZCV ratings represent the actual physical act of covering, I figure they would have no bearing on how big of a hit he took. I think of them as how well you cover when you're told to cover, not actually knowing what coverage to use. I think the initial "INT" rating should determine how big of a hit you take. Honestly, I wouldn't care if it was random(within a certain range) just as long as it happened.

[KingV2k3]

In 2013, I decided to switch my CLE D back to Base 43 from my imposed Tampa 2, to see if it helped them "play better"...

Well, it seems they're playing the pass D game a lot WORSE...

Do you think that when you create a coach and decide on your original schemes, the game will still favor that you stick to that as the seasons play out?

I'm tempted to go back to Tampa 2 (even though my players are overwhelmingly Base 43) to help get my D preforming better versus the pass...

OR:

Do you think that running a Base 43 scheme creates a "conflict" with my Tampa 2 book, that I kept so I can use the 46?

Interesting, nonetheless...

[splff3000]

Honestly, I don't think your scheme changes when you change it. For example I play as the Raiders and their scheme is Vertical Offense. I changed it to Balanced Offense but other than the words "Balanced Offense" written everywhere for my scheme, I can't tell any difference anywhere else in the game. The game shipped with you not being able to change schemes and I'm willing to bet that even tho you change the scheme in the strategies section, the scheme doesn't really change in the game.

That's just based on what I've seen tho. There may be someone out there that's seeing something different when they change their scheme. Also as for your playbook conflicting with your scheme, I'm about 98.9% that the playbook you choose has nothing to do with scheme.

[KingV2k3]

Quote: Originally Posted by splff3000

Honestly, I don't think your scheme changes when you change it. For example I play as the Raiders and their scheme is Vertical Offense. I changed it to Balanced Offense but other than the words "Balanced Offense" written everywhere for my scheme, I can't tell any difference anywhere else in the game. The game shipped with you not being able to change schemes and I'm willing to bet that even tho you change the scheme in the strategies section, the scheme doesn't really change in the game. That's just based on what I've seen tho. There may be someone out there that's seeing something different when they change their scheme. Also as for your playbook conflicting with your scheme, I'm about 98.9% that the playbook you choose has nothing to do with scheme.

Well, I switched it back to Tampa 2 and my pass defense played noticeably better...

It's impossible to "prove" or quantify, but it really SEEMS as though when you set your scheme when creating a coach, the gameplay is better when you stick to that scheme...

It's almost like the "default" scheme I chose when I created the HC was in "confilct" when I tried to change it for a few games...

I agree that the playbook doesn't seem to have an effect, but gameflow obviously calls VERY different plays when I'm "Tampa 2" as opposed to "Base 43"...

Ker-azy...