The Evolution of CCM: Progression

[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 PROGRESSION

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.

Progression has been a hot topic for CCM this year. There are some that love it and some, like myself, that hate it. Most would agree tho that the system could be much better. Progression is a big part of the CCM and thus should be a big part in the evolution of CCM. Here we go:

- Combine performance based and non-performance based progression systems

Some say that ratings should be based on performance, but others, like myself, say that performance should be based on ratings. Ratings that should progress independently from performance. So who's right? Actually, if you think about it, both sides are. Yes, if a player performs on the field he should be rewarded...... somewhat, but progression IRL doesn't just happen because of what you see on the field. It also happens because of what you don't see, The meetings, the film study, the developing from coaches, etc. There's definitely mor eto progression than just performance IRL. It should be the same in CCM as well.

So how do we do that? Well, you award XP for meeting goals like the current system, but that XP could only be applied to attributes that determine the "PHY" rating. The attributes that determine the "PHY" rating is different for each position. Of course the amount of XP awarded would have to be smaller since you have less attributes to progress. The progression for attributes that make up the "INT" rating are not controlled by the user. The progression there would work like the old rating system. The attributes that determine the "DUR" rating would be a combination of both ie "Stamina" and "Toughness" could be progressed with XP, while "Injury" could not. This way you have that sense of control that most clubs have over a players progression IRL, but you still have to rely on the player to progress on his own as well.

For example, In my last "evolution of CCM" post I talked about schemes and talked about a man to man corner. With this progression system, the user would be able to progress the CB's SPD, STR, ACC, AGI, MCV, ZCV, PRS, BTK, TAK, STA, TGH ratings. The user would have to rely on the CB's own progression for boosts in PRC, AWR, INJ, and player traits (Yes player traits would progress on their own). What you have is a system where you could have a Jamarcus Russell( all the talent in the world, but just doesn't get it) type of progression or a Danny Woodhead (Not the most talented physically, but works hard) type of progression. It's a dynamic system that gives the user control, but he still has to make the right choice in player to pick up. You can't just pick up a fast safety in the draft or FA and say I'm just gonna up all of his attributes with XP. You still have to find someone that will progress on their own.

The thinking behind this is yes, you can lift weights and get stronger or run sprints or something to increase stamina or work on technique to have better coverage or whatever, but you can't make some one learn and understand. That's something they have to do on their own. You can't make someone work hard(high motor trait), that's something they have to do on their own. If the Raiders could somehow stop Darren McFadden from getting hurt(increasing his INJ) don't you think they would have done it by now? Don't you think if they could have made Jamarcus Russell work harder and understand the game of football better, they would have done it? They have no control over that. They tried all sorts of things for both players, but ultimately it was/is up to the player to improve on his own. This is why it will be important to look at "INT" when picking up FA and scouting draft picks. You no longer have control over how that progresses.

- Dynamic Progression/ Regression

EA already does a pretty good job with altering ratings for hot and cold streaks and things like that. Those adjustments are just temporary tho. The progression/ regression system needs to expand further. If your rb tears his acl, he should be out for the 26 weeks or however long it is for a major injury on the game. When he comes back tho, he shouldn't necessarily be at 100%. H e might take a hit on his SPD or his ACC and have to progress back to where he was before. Some players would take bigger hits than others. All of that could be determined by age, TGH, and INT ratings. Once this starts happening you could start seeing guys get injured and never be the same again or if they are very injury prone, the culmination of multiple injuries can cause serious drops in ratings. The injury would have to affect the right ratings tho ie a hand injury would lower a rb's catch and carry rating, but not necessarily any of his SPD ratings. This is already happening in the game during in game injuries, but once the game is over, the player goes back to 100 health. If you have a leg injury in game and you can return but your spd and accel is lowered for that game, it should carry over to the next week(if serious enough) and then you have to decide if you want to play the player like that or rest him so he can heal. It would make for some tough decisions to be made.

- More times for Regression

I already talked about dynamic regression because of injuries, but there are more reasons for regression besides that and old age. Sometimes guys just get tired of the game and don't feel like working anymore or get lazy. We see it all the time in the league. One season a guy will be like a superstar then a few seasons later, he isn't even in the league. It happens to old and young guys. Regression should be able to hit at any time in a players career, not just when he gets older. How crazy would it be to see your 24yr old 4th year WR start to regress. By the time he's 26, he's not good enough to be on anyone's team. It happens all the time IRL, why not in CCM? Regression in general needs to be more dramatic, but this would really spice up things.

- Player Morale affecting XP and Progression/Regression

In my other "Evolution of CCM" post, I mentioned that player morale should return. It could play a part in progression/regression as well. If a guy isn't happy and is stuck in a place that he doesn't wanna be, he could possibly regress "INT" and get lowered XP for meeting goals. Think of it as him not trying hard because he doesn't like the scheme, the coach, the lack of wins, or whatever it is that has his morale down. Once that player went to a new team and his morale came up his XP comes back up and his "INT" rating comes back up. On the flip side, if the player's morale is sky high and he's loving life he gets boost in XP and his "INT" increase much better. If you enjoy your job, you are usually gonna do better and work harder at it and vice versa.

So what do you guys think? Do you have ideas on where you think or would like progression to go? This is the 2nd of a bunch of "The Evolution of CCM" threads I plan on doing. The first one is here:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...m-schemes.html

So there you have it. I know this was long, but hopefully it's not all in vain and one of the devs or someone sees this before it's too late.

[Dempseylicious23]

Why not have practice experience usable for those intangible stats like play recognition, awareness, etc in addition to your suggestion of more dynamic player regression?

If practice experience awarded is slightly increased (let's say ~avg of 2000 per practice), then it's not really enough to dramatically increase these ratings or really counteract the regression effect, but still allows the user some control in these intangible stats. A system could be implemented where instead of different styles of practices giving your whole team the same experience, you can select drills to run that specifically increase a certain group of players (WR, O or D line, LB, CB+Safeties, etc) at a much higher rate (~4000/practice? Not really sure logistically how this would play out). That way, if you can determine the player who is regressing, then you can focus on that week in and week out. It would be more realistic of a system as well because teams in the NFL tend to work on specific things every week as opposed to just running situation based 11 on 11 man practices.

I don't like having zero control over things that can turn my player into a complete scrub over a matter of a couple of years. I should be allowed a way to counter the effect of the regression to some degree. All in all I do like the concept of dynamic regression, but I'm not sure your suggested implementation is the ideal way to go about the situation.

[splff3000]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dempseylicious23

Why not have practice experience usable for those intangible stats like play recognition, awareness, etc in addition to your suggestion of more dynamic player regression? If practice experience awarded is slightly increased (let's say ~avg of 2000 per practice), then it's not really enough to dramatically increase these ratings or really counteract the regression effect, but still allows the user some control in these intangible stats. A system could be implemented where instead of different styles of practices giving your whole team the same experience, you can select drills to run that specifically increase a certain group of players (WR, O or D line, LB, CB+Safeties, etc) at a much higher rate (~4000/practice? Not really sure logistically how this would play out). That way, if you can determine the player who is regressing, then you can focus on that week in and week out. It would be more realistic of a system as well because teams in the NFL tend to work on specific things every week as opposed to just running situation based 11 on 11 man practices. I don't like having zero control over things that can turn my player into a complete scrub over a matter of a couple of years. I should be allowed a way to counter the effect of the regression to some degree. All in all I do like the concept of dynamic regression, but I'm not sure your suggested implementation is the ideal way to go about the situation.

I like the idea of having the different drills. That's how it was on the PS2 and IMO it was much better and more focused than just playing a game or half or quarter of football. The only problem with that was you could only do it for one player. I also highly doubt we will be seeing any major additions like that to CCM since you hear the devs talking about a lack of disk space already. That's why I'm more focused on logic changes and things like that than actual major additions. I doubt we'll see many of those.

As for you having no control over your player turning into a scrub, it's only his "INT" ratings that you have no control over so he wouldn't be a complete scrub. Also, don't you think teams in real life wish they had control over whether their player turned into a scrub? I'm sure every NFL team doesn't like not having control over there players turning into scrubs lol.

[SloeyEZ]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they've had practices be used for progression before and all they heard back was "uggh, too much work, boring, i just want to play the games..." etc. Those of us who like that kind of work for it progression (and game-play) or in the minority.

All great ideas, mind you, just saying that they did try it, it failed (from the customer feedback perspective), they took it back out.

[KingV2k3]

I've personally been "beating the AWR drum" for a decade...

The rookies and some of the "sophomore season" players have such comparatively low AWR ratings to the guys they have to eventually replace, making it necessary to spend the vast majority of XP points trying to make them play decently...

I saw a bunch of guys on the opening day 2103 FA list who were rookies with decent attributes across the board for their positions, but had AWR in the 10-20 range, making them useless to the CPU controlled teams...

I got a speed back in the 4th round with the aforementioned "decent measurables" , but his AWR rating of 20 makes him a bust...

He routinely runs into the backs of his blockers and can't pass block / pick up a blitz whatsoever...

The devs / roster maker should tighten the AWR range overall, and there should be more ways to make it possible for a young player to develop into a "smart" one...

There's plenty of players in the NFL that rely on "smarts" to overcome deficient measureables or "wily veterans" who make up for their physical decline by their brains...

Until we can use edited rosters and draft classes again, this is going to be an ongoing issue...

I would guess that as the seasons play out and the default roster guys retire, you're left with a league full of relative morons...

[Sotendo]

Well I mean it has potential is a Sports RPG hybrid, but not as a realistic career mode for a sports game.