EA should remove schemes from Madden

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

Even perceived broken would prefer to have players fit with teams differently and have to manage that for the best possible teams if I want, rather than make every player the same value to every team again. Fix them, not remove them. Even 'broken' what we have is better than the alternative.

I would like them to fix it as well instead of removing it. You and I both are using "fix" and "broken" rather loosely. It's working as it was coded and intended to work. But like many things in Madden, I really don't like the implementation. I'm sure you and I both are really saying "implement it much better". And when I say much better, I really mean much more realistically.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by khaliib

You're dealing with two different set of rosters between Play Now and CCM. The Major Issue that is happening that is causing issues with Coach Schemes, is that folks are tampering with player ratings and taking them into CCM. The problem is that Player Types are tied into player ratings. Thus, adjusting these ratings changes the Player Types, which impacts their ratings because of the Coach's Schemes.

Then wouldn't upgrading players attributes through earning XP break this system? And shouldn't on field performance by the player be affected by scheme? It just doesn't seem to be. With GB, Harris at RB with high 60's seems to run even better than Lacey at 86.

I like the idea of schemes, but implement it in a way that makes sense. Implement it in a realistic manner. There should be a significant difference in performance between Lacey and Harris in GB's scheme in Madden.

Also, coaches should value players that might not fit there basic scheme. A team usually has different types of RB's playing different roles. Same with WR's. I'd like to see roster management, including roster AI, be much more realistic so that CPU teams aren't throwing away good players that would have real benefit to the team just because scheme only looks at one type of player at a position.

James Jones had real value with GB, as does Randall Cobb. Both completely different types of receivers.

GB drafted both Lacey and Franklin. Two very different kinds of RB's.

For me to be satisfied with schemes, they would need a major enhancement.

[khaliib]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Then wouldn't upgrading players attributes through earning XP break this system? And shouldn't on field performance by the player be affected by scheme? It just doesn't seem to be. With GB, Harris at RB with high 60's seems to run even better than Lacey at 86. I like the idea of schemes, but implement it in a way that makes sense. Implement it in a realistic manner. There should be a significant difference in performance between Lacey and Harris in GB's scheme in Madden. Also, coaches should value players that might not fit there basic scheme. A team usually has different types of RB's playing different roles. Same with WR's. I'd like to see roster management, including roster AI, be much more realistic so that CPU teams aren't throwing away good players that would have real benefit to the team just because scheme only looks at one type of player at a position. James Jones had real value with GB, as does Randall Cobb. Both completely different types of receivers. GB drafted both Lacey and Franklin. Two very different kinds of RB's. For me to be satisfied with schemes, they would need a major enhancement.

Here lies the big issue with this Madden game.

We can note all day what we feel is wrong with the game, but at the end, the game in the console is what it is. (been there, done that myself)

I understand the function and am able to edit my rosters to enhance how EA intended it to function.

As far as players playing the same, I can't comment on that because there are other variables that have to be considered as to the impact of why they are performing the same.

In my personal rosters, they don't perform the same and fall in-line closer to how players are made in the 30 Draft Schema's noted in the Game Install/Disk.

As far as player OVR, again that number is only for Depth Chart organizing.
It's useless to the Hum user.

But oh well, that's my 2 cents on the subject.
Back to finding the User Defined Camera's.

[DSThom]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

He was released because he's not worth 16M to the new regime. His value to the current regime did change. He renegotiates to half that and he's probably still there. Maybe not, because I don't know what the Bucs cap situation is like. $'s played a big part in this.

Revis, it seems, is worth $12 to a team a team whose scheme he was a better fit for. The Bucs had a lot of cap space to work with, and have spent a bundle retooling their defense to fit Lovie Smith's zone-heavy Cover 2. Revis, an elite shutdown man-to-man corner, is shown the door. Hell, the Bucs even had enough money still lying around to drop $5M a year on a 36 year-old career backup QB.

Change of scheme. Elite player doesn't fit the scheme. Isn't worth the union scale for elite CB--sayonara, baby.

[Trick13]

Revis - to say his release is due to scheme fit is really an over simplification of the facts. Revis plays zone extremely well. His contract was structured to be like 6 one year deals. No guaranteed money, meaning every year he would count 16 million against the cap. Moving to a new defensive scheme did not make Revis unviable in Tampa, his cap number coupled with the fact his high skill level is not required of CBs in that system meant releasing him frees up 16 million to spend in other places. This also allows the Bucs to play someone else (possibly a draft pick) to develop "on the job" in this upcoming season, which will be a rebuilding year for the team. Attempts by the Bucs front office to restructure his contract refute any idea that he was unwanted by the new staff. Revis is a money grubber who was holding out or whining about his contract the last three years he spent with the Jets. At a time of rebuilding and shaping a team - is that the veteran influence you want around what is likely to be a very young locker room?

[Trick13]

Let me say this right away - I have no faith that EA can get this scheme thing right.


I agree that it is a good idea and I also agree that the execution is/was freakin terrible.


The first step to fixing the implementation is to remove the "label" from players. IE no attacking 3-4, balanced 4-3 and so on. It is a pigeon hole job that, is unnecessary and doesn't work.


Guys make the transition from 3-4 to 4-3 (and varying philosophies within those base defenses) every year. Good football players every year do quite well switching positions and schemes - so labeling a player by scheme is very short sighted on EA's part.


Player type is another story - simplifying these types (ie having fewer types per position) is another logical step for EA at this time due to the fact that the playbooks and play designs they utilize in game really make no significant distinctions between systems. Plays appear in multiple playbooks even across teams that have very little actual similarity in terms of run blocking, passing game philosophy and so forth. So to have so many "player types" is superfluous when using cookie cutter playbooks.


Most positions should have no more than three types. balanced and then one way or the other - ie WR speed/balanced/possession, RBs power/balanced/speed.


QBs are the only position where I can see the need for a slightly more elaborate set of player types - only because of the "option" factor. So you would have option/scrambler/balanced/pocket.


Maybe you could make a case for LBs having four as well - pass rusher/coverage/balanced/run support though I think you could get away with pass rusher/balanced/coverage and still within those three cover all the range of deferent LBs in terms of what Madden has to offer on the playbook side of things.


Players should be seen by the CPU in such a way that a 4-3 DE is potentially a 3-4 rush LB and a 3-4 DE might be a potential 4-3 DT. and maybe even beyond that.


JJ Watt is a good example because based on his skills, as rated by EA, he has the size to play any defensive line position in either the 3-4 or 4-3 other than 3-4 NT (as that position you typically see guys who are 300+ lbs and Watt narrowly misses that - listed at 289lbs) but he also has the "raw talent" (again using EA's ratings, not necessarily real life skills) to play at OLB in a 3-4 as a rush LB. I looked him up the other day he has 90+ STR,PMV,BSH,ACC - 88 FMV - mid 80s SPD, AGI.. With those ratings he fits any system at nearly any position - in fact he would likely be very good (in Madden anyway) at NT in a 3-4 because size (weight) actually has no bearing on game play and his very high STR/BSH would allow you to utilize him there.


So why in the game would any CPU team that has a need not see him as a viable option in any one of those positions? Well, cuz he is "labeled" a "3-4 attacking" player. If he were in FA in Madden CFM he should be targeting for signing by any team with money to spend and a need at any one of 4 positions within two different base defenses 3-4 OLB+DE, 4-3 DE+DT. But this doesn't happen in Madden.


Then you take all of that and mix in the fact that the CPU has no way to develop backups (no simulated practice XP), the bizarre stupidity of M25 draft classes, you know what I am talking about 90 spd DTs and 64 spd FSs, and what you get is the CPU can not keep up with even the most simple minded human "owners" in terms of roster management.


I am not saying, just for the record, that I think JJ Watt would actually be moved IRL to another position. I do know that he lines up both at DE and DT in the nickel/dime defenses which most teams are in 50+ percent of their defensive snaps so I do believe he could be successful in a 4-3 at either DT/DE. The point is regardless of the reality of him moving positions IRL - his ratings in Madden should have him extremely valuable to any team running any "base" defense. And that is only one example, there are plenty of guys whose ratings should place them in the CPU's view as viable options in multiple schemes. And there are more players in the NFL that can successfully play multiple positions than there are guys who are "one trick ponies".

[DSThom]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trick13

Revis - to say his release is due to scheme fit is really an over simplification of the facts. Revis plays zone extremely well. His contract was structured to be like 6 one year deals. No guaranteed money, meaning every year he would count 16 million against the cap. Moving to a new defensive scheme did not make Revis unviable in Tampa, his cap number coupled with the fact his high skill level is not required of CBs in that system meant releasing him frees up 16 million to spend in other places. This also allows the Bucs to play someone else (possibly a draft pick) to develop "on the job" in this upcoming season, which will be a rebuilding year for the team. Attempts by the Bucs front office to restructure his contract refute any idea that he was unwanted by the new staff. Revis is a money grubber who was holding out or whining about his contract the last three years he spent with the Jets. At a time of rebuilding and shaping a team - is that the veteran influence you want around what is likely to be a very young locker room?

Scheme changed. "[H]is high skill level is not required of CBs in that system [new Cover 2 scheme]." He gets released and signed for $12M by a team whose scheme he fits. So you conclude it's not scheme change that made him expendable but the mythical bad lockeroom presence?

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by DSThom

Scheme changed. "[H]is high skill level is not required of CBs in that system [new Cover 2 scheme]." He gets released and signed for $12M by a team whose scheme he fits. So you conclude it's not scheme change that made him expendable but the mythical bad lockeroom presence?

No, it's $'s. It's cost/benefit. Is he worth 16M in that scheme to that coaching staff and front office? The question is $'s, NOT ability. Revis has the ability to play in that SCHEME. We are talking about Madden dropping Revis's OVERALL ABILITY because of SCHEME. We are talking about Madden making Revis a 70 something player instead of a 90 something player because of SCHEME. His ability to PLAY the SCHEME doesn't drop in real life, his $ value does. If he agreed to restructure and make less, he's still with the team.

Madden schemes are just not sophisticated enough to really be useful. I would be OK with CPU teams dropping/releasing players over $/cap values because of scheme, but not dropping someone's ability because of scheme. Really, attributes should define what scheme a person fits into, not some static label. And as a player develops through the years, their abilities might change to fit multiple schemes. The way schemes are setup in Madden, just don't make sense. I want them to make sense.