Update on feedback from yesterday's franchise blog...

[xanmank]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rico

I'm fine with premade rookies as described. I never got any decent random players anyway. On the topic of potential, though, I really feel that making it optional is the best way to go. I get that it's being used as a check/balance to the progression algorithms, which is now clearly handled at both extremes (min and max), and that salary cap algorithms may be kind of wonky...but if people want to turn off the limits to the detriment of realism, I say they should have the option. Same with letter grades or even visible grades at all. Might as well make them optional. Personally, I like hard numbers. I never felt like they were truly hard numbers in Head Coach because there were so many different schemes that a guy's potential/overall ratings could easily vary by 10 or more points depending on schemes anyway. It meant that I focused less on their overall rating and more on how they fit my system, but the difference between an 81 and an 84 still mattered to me occasionally. Are individual attributes going to still have visible potential maxes, like in HC? I was sad to find that some players were never going to be smarter than a box of rocks, regardless of their 90+ OVR (Vernon Gholston, I'm looking at you) but I was occasionally able to work them in anyway. If two players are graded "A" but you can see the individual attribute maxes, what's so bad about seeing a 94 versus a 97? For the people who suggest that ratings need to occasionally be wrong...Honestly, I think I'd prefer accurate potential ratings and more random events screwing them up than being lied to by the system. If a guy has 95 potential and he never gets close in his career because he doesn't get touches or maybe he keeps getting hurt and his potential drops (Felix Jones, I'm looking at you), or he's only got 81 potential and I plan to use him as a career backup but his numbers meet some threshold triggering a random chance for his potential to go up (it felt like I never got cool/useful gamebreakers in HC, by the way, only crappy or useless ones), then I'm happy. I feel like the vagaries of fate should be left outside my roster tables, though. If I'm given a number, or a letter grade, I don't want to have to think about whether it's a lie. I tend to spend at least as much time fiddling with rosters as I do playing the actual games on my schedule (especially with the various issues in gameplay and franchise mode in current editions). Head Coach was immensely satisfying in that regard. So if making the setting optional (no potential limits, invisible limits, letter grades, or visible numbers) is out, I vote for visible numbers. Yeah, you can "cheat" I suppose, even if in theory you'd be playing with invisible limits the temptation to peek might be there. Whatever. I don't play Madden or other video games for other people's enjoyment, I play them for mine. I like numbers. I have spreadsheets full of the launch roster ratings I pulled from the interweb well before the last couple of launch days, so I could comb over what players I'd try to get. I'd prefer that scheme play a role in rating, like in Head Coach, though.

WOW.... I could not have said it any better than this post. These are my thoughts exactly and I agree with everything mentioned

[94niners]

Quote: Originally Posted by Josh_Looman

Wanted to check in with you guys and clarify some points from yesterday's blog. First...Potential and Progression. Lots of good feedback from you guys on the potential rating being visible vs. hidden. Would you rather see something like a letter grade?[...] One more thing...let me know if you'd rather see a number for potential or something more ambiguous like a letter. I like how that works in games like MLB: The Show and I'm curious to see what you guys think.

A letter grade... would be AWESOME! If you can get it in.


Premade rookies, the way you describe it, ALSO are awesome. You are the man, Mr. Looman.

[Jobu]

If you could make the restricted free agency work and have free agency in its right spot - that would make things so much easier!

[Rico]

Quote: Originally Posted by xanmank

WOW.... I could not have said it any better than this post. These are my thoughts exactly and I agree with everything mentioned

Heh, I wondered if anyone would read it. Apparently OSes computers think I'm a very long-winded spambot so it took a while before a moderator (Thanks, Acid!) had a chance to review it and let it through, by which time there were several more pages after it.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by ghostlight85

I totally agree. I was more saying I don't want a 92 (or a 99) RB to be able to put up back to back 2,000 yard seasons all that easily. I am with you on fringe elite guys being able to do it, but what I'm saying is that you should still be able to tell he's a 92 and not a 99.

I agree 2000 yard seasons should be a true feat once in a lifetime deal that takes perfect situations and a great overall roster along with a great back who runs the ball a lot and doesn't do much sharing carries. It should really take the stars aligning perfectly. Same with 5000 yard passing seasons, 45 touchdown passing seasons, 20 touchdown rushing seasons etc. I want it to feel like I acomplished something if I do this because I want this to be extremely tough to do.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rico

Heh, I wondered if anyone would read it. Apparently OSes computers think I'm a very long-winded spambot so it took a while before a moderator (Thanks, Acid!) had a chance to review it and let it through, by which time there were several more pages after it.

I read it and agreed on some parts. I agree the system needs to determine overall potential and overall rating. I also really liked how they had production play into overall raising or lowering overall ratings without actually raising or lowering player abilities. A lot of things about those more fluid overall ratings just really made a lot of sense.

As far as the caps on individual ratings though I am going to have to disagree with you. Yes Ghoston was about as smart as a gravel pile in the game and couldn't get past that. There were a lot of players like that. However this really added some variety because it gave the opportunity for workout warriors to fail due to not being football smart. However I did have some success with gholston using himas a pass rusher on third downs. Never used him beyond that because he would make to many plays to put him on the field any more than that. The big thing I liked about this though was it made you draft smart and actually look at players before drafting them.

As far as the option to turn off potential caps, I am all for options but I don't see them being able to do this and have a balanced system both ways so I feel one side or the other will be greatly cheated here. I would prefer they did one system right and as the potential cap makes sense in terms of making a "sim" game I prefer that one.

As far as the letters or numbers it would be easy to make this an option so I am all for making this an option.

As far as you being longwinded, maybe but I ussually lean toward the long winded side as well. Never had to get mod approval though so congrats on that.

[Rico]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

I would consider jamal and TD to be fringe elite players and that is 40% of players who have rushed for 2000 yards in a season. Something you have to realize about this is a fringe elite player is a guy who if he plays as expected should be the topic of "should he get into the HOF" discussions. Truly elite players will if they perform as expected be the nobrainers while these lower 90's are borderline in that area.

As a Broncos fan, calling Terrell Davis a "fringe elite player" hurts. But given your definition, is pretty accurate. While he was clearly an amazing player (when healthy), he may not make it into the HOF. And really, I think he's a prime example of how the potential system can be awesome. I mean, even if he only had a potential of 90-92 (many I know would debate that), after a couple of years he was there, had an amazing couple of seasons, then got hurt and his career was, effectively, over.

Potential doesn't guarantee success, or even necessarily equate directly with production. If you take many of the running backs the Broncos had afterwards, there were a lot of middling guys with fairly mediocre potential, but the system made them as good as they could be. You could argue that Shanahan's system made running backs overperform, and regardless of their stats any given year they don't necessarily deserve to be promoted to upper echelon guys.

System players are, sadly, quite sim. Players outperforming their contracts, like Portis did, can be traded because the team knows they've got a system which means the other running backs will still produce. Not as well individually, but they can still produce. Someone brought up Peyton Hillis. I like him a lot, and think he's one of the best backs the Broncos have had in a while. Still, I'd play him at fullback in Madden. Smart blocker, great hands (I still can't believe he held onto the ball on the play that ended his season). I like speedsters at tailback. I also know that the Broncos run system made Peyton look better than he might otherwise have been when he carried it. Besides, a talented fullback that balances blocking, running, and catching is really hard to find. In fact, I'd wager good money that it is the hardest position in the game to get a high OVR in...nearly every player I scouted and stuck at fullback in Madden 09 went down in rating...with the singular notable exception of Hines Ward, who apparently missed his calling at FB.

[Rico]

Quote: Originally Posted by kcarr

As far as the caps on individual ratings though I am going to have to disagree with you. Yes Ghoston was about as smart as a gravel pile in the game and couldn't get past that.

As you mentioned, he was a good blitzer. I picked him out of FA (he was cut after an abysmal rookie season) for a reasonable price and he became a fairly full-time pass rusher, which was great in my 3-4 system. He was kind of like a trained dog.

Quote:

As far as the option to turn off potential caps, I am all for options but I don't see them being able to do this and have a balanced system both ways so I feel one side or the other will be greatly cheated here. I would prefer they did one system right and as the potential cap makes sense in terms of making a "sim" game I prefer that one.

Yeah, I think the way Looman described salary cap risks from high potential drafts...it would cause problems to have no potential caps. I kind of feel like it's the player's right to have a screwed up NFL where every year he has to figure out how to sign all his superstars or find their generic equivalents that he'll have to cut in another three seasons due to contract issues.

In other words, balance it for potential and give the option anyway. Let players edit it outside of franchise as well, just like everything else in the rosters. I'm pretty sure I'll leave it turned on in 90% of my franchises.

Quote:

As far as you being longwinded, maybe but I ussually lean toward the long winded side as well. Never had to get mod approval though so congrats on that.

Heh, it happened twice. But I'm new and type fast, so that undoubtedly skewed it.