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

[PGaither84]

I guess what also upsets me is the game detemining how good a player is. If my performs well, he should be ratted well. If I cannot get J.T. O'Somthing or other to do well becasue he sucks, that's becasue he sucks. But if I can get Alex Smith in the video game to do well, he should be rewarded for his solid play.

I will admit fater this descussion I am more on the fence before than when i started, but i still don't like the idea of no matter how hard I play or try my guy's just wont get there becasue of some "max cap" placed on them. That just bothers me. I accept the physical aspect, but the metnal bothers me becasue i have seen people who struggle in hose areas get over that hump. I wouldn't mind if it took longer to get a player better, slower progressionadn maybe they never get there, but to stop at some arbitrarry point set in the game is upsetting. Opps, we can't put you into Calculus because you maxed out on Algebra II [even though you aced algebra II.]

[PGaither84]

having a guy at 92 to start the year, rush for 2000 yards and end the year at 92 would pi$$ me off to no end. Maybe I should get over t, but how would that not be frustrating?

[Blkcanes]

I would like to know if we all would be getting the latter for their Potential after we have spent a great amount of time scouting the players we want to draft or is that the first thing we see when looking up a player? I think it would better if the grading was something like this

A= 90-99
B= 89-80
C= 79-70

Less time consuming I believe. A lot more fun seeing we have to actually work that player to see where his Potential will reach. (after spending a great amount of time studying him of course) If he's a B potential let us find out if it is a high 80's or the low 80's, let us find out for our selves after some seasons.

How does this affect the people that use NCAA draft class does this affect us or is it the same as if we had random players?

[ghostlight85]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

having a guy at 92 to start the year, rush for 2000 yards and end the year at 92 would pi$$ me off to no end. Maybe I should get over t, but how would that not be frustrating?

Because I would take it for what it really should be... an aberration. Or better yet, Jamal Lewis. Sometimes it is the system, or the Offensive Line, or just a really good year. Obviously there need to be guys that just outperform their rating, and guys that underperform, but for the most part I don't want 92 rated running backs to be able to get 2,000 yards? And even if they do, it probably would more likely cause them to decrease because of wear and tear. They aren't a better player afterward. They are a more accomplished player.

Why is he getting 2,000 yards, he's only a fringe elite player? That's what I'd be asking. Maybe tie CONTRACTS into production more rather than only overall. Maybe that's what we should do. Seeing as that's the ACTUAL reward that players get for production, not an arbitrary and unrealistic ratings increase.

[kcarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

having a guy at 92 to start the year, rush for 2000 yards and end the year at 92 would pi$$ me off to no end. Maybe I should get over t, but how would that not be frustrating?

It would not frustrate me at all. I would realize that his ratings were what allowed the great season and not the other way around.

[DLaren]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nza

Here's the thing though. Those happened because the random generator wasn't implemented correctly, not because it's a flawed concept. It seems to me the generator should just be made better. It's basic programming to define a condition (like a player's position) that dictates possible values (like the acceptable facemask ID's). Making a static class as a human involves no decisions and restrictions that can't be entirely replicated by a computer program. In fact, a well made computer program used to generate classes would also free up human time and resources to do something else other than make classes - it's kinda what computers were designed for. Not trying to be an *** Josh, but the negatives you listed in the original post for a generated class system are simply design issues that could be fixed and I think are selling the concept short. Fairly simple algorithms can make sure certain attributes like SPD and ACC are relational.

Nza, I'm not trying to soften your stance here because like you, I'd still prefer the randomly generated rookies. However, I do believe that if we are able to have all of the benefits that accompany hand-crafted rookies (game balance, back-stories, ect.), while preserving the advantages that come with randomly generated rookies (unpredictability, replay-value, ect.), then ultimately everyone will be very happy with the end result.

Again, I'm not trying to change your opinion, but if the Madden team can give us the best of both worlds (which is what they're attempting to do based on this blog-update), then we may be in for something very special here.

[canes21]

Quote: Originally Posted by red butler

I agree and will add to your comment. How much did the o-line contribute to gaining 2000 yards? Look at all the Broncos running backs that put up great numbers in their system, get traded, and never produce those numbers again. Are runningbacks in a platoon system less talented than teams with only 1 back? Football is a team game, a players stats are heavily dependent on players around them and the system they play in. That's why I don't think a player should get any attribute increases based on stats. Certainly a player will get better with playing time and practice; but coaching, work ethic, and intelligence have more impact on getting better than rushing for 100 yards per game. I'd be fine with pre-determined progression.

Clinton Portis?

[Tito78]

I like the letter grade idea rather than a specific numerical rating; However, either way, in my opinion it's better if that rating is hidden from the user.

My issue is basically knowing the ceiling of a player's ability. It doesn't allow for there to be overachievers, just underachievers. If the potential rating was hidden, and the user is given projections( potential ratings that may or may not be accurate)by the coaches/scouts. It would add a lot more depth to franchise mode in madden 10.