FIX FRANCHISE MODE: Remove Potential Rating.

[Argooos]

I know it'll probably never happen because people are too used to potential, but I think the name itself is what needs changing.
Potential, by definition, can never be exceeded. Thus in game in needs to be a hard cap. Since it's visible to us as players we instantly know what a player's cap is for their playing abilities. Thus, if we see a player has F potential, there is no point in using them unless they are already useful, because they will never become more useful than they already are.

I propose removing Potential and replacing it with "talent". Talent would function exactly the same as potential but could be exceeded. If a player performs extremely well they would be able to progress beyond their talent grade. Once above their talent level they would progress much more slowly, but at least progression would not cease entirely.

For this to work we would also have to view OVR not so much as a measure of a players abilities, but as a representation of how that player will likely perform on the field. After all, OVR is determined by on-field play in the first place. Talent would then represent what a player's actual abilities are. Progression happens when a player's performance approaches that player's abilities, or Talent. When a player is performing at a level that you would expect from someone of his talent, his Talent rating and his OVR would match. If he was performing above what you'd expect from someone of his talent, his OVR would be slightly higher than his Talent level.

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrewsLions

On behalf of all of us, thanks for doing that. Hopefully, they listen and understand that you represent the masses. Was this a recent submission or something sent several years ago? I'd like to think they are considering it for Madden '12 (unofficially dubbed "The Year of the Franchise").

Right off the bat, based on Phil's statement prior to E3, I get the sense that M13 is actually the year of the Franchise. I don't mean to be a downer, but that's how I read it, and i know I'm not alone.

Anyways: This was a very recent submission, about 2 weeks ago.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrewsLions

Yeah, maybe I should have put "hide" instead. I agree that most players do have a potential cap, but there are also many examples of those whose potential shifts... i.e. Tony Romo.

See, the thing is about applying real life examples of this is that we don't know what Romo's potential was.

Maybe his potential never "shifted" but he just had slow progression for a while, then took off suddenly and he performance increased accordingly.

This is where a more dynamic player development/progression system would help. We could get "late bloomers" that just take a while, and one team might say "this guy is a sucker" and cut him or deal him for cheap, but then the team that takes the flier on him benefits from his late blooming and looks like a genius.

We could have guys that develop like gangbusters out of the gate, but then stagnate for 3 years at some level, only to then develop again later on - or maybe they flame out fast.

We need more career arcs in Madden for sure. Right now it's all progress until X age then regress until retirement. Too uniform and boring and that's not realistic.

Quote: Originally Posted by DrewsLions

What I don't like about the potential rating is that the caps are so stringent. A "B" potential player can never be a 90 rating. How about a little randomized fluctuation? Like player X who is a "B" has a potential spectrum of 75 to 93, while player Z has a potential spectrum of 70 to 86. Both can still be a good "B" level players, but each has his own randomized cap.

I had assumed that's the way it worked. I guess I'm too used to OOTP where that's exactly how it works for any of the more "wide" scales. I.e. a "3" on the 1-5 talent scale is anywhere from 41 to 60 on the 1 to 100 scale. A "5" on the 1-10 scale is a 41-49 on the 1 to 100 scale.

So a hitter with 3/3/3/3/3 in all 5 hitting ratings (1-5 scale) could end up like 54/48/41/58/48 - but you'd never know it just from the talent ratings.

I absolutely agree with you here if that's not how Madden works currently.

Quote: Originally Posted by DrewsLions

I think potential should be hidden AND have a randomized range.

I would agree 100%

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Xeper84

-yea if a player does well with his 69 ovr in franchise why should he improve? He will not jump higher or run faster because he had a good season!

I think the thought process is that the player will be higher regarded by scouts/analysts and the ratings should increase reflect that.

I think that's backwards (like you said, players don't get better after having good performances - they get better, then are more likely to have good performances) and I also think it's forgetting that stats are as much a product of system and role (and in a video game, difficulty level and AI limitations) as they are player ability. A C- player having a good year is probably because he's used well in the system (or the difficultly settings, or AI limitation allowing the user to fairly burn the AI - like M10 and it's difficulty covering slot WR), instead of him actually being an A-grade player that for some reason is regard as below average.

Of course, it should be difficult for a C- player to even have a really great season, but that's probably another issue.

[tseliottt]

Ok. Well the thing is, I like potential. I think it's necessary as I said in the OP, but it shouldn't be the only thing dictating progression. And most of all, it shouldn't be shown.

The problem I have with it mostly, is that it's shown right after you sign a player. You could literally sign all the free agents and rookies with no signing bonus, and cut all of the players with C, D, and F potentials.






What they SHOULD have is a range for all players. Like 40-80 or 50-90 or something like that. And this range should be hidden. How a player progresses should be found using an equation that considers factors like coaching, statistics, team success, veteran teammates, AND potential.

But since this probably won't happen, they should just remove potential entirely. Or hide it at least.

[Argooos]

If they aren't going to fix it, then they should certainly hide it.
What I'd like to see (if potential is going to work the same as it currently does) is a system where you learn a player's potential only after they have been on your team for, lets say, 3 seasons.

[Deelron]

Quote: Originally Posted by Argooos

What I'd like to see (if potential is going to work the same as it currently does) is a system where you learn a player's potential only after they have been on your team for, lets say, 3 seasons.

Or (assuming it stays) that it gives a range of numbers that narrow down the longer the player is on your team, modified by your coaches new rating "talent assessment". Say you draft a 3rd round player, it'll give his potential range (for example) as something like 60-85, then year two depending how he develops (hopefully mostly randomly, not a fan of performance development) maybe it narrows down to 68-83, and in year 3 it goes to 75-81, and by year 4 he basically is what he's going to be (generally speaking).

A better coach rating could track the range better, or narrow in on it better, and a player who was actually getting worse could narrow in the opposite way, say 60-85, 64-78, 68-74, final. I certainly believe that potential should be shown, but it should be what the coaching staff thinks about the player based upon what they would be seeing on film and in practice, and eventually they would know generally know what they had.

[menglish20]

-Potential should stay, but should be hidden until the player plays for a certain amount of time. (And while it's hidden, don't let it be sortable so you know who has top/bottom potential which you could do in '10)

-OVR should be removed or fixed or simply ignored. I hate when 3-4 teams go after 290lb DT's just because their OVR's are a few points higher than a true NT. Who a team goes after in the draft and in FA should be determined by the system that the team runs

-For example, a 3-4 team would look for huge NTs, generally larger DEs, and pass rushing OLBs. They don't want the same types of players as a 4-3 team would. There should be more focus on HT/WT and specific ratings, not simply overall.

-Also, let your system be determined by coaches, and have potential/growth be influenced by the quality of your coaches.

-This can hold true for offense as well. Some teams zone block and require certain types of lineman for their scheme. In a WCO, a more accurate quarterback is needed than in a vertical offense which requires a more strong armed QB.

-Teams also want variety in their positions. You don't want 5 speed receivers, or 3 receiving TEs. Or 3 power backs. Teams want variety, a mix of possession, speed, and tall receivers. Blocking and receiving TEs and elusive and power running backs.

-Based on your offensive scheme, certain players will excel, though not necessarily be better than other players. Wes Welker is perfect for NE's system, but would likely struggle as a number one receiver for another team.

-Stats should not determine OVR, or any ratings for that matter. Actual performance taking into consideration surrounding talent and the system the player is in should.

-If OVR is kept, let it reflect the system the player is currently in. An OLB in a 3-4 system will almost always improve when switched to DE. DE's will get worse when switched. This needs to be fixed. Let the players' OVR be determined by how his skills fit the system he's in.