Regression in Madden 13

[StL_RamZ]

I hate that "once you turn 30" line....look at Charles Woodson...so once the game knows your "30" you start to regress...I find it dumb...some players start regress at 28...they should adopt the peak attibrute that MLB 2k has...they have a rating that lets your kno when a player will start to progress and regress and it's different from player to player like I said before some players will start regressing at 33 others at 29 and blah blah blah

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by Broncos86

The major problem with potential was that it locked in what that player was.

Then the answer is make it mutable.

Make it have the chance to rise and fall as well as take a page from HC 09 and put it per rating and then do like OOTP and put career arcs in the game as well as not have all skills go up/down universally. That would create a variety of career curves, changes in guys, more reasons to follow your players as they evolve along with throwing in realistic uncertainty in all aspects of player development.

That's how games like OOTP can have potential, but not make it fell "scripted" or with there being no risk to a top prospect or a lower-end player never working hard to elevate himself and coming out of nowhere, or have a journeyman vet "click" and he ends up with a solid stretch before retiring, etc.

Injuries had no impact on potential in Madden. Playing well/poorly had no impact (scouts can change their opinions after seeing a guy on the field), it was too stats based for too many of the positions (and in the case of OL, they use "Pancakes"...is that even a tracked stat in real life? Why not use runs/carry to his side of the formation? Sacks allowed? Penalties assessed?)

EA just didn't do it right. That doesn't mean the whole concept of potential is broken.

I don't even care about the real-life player issue. Once a player is in my franchise, like you said, that's it's own world. As long as the progression the player takes is plausible, that's about all that can be expected. Considering rookies still had the same issues, it's a system problem.

The thing I have with the experience thing is that it's still the stats-oriented, except for whatever XP you got in practice (assuming that's not stats-oriented as well). I'm willing to bet that in real life, a player can learn from a bad day just like a good one. In fact a bad day would have more "coachable moments" and the player would get instruction on where he can improve and what to work on.

And sometimes a player's bad day isn't all his fault. HB gets no help from his line and doesn't meet his goals - is that the HB's fault? Is that the HB showing a lack of skills? Football is the ultimate team game, I hope the XP system accounts for that as well.

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by gjneff

I would agree with you PG if there were no visible ratings at all, but since I can see it I want what is happening on the field to match who the highest rated players are. I don't want to see the most dominant pass rusher and find he is only a 73. Doesn't match up in my brain and looks broken, even if in theory you are mostly correct. Although doing something and having success does make you better irl. Practice makes perfect.

I guess I'm the other way in that OVR is meaningless. If a 73 OVR has 95 PMV/FMV and 85 BSH - that is a pass rusher, regardless of his OVR, because his skills say he's a pass rusher. A 95 OVR that has no rush moves and low rush ratings, but decent mobility (solid SPD/ACC/AGI), exceed ability to read blocks (high+ PRC and AWR) and uses his size well (elite STR and good+ BSH) is more a run stopper because that's what his skill profile is.

Is it broken that a 95 OVR would have maybe 3 sacks because his real role is that he occupies the hell out of the offensive blocking scheme and has good burst and hit power to crush ball carriers? Meanwhile is it broken for a guy to be used as a pass rush specialist and racks up sacks because that's what he's awesome at, even if the rest of his game is still a work in progress?

The specialist very likely will have lower OVR because he's good at one thing and somewhat questionable in the rest that would make him an every-down player. The 95 will be very good at lots of areas...except perhaps the one the specialist is good in, but those other aspects are more down-to-down and he's still useful on pass rush downs because he can flow and has some awareness in space (he would be great stringing out screens and not being owned on draws and might even do decent in a zone blitz package as the zone defender), but he just doesn't do well getting upfield to beat a OT on the pass rush. That's what makes a team, imo.

Practice doesn't necessarily equal having success though. Practice is the place to try to remove mistakes - so making mistakes in practice, while not "encouraged" is what helps create learning experiences and using those moments to tweak and refine your game is a way to get better.

In fact the expression "practice makes perfect" means you're screwing up while learning so you can learn from the screw ups in order to remove them, imo.

[TheBleedingRed21]

Quote: Originally Posted by PGaither84

Wait... waht? why? That doesn't even make sense... there are no limitations - we are putting limitation on the computer team. What? So, my 49ers players can become stars, but if I am the Rams, those same players can't [or at least won't] become stars? How is that fun at all? I know I wrote a lot, but franchise is very important to me. thanks for reading.

I think you misunderstood this man, he means that the CPU will not get 99's all across the board to become "super" teams. They still will progress/regress just as humans. He cleared it up sometime (No exact time remembered) and said he meant super CPU teams.

[jwassel]

I think the bigger issue, is the AMOUNT of regression.

I think we need steeper regression, When you start a franchise with the base ratings we have a, not perfect, but a more realistic landscape. A team that is poor in one position, say WR, would have 2 70's as their starting WRs. By year 3 you rarely see any teams that have holes like that. I could go on and on, but I think we just need to see more regression, so that we arent flooded with 80's by after a few seasons.

I think Madden should have an average rating number from the out of the box ratings, and then each year in a franchise, make the progression/regression, near that. Sure some years the league will be filled with more talent, and some years less. But on average I think we need to keep it more balanced. Brandon Lloyd was an 88 last year coming in, we can be sure he's not gonna be that high again....but, some other WR, say Antonio Brown, will be much higher rated. In Madden franchises, once Lloyd progressed he would be that upper 80 guy no matter what and then Antonio Brown would jump up to match it. Now we have even more upper 80 guys.

I'm playing Head Coach 09 now, which I love, I think it was done real well, but even still in that game, there are an abundance of 80 rated players.

You can see that flawed line of thinking every week in the Roster Updates that come out. You see a ton of guys get better and better, but rarley see guys get worse. I understand we all want to play with Victor Cruz as he emerges, but when you have a guy sucking like Peyton Hills, he kinda stays stagnant.

Also in terms of progression based on stats and earning XP. I really hope the goals are more like, have 70% completion percentage, dont throw Interception, have 20 carries with an average of 4 yards a carry. If it is simply throw 2 TD passes, i mean come on, Dan Orlovosky can come in in Garbage Time and throw 2 TDs, that doesnt mean he played well or is good. If its score a TD, you can stick in a goalline RB at the one yard line and punch it in, that doesnt mean hes playing well because he has 1 carry for 1 yard and 1 TD. There needs to be a correlation between playing time and actually how well the guy plays.

[SA1NT401]

Never asked this question nor saw it addressed...

So they scrapped DPP after one year?

I just feel that aspect was a good idea. I always felt ratings should increase/decrease not just week to week but qtr/qtr.... Then carry over.

I just feel they started over for no real reason then to just start over.

I still don't understand the decision of CC at all...


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?nzo50k

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by StL_RamZ

I hate that "once you turn 30" line....look at Charles Woodson...so once the game knows your "30" you start to regress...I find it dumb...some players start regress at 28...they should adopt the peak attibrute that MLB 2k has...they have a rating that lets your kno when a player will start to progress and regress and it's different from player to player like I said before some players will start regressing at 33 others at 29 and blah blah blah

I've said this a few times. That's something I really like in MLB2K.

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by SA1NT401

Never asked this question nor saw it addressed... So they scrapped DPP after one year? I just feel that aspect was a good idea. I always felt ratings should increase/decrease not just week to week but qtr/qtr.... Then carry over. I just feel they started over for no real reason then to just start over. I still don't understand the decision of CC at all...

It was still there at E3. Don't think it was scrapped.