How progression should be!

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by dbgameover

adembroski- i like the coaching staff effecting progression but not to much fact is a staff cant make a player better than he is they can teach them proper technique but they cant take crap and make a diamond. i am worried about the old madden solution where if u played for bill belicheck all of a sudden u got way better at covering or throwing the ball.

I'm not saying it's the be-all-end-all of progression, but a part of it. I've really thought about it more for Madden (wrote a 6000+ word document that i sent to Ian Cummings, Phil Frazier, and Josh Looman. I'll be shocked if they read it, but it was a lot of work and I think it's worth reading:P).

Quote:

i also caution about the whole showing the potential rating, i am fine with it if u can turn it off. i like the personality, work ethics thing but that has to be hidden don't want to anger the current players or the NCAA. everything else is good i think were talking bout the same thing just different terminology

I want to point out I don't call it "Potential" because it's not. "Potential" implies that any player that carries an "A" could become a 99 overall. This isn't the case. I use the word "Upside" because it's relative. Being a 1 star player with an "A" Upside means you might improve to an 80 or so, but your initial limitations will never permit you reaching 99.

Also, the only visible aspect is the overall Upside, which does not have a direct impact on progression. The attribute specific upsides, which are NOT visible to the user, do. The overall upside matches the individual attributes 50% of the time, but that means the other 50% of the time you don't know what you get. This makes it a gamble, and the rating being visible doesn't really give you enough information to know for sure what you're getting.

As for NCAA players being mad... you don't assign them to specific players, you have them randomly placed (Personalities, I mean, not Upside). If Dayne Crist doesn't like his personality, he can reload the roster.

[quote]Timlaw-performance should factor into it all but nothing crazy. the best example i can give is a 65 rated running back getting 1200 yards. if he got 1200 yards then theres either something wrong with the game or he has the nastiest oline ever .either way it does not mean he should get a 90 overall rating for it.

Quote:

i think alot of you guys are also disregarding the bench player might get better than the starter without playing its actually not uncommon.

If you look at how mine worked, you'll see that playing a younger player could result in faster progression, but could also result in very slow progression. Sitting a guy on the bench gives you average progression. So it's a gamble... if he's good enough that you believe he'll perform in your system, than start him, but if you're wrong, you lose out on his potential in the long run.

[danknerd]

@adembroski

Much like Football Outsiders and all their fancy DVOA statiscal analsys your system is great in understanding hindsight of progression and skill ratings; I would still like some intangibles determining progression/ratings. Like, even if a team struggled playing the same team members for consectuative years and perhaps in cohesion with the number of types of x attitude players and how well tbhose attitudes also relate and gert along influence progression individually and in team.

This is askng too much from EA lol

[rjsuperfly66]

Performance should have a big part in the progression. Why? Performance dictates playing time and potential.

If a player has high potential, it should prove that he is getting better from week to week.

It also shows he is playing.

That doesn't mean a bench guy shouldn't progress.

But it does mean that a WR who puts up 75 catches, 1400 yards, and 15 touchdowns should jump much higher than a receiver who puts up 8 catches for 40 yards.

Remember, there are bad players on good teams.

The way progression/recruiting goes, the best teams get the best players, and since everyone always progresses the same, the lower ranked, computer teams have no shot of ever competing.

It should be possible for a 2 star recruit, like Michael Crabtree, to blow up and reach 90s by senior year.

It shouldnt be easy, or frequent, but should be possible.

In this game, hed start out in the 50s, and barely crack 60s, even if he did what he did in college.

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by rjsuperfly66

Performance should have a big part in the progression. Why? Performance dictates playing time and potential. If a player has high potential, it should prove that he is getting better from week to week. It also shows he is playing. That doesn't mean a bench guy shouldn't progress. But it does mean that a WR who puts up 75 catches, 1400 yards, and 15 touchdowns should jump much higher than a receiver who puts up 8 catches for 40 yards. Remember, there are bad players on good teams. The way progression/recruiting goes, the best teams get the best players, and since everyone always progresses the same, the lower ranked, computer teams have no shot of ever competing. It should be possible for a 2 star recruit, like Michael Crabtree, to blow up and reach 90s by senior year. It shouldnt be easy, or frequent, but should be possible. In this game, hed start out in the 50s, and barely crack 60s, even if he did what he did in college.

The trouble with the Crabtree example is that the people who rated him at 2 stars were wrong.

There needs to be an element of human error in the recruit ratings to account for this. When I get Michael Crabtree as a 2 star recruit, he should show up as a 75 or so, not a 55.

Also, freshmen should progress before their first year. They just played a season of football (HS senior year) and trained with a college team. Most importantly, it would make the recruiting less predictable. You think you're getting the best linebacker available, but he doesn't progress in the preseason and a bunch of others do, now you're 10th on the list. Still a good backer, but not quite the perfect one you thought you had:P