Realistic Player Progression Model

[brettford]

You preset the path in order to back into realistic talent distribution. Completely random progression breaks down after a few years.

And you do need to have some control across class. That's not to say some classes wouldn't be stronger than others...class quality can bounce around, but to be realistic, it needs to be centered around the average level of talent distribution. What that average distribution is?...I don't know. But it could be easily determined by going back and observing history.

[Dr Death]

Quote: Originally Posted by brettford

I understand the frustration of feeling like that stud freshmen WR who is having a great season, "isn't going to benefit" ratings-wise from all those TDs. But remember that at the end of the day, it really isn't about what OVR rating he reaches, rather the stats and school records he puts up. If he's putting up big #s as a Freshmen, there is no reason he couldn't do it again as a Soph. At the end of the offseason you would be eagerly waiting to see how he improved between seasons...if it were based on performance, then you would already know...

I understand where you're coming from and I do agree w/ a lot of what you desire, but I also disagree that playing time/big numbers won't equate to higher ratings.

Let's say a coach like M. Leach or J. Jones takes a FR WR and starts him. The kid plays every game, catches 90 passes for over 1200 yards and scores 8 TD's. Now some other WR at another school didn't start, didn't actually play that much, ends up w/ 12 receptions for 168 yards and 0 TD's... who should progress more? The guy w/ 90 receptions, that's who.

He's been on the field, seen the defensive looks, knows his own offense inside/out and has much more confidence in himself than the guy who only caught 12 passes whilst barely seeing the field.

Like I said, a lot of what you want is good, but the progression is something that has to be based, at least somewhat, on productivity.

[doom41]

I have to agre with Jbrew. IMO if you fix progression rates then you take away replayability of the Dynasty modes. I don't see how you can fix progression without fixing recruits. If this is the case then after the first Dynasty I play I will know which recuits will become studs, and I will just go after them.
I think recuits should be assigned hidden progression attributes for certain things, that in combination with your schools attributes they determine that players pogression.
For example,
- Workout Rating : when combined w/ Facilities & Coaching Ratings, determines progression for Speed, strength, agility, etc..
- Film Study Rating: also combines w/ Facilities & Coaching Ratings, determines progression for awarness, back cut vision, man & zone coverage etc..
- Practice Rating: also combines w/ Facilities & Coaching Ratings, deterermines progression for running ability, run & pass blocking, tackling, etc...
- Understudy Rating: combines w/ the overall for the starter at his position, determines progression for position specific attributes.
It could go on and on, but basically the recruits hidden progression attribute ratings would combine with other factors (your schools ratings, playing time, attributes of the players ahead of them, etc...) to determine how much they progress each year. This way a recruits progression depends not only on the school & the coach, but also on the recruit himself, the other players around him, and playing time.

Also, How about a maturity attribute that can progress, but also when combined with a high fan base & campus life ratings, could negatively affect progression (not make their attributes go down, but cut into what they would have progressed otherwise). This way an 5-4* recruite with a low maturity rating may never really progress for a high prestige school. Or they may have little-no progression as a fresh & soph, but as a soph thier maturity progresses, so they finally progress as a junior. This would aslo help level the progression of high prestige schools.

[Schreck]

Like the op said, productivity does not determine a player's progression. More playing time will definitely play a part, but just because a guy gains 1000 yards does not mean he will get faster, stronger, etc. Heck, maybe the wear will slow him down and make him weaker, who knows. It obviously should impact their awareness, carrying, catching, etc. to some degree, but it shouldn't be that big, it should be some percentage factored in for a few attributes obviously impacted by experience. Again, if a player can put up big numbers with his current attributes, he apparently is already rated well enough. Did Tim Tebow get a lot better between his Sophomore to Senior years? He was pretty much the same guy all the way through, just a little better in some of his decision making and the other little details.

Assistant coaches with ratings for various categories would be the best way to really impact this, but EA shows no efforts to do that. It would be awesome to have Offensive, Defensive and Strength coaches. Heck, just do the coordinators to make it simpler, but position coaches would really be cool too. They could have ratings for recruiting (ability to assess recruit's skill & potential, salesmenship, etc.), skill development (ability to increase awareness, coverage, blocking, etc.), strength training (ability make guys stronger, faster, etc.). Obviously there are a lot of ways to go there, but it would be awesome and has been done.

The difference between elite coaches to average coaches is huge. Watching Weis come in and not be able to get his 4 & 5 star players to improve at all while somebody like Brian Kelly got a bunch of 1's and 2's to go undefeated shows as much.

[brettford]

The recruits would be randomly generated...totally different every time a recruiting class was generated. It would greatly add to the replayabilty of dynasty mode because the system wouldn't break down after a few years.

All the things you describe are great...but have fun designing a simulation that incorporates all of those things without turning into a massive fail after 5 years.

I agree with the desire to have all these little factors affect progression...mainly because like everybody else, I appreciate the unfolding of a story when I play dynasty mode. However, I want to be able to play well into the future without the simulated landscape looking ridiculous. Random progression paths still allow me to enjoy the story element.

If my Sophomore star RB doesn't progress for his Junior season, maybe it was because he was embroiled in off the field trouble. If my Junior 3rd string OT improves by +9 points, maybe he lived in the weight room all summer because he was super motivated after sitting on the bench. I don't know...the story lines are endless...but at least the simulation maintains its integrity.

[Special27K]

I'm for what the OP is trying to convey here, the fact that I like the most is players can peak. Simple as that. That WR may have caught 100 balls but, who's to say he could still get better? Playing time in my opinion is not the most beneficial to developing players. Does it help that freshman WR learn how to catch a ball any better? There is certain things where playing time may contribute significantly like AWR and maybe things like route running or release rating.

The point the OP is making here is that this way the talent pool is consistent year to year. It won't hinder replayability of dynasty at all. You won't have the exact same % of 80-90 OVR players every year. Just close. Also not only 4* and 5* players are going to be those 90 OVR studs. This way you find booms and busts. Not every 5* will dominate their senior year. He could be an 80 coming in and just a 85 leaving.

However I think it would work better if the progression boosts you gave examples of where on top of how progression is done now. Just cut them both in half.

Progression now for a player might look like (+3 +5 +4 +4)
And your progression goes something like (+4 +3 +7 +3)

Cut them in half and add them
Fixed (+2 +2 +4 +2)
Current (+2 +3 +2 +2)
New (+4 +5 +6 +4)

Combine the hidden "fixed" progression with what we already have in place, it with help vary the talent pool from year to year more and can keep the group that feels as if this method cheats them of replayability . Though I wish there were negative progression in the game as well. I would say that would have to come from the fixed side or be injury influenced. You can't base progression on stats, like OP stated that's backwards. They should progress then put up the numbers. Also think of how quarter length could affect that.

[mcpheje]

The fixed path model is a good and simple way to keep the desired talent distribution. A more complex and "random" way would be to "grade on a curve".

What I'm thinking here is to split each class into levels based on OVR. Within each level progression would be distributed based on a variety of factors (ie: coach prestige, facilities, some training attribute, playing time, whatever). The players would all be ranked based on how they did with those factors and the points are allotted based on their ranking against everyone else within their level. This would allow certain recruits to progress or "regress" to the next level, and the points could be done in such a way to keep the distribution curve basically steady from year to year for each class.

Like the OP said the freshman class next year should have the same rating distribution as the freshman class this year; same goes for sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

[brettford]

Remember, "fixed" progression is no different than random progression if you don't know what the fixed progression is.

The only difference is that with my method, the realistic talent distribution is used to 'back into' what those fixed rates are. There are numerous advantages of this model.


1. First and foremost, the simulation doesn't break down.

2. From a gamers perspective, the progression is random. This creates a better story element than a system in which you could control which players got better.

3. It is the best way to emulate the fact that countless variables affect a college athletes progression.

Yea you could have all these other variables like coordinators and maturity ratings and playing time affecting AWR....etc. It all sounds great in theory...but if you let progression become a function of user input IT BREAKS DOWN.

It's as simple as that folks.