Realistic Player Progression Model

[Frank the Tank]

Quote: Originally Posted by Catamount53

I dont really understand why people want fixed progression. To me part of the reason I play the game is to see my players progress and if that is already predetermined it would take a lot of the fun out of it. The fixed stuff is just boring to me.

The OP isn't saying fixed as in "you know when you recruit a player he will improve 4 points the first offseason, 5 during the 2nd, etc." He means fixed as in "the game engine has already determined what the player progression will be, and his performance (or lack thereof) will not change what that progression is." It isn't fixed as in you know it ahead of time.

[Catamount53]

Quote: Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

The OP isn't saying fixed as in "you know when you recruit a player he will improve 4 points the first offseason, 5 during the 2nd, etc." He means fixed as in "the game engine has already determined what the player progression will be, and his performance (or lack thereof) will not change what that progression is." It isn't fixed as in you know it ahead of time.

Well yea, but it doesn't take long to figure out when your freshman All-American WR only progresses 1 point in the offseason.

[Rebel10]

Quote:

The question you might ask is, "Why should progression be fixed? Shouldn't a 1* guy who has a great season get a boost?" The answer is no, he shouldn't. That is a backwards relationship and not at all how real life works. Good performance on the field does not CAUSE the player to get better. Rather, player improvement CAUSES better performances.

THis is really a great post, so I don't want to take anything away by disagreeing with this point.

With the current system of rating players, your idea wouldn't work as well as it would if they implemented a system where there were variables that centered around a work ethic. Further, this sort of "hard" system doesn't take into account injuries, or, it would almost necessitate that a player gets injured. If a player is set to progress, say, 8 points in his sophomore year, but then gets injured and misses most of the season ... should be still progress? He hasn't been on the field and has a lot to catch up.

I agree that a static system could work in place of what we have now, where there is no work ethic category or real practice system. However, the best way that I can describe it is to use myself. I am a pretty below average athlete... In college I played intramural basketball but I was always pretty terrible at anything other than simple height. I could rebound well but never scored more than 2 - 6 points per game. 8+ points was a rare occurence, maybe happening once in my junior year.

After college though, I ended up being hired to work at the same school that I went to, so I still play intramural basketball on a staff team. In my fourth year in intramurals, I averaged over 14 points per game (in games that vary between 35 and 60 points per team; scoring 14+ in a game is a lot of points) and I was the best player on our team. It's all because I practice, work out, hit the gym often, and play a lot. In college I only played during games, or I went and shot around a bit, but now, I play organized games three times a week, practice a lot more, and I am in much better shape. None of this was because I had pre-programmed skills, but rather, because I practiced enough to the point where I am much better.

I think that some work ethic, maturity, etc., element needs to be added to the game in your model. A 3* recruit who has a better work ethic or maturity than a 4* with low work ethic should very well improve over that player.

Another element is "The Tom Brady" effect. Brady has been one of the top QBs in the NFL for the 10 years that he's been a starter... yet we all know that in Madden 2001, Brady was a third stringer behind Drew Bledsoe and perhaps even Michael Bishop or one of those other nobody QBs that the Patriots had. Brady put up pretty pedestrian numbers his first year... nothing incredible, but his team won games. It wasn't until it became clear that the team would be built around Brady that Brady really improved and became the elite passer in the NFL that he was. We can't assume that Brady always had the talent "stored up in him" or "programmed in him." He got that talent by playing on the field. For quite a while, Brady was probably the most "aware" QB in the NFL, and up until 2007, he was playing with nothing. Most people couldn't name the running backs and wide receivers on those Super Bowl winning teams besides Deion Branch and Corry Dillion. The on-field experience for Quarter Backs, MLB, and a few other positions, is the #1 asset to their improvement... things like speed, accelleration, etc., those are all locked... But the tricky rating of "awareness" completely depends on the amount of plays, touches, and experience that many players get. I find it hard to believe that Tom Brady could have started a game out of nowhere and immediately become the top-5 player that he was, without 2001 and 2002 as his 'introduction' years where he really learned the progame.

Finally, we have simply a gaming mechanic that should be mentioned. Games thrive on gameplay = reward system. MMOs would not be popular if you could take a character, stand there, and have him level up without doing anything... Or if, alternatively, no matter how much you played, you were stuck at a random and arbitrary ceiling based on how the game wants you to progress.

There needs to be a reward or at least a consequence for the players actions. It's the most basic element of gaming.

[Kriech23]

Quote: Originally Posted by brettford

That is a ridiculous statement. In no way whatsoever does that apply to reality. If you think the above statement is true, then you are living in a backwards fantasy space mirror world. That is the problem with this debate. Everyone seems to think that progression should be based off stats...the better the stats the better the progression. I understand why that makes sense to people...but it is a fallacy. Take this for example. Player A: Junior WR. OVR 90. 1200 yards. 7 TDs. Player B: Freshman WR. OVR 65. 150 yards. 0 TDs. Everyone who thinks progression should be a function of stats is making the argument that Player A (with FAR better #s) should improve more than Player B. Now, could that happen in real life? Absolutely. However, in the real world, its far more likely that Player B would IMPROVE more. Note the emphasis. Stats are a good proxy for OVR rating, and in this example there is no doubt that Player A is superior to Player B. But improvement is not about stats. When Player A and Player B play their next season, Player A will be a highly touted Senior and Player B will be a Sophomore. Player A will still be a much BETTER player than Player B...there isn't much doubt about that. But the RELATIVE difference between the two will probably be smaller during this upcoming season than it was last season. Everyone has this idea that if your HB rushes for 1,700 and 20 TDs he NEEDS to improve. Maybe he will and maybe he won't! There is no rationale for saying he NEEDS to improve. He just put up 1,700 yards!!! Clearly he is capable of putting up big numbers as is.

So what you're telling me is that if you want players to get better, don't play them? That's what I am getting from this. What you are saying is that if you put up big numbers then they won't progress much at all. But, if they don't get any reps they get better.

[andicesharks]

i like the idea of keeping the rosters as close to default as possible but i am also 100% for coaching/discipline/playtime/etc having the final say in how much a recruit develops over the years

even if the amount is capped, actually having a say in what happens is the most important part of dynasty. you are basically the coach so not actually being able to coach makes no sense. the majority of coaching is off the field in development, not in games and playcalling. you can make the perfect plan for a game but you can not follow through if you do not know how to teach players.

for whatever reason this was taken away on next gen but it is still in last gen.

[andicesharks]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kriech23

So what you're telling me is that if you want players to get better, don't play them? That's what I am getting from this. What you are saying is that if you put up big numbers then they won't progress much at all. But, if they don't get any reps they get better.

both of these viewpoints are true. someone who doesnt know the game is going to progress more than someone who constantly plays it when they first start. the new person is actually going to learn more.

they are going to somewhat plateau if all they do is train and dont actually get real playtime though.

a freshman who also has play time is going to learn the most.

[Catamount53]

I dont understand this argument. A player that plays gets better. How else would you explain a team with a lot of returning players being better than it was the year before? Also, just because a player plays bad or not at all does not mean they will get a lot better than players that play at a high level.

[brettford]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kriech23

So what you're telling me is that if you want players to get better, don't play them? That's what I am getting from this. What you are saying is that if you put up big numbers then they won't progress much at all. But, if they don't get any reps they get better.

*sigh* If that's what you are reading then I suggest you try again. The stud player could increase MUCH more than the guy on the bench...Or he could progress much less...Or the same amount. The point is that he would not be guaranteed to progress more just because his stats were better. For the 18th time, in real life a players stats have nothing to do with their improvement. A players stats are indicative of their current ability level.

Quote: Originally Posted by Catamount53

Well yea, but it doesn't take long to figure out when your freshman All-American WR only progresses 1 point in the offseason.

So what? How would this tell you how much he would improve the next year? It's not like progression would be either great or terrible. Every year could be different.

Quote: Originally Posted by Catamount53

I dont understand this argument. A player that plays gets better. How else would you explain a team with a lot of returning players being better than it was the year before? Also, just because a player plays bad or not at all does not mean they will get a lot better than players that play at a high level.

A team is typically better when a bunch of players return because those players are 1 year older and have probably gotten better. Those players had their starting jobs last year because they were the best players at their positions already. Now they've had an extra year to develop. Having players return is superior to reloading with new starters because the new starters didn't start last year for a reason, right?

Quote: Originally Posted by Rebel10

...we have simply a gaming mechanic that should be mentioned. Games thrive on gameplay = reward system. MMOs would not be popular if you could take a character, stand there, and have him level up without doing anything... Or if, alternatively, no matter how much you played, you were stuck at a random and arbitrary ceiling based on how the game wants you to progress.

I think you raise a good point, and it's clear people want to feel like they have an impact on their players progression, but my main point with the original post was that (above all else) the simulation needs to maintain realistic equilibrium from years 5-60.

As a sim player, there are numerous changes and improvements that I would like to see...but at the end of the day, if by year 6 the talent level and talent distribution don't look realistic, then the whole experience is undermined.

I think most people reading this thread can agree that a lot of player improvement occurs during the offseason. But if you are going to build that feature into the game it's important to get that feature right.

Did you guys ever play Madden where they had the offseason training mini games? I did, and I hated it. They were gimmicky. You had like 8 drills you could run with different players to give them ratings boosts. It was an arcade experience...not a sim experience. I just don't want to see them put something like that in the game.

If I were trying to maintain a simulation style feel, while at the same time giving the player some means to impact his players...this is what I would do. I would install a coaching staff feature where you had to hire your coordinators and position coaches. (HC, OC, DC, QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB, DB) = 10 coaches would form your staff. Each coach would be letter-graded in every rating category, indicating their relative ability to coach that skill...your HC could have a recruiting rating as well. There would need to be ~1,700 coaches in the game...they could ship random but editable in case people want to correct HC names. 1,700 would include ~1,200 (10 per Div I school) + ~500 that were unemployed (this group would refresh year to year.)

Player progression could be marginally influenced by these coach ratings...but the progression engine WOULD STILL "back into" overall realistic talent distribution (see original post). So if your DBs coach was a zone coverage guru, at the end of the offseason your DBs would progress (not based on stats but rather by a random progression calculated by the game) but on the margin you would see them overtime get relatively better at zone coverage.

Essentially, as discussed in the original post, the progression engine looks at the current players and figures out what the realistic talent distribution should be, then progresses the overall talent in such a way to maintain proper distribution. With a coaching element, the progression engine would take into account your coaches ratings when allocating the necessary progression.

But again, this is supposed to be a simulation...so just because your QB coach sucked, that wouldn't preclude your QB from realizing a +10 improvement in the offseason...it just might not be quite as likely.