Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

[Steve_OS]

If there’s one area in most every sports game that is problematic on a yearly basis,...

Written By: Chase Becotte

Click here to view the article.

-------

(This is part of our weekly newsletter, Not Just Another Roster Update, that is sent every Friday to our subscribers. You can sign-up for the newsletter here — it’s the only e-mail you’ll get from us.)

[GAMEBREAKER85]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

Good read, I personally think the biggest issue with progression is the lack of regression. NCAA Football was always the worst, no player ever stayed the same or got worse.

[oneamongthefence]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

I think regression sucks because it's linear. It's either a straight incline or decline. I will say some of the scenarios in the 25 beta had players lose permanent attribute ratings. I had Jordan Love pop up with a breakout scenarios about 10 times (this was a bug in the beta) and I picked the most difficult option each time. He never got it and each time he failed he lost a few points in the accuracy and awareness rating. By the end of the first season I had him down to 68 overall from 74. This was pretty extreme but I liked that I could essentially ruin a player. I imagine in the final build it'll be toned down.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

[canes21]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

Multiple reasons.

1. Rosters are inflated as is, but the progression is often tuned to where the future rosters are even higher rated.

2. It's production based which makes no sense. Players don't play better then get better in real life. They play better because they got better.

3. Dev traits in combination with production based progression make everything predictable. And, you're literally told the second you draft someone whether they have a low dev trait or not, so you instantly know whether your first round QB is a bust or not which is obviously not how real life works.

To have a better setup, in my own opinion:

1. Spread the ratings out significantly more than they are.

2. Remove development traits. Give each player a floor and a ceiling that they can land at plus anywhere in between.

3. Use historical data to determine what the typical development and production arcs are for each position at at each age and at each draft pick tier.

4. Introduce more personality traits like Work Ethic, Level of Selfishness, etc.

In this new system, when you scout a player, you get a scouting report that tells you what their floor and ceiling are, but it's not always 100% accurate. The accuracy depends on the quality of your scout, but a top tier scout doesn't = 100% accuracy. You get information on their personalities, but again, not always 100% accurate.

Once you draft a player, they develop based on the quality of coaching they get, a combination of personality traits like work ethic, the development arc they roll, and their floor/ceiling range. The older a player gets, the more accurate their floor and ceiling get, plus, the longer a player is on your roster, the more accurate their personality traits are. These become accurate pretty quickly, like within a season as any coach should have a good idea on a player after spending time around them in practice, in the facilities, etc. within a single season.

By having varying levels of scouting accuracy, a floor and a ceiling a player can land at, personality traits, types of development arcs, and coaching influenced development, you get a system where you as the player can make scouting judgement calls on players that have some data backing them up, but you're never going to have anything that makes you 100% accurate with your decisions.

With varying levels of development arcs, you sometimes need time to figure out if a guy is a bust or not, like real life. And, like real life, some development arcs may lead to some guys looking like a bust leading to you not picking up the 5th year option, then on their new team it all starts to click and they become a starter for the next 7 years on that squad. Other guys show up and are ready to play day 1. Many have an arc somewhere between those two examples with some being true busts that never really develop or do develop, but never live up to the hype.

[adembroski]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

Madden 12 had fantastic progression.

I know, because I designed it. It's simple and it works. All it takes is a high school understanding of math and the willingness to use it.

I doubt EVERYONE loved it, but some very prominent Sim people did, and I'm darn proud of it considering how little I had to work with.

[canes21]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

Madden 12 had fantastic progression.

I know, because I designed it. It's simple and it works. All it takes is a high school understanding of math and the willingness to use it.

I doubt EVERYONE loved it, but some very prominent Sim people did, and I'm darn proud of it considering how little I had to work with.

I am trying to remember how it was specific to Madden 12. Was this back when each player had a letter grade for a potential rating and it wasn't performance/stat based progression?

I 100% preferred that system setup to what we have now and feel that's significantly more realistic than what we do have.

[threattonature]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

Multiple reasons.

1. Rosters are inflated as is, but the progression is often tuned to where the future rosters are even higher rated.

2. It's production based which makes no sense. Players don't play better then get better in real life. They play better because they got better.

3. Dev traits in combination with production based progression make everything predictable. And, you're literally told the second you draft someone whether they have a low dev trait or not, so you instantly know whether your first round QB is a bust or not which is obviously not how real life works.

To have a better setup, in my own opinion:

1. Spread the ratings out significantly more than they are.

2. Remove development traits. Give each player a floor and a ceiling that they can land at plus anywhere in between.

3. Use historical data to determine what the typical development and production arcs are for each position at at each age and at each draft pick tier.

4. Introduce more personality traits like Work Ethic, Level of Selfishness, etc.

In this new system, when you scout a player, you get a scouting report that tells you what their floor and ceiling are, but it's not always 100% accurate. The accuracy depends on the quality of your scout, but a top tier scout doesn't = 100% accuracy. You get information on their personalities, but again, not always 100% accurate.

Once you draft a player, they develop based on the quality of coaching they get, a combination of personality traits like work ethic, the development arc they roll, and their floor/ceiling range. The older a player gets, the more accurate their floor and ceiling get, plus, the longer a player is on your roster, the more accurate their personality traits are. These become accurate pretty quickly, like within a season as any coach should have a good idea on a player after spending time around them in practice, in the facilities, etc. within a single season.

By having varying levels of scouting accuracy, a floor and a ceiling a player can land at, personality traits, types of development arcs, and coaching influenced development, you get a system where you as the player can make scouting judgement calls on players that have some data backing them up, but you're never going to have anything that makes you 100% accurate with your decisions.

With varying levels of development arcs, you sometimes need time to figure out if a guy is a bust or not, like real life. And, like real life, some development arcs may lead to some guys looking like a bust leading to you not picking up the 5th year option, then on their new team it all starts to click and they become a starter for the next 7 years on that squad. Other guys show up and are ready to play day 1. Many have an arc somewhere between those two examples with some being true busts that never really develop or do develop, but never live up to the hype.

Great post.

IMO the biggest thing is the unpredictablitity of it all.

As much as people would hate it I would love to see more badges. Personality badges as well as some behind the scenes. I would like these to only be viewable as a player spends more time on a team. Things such as a bad or great work ethic, workout warriors, players who study playbooks, partiers or things like that which are long term tied to that player's potential. Also have it effect other players, kind of the opposite of the mentor system where they can have negative effects on young teammates.

I would also like to see it be a dice roll type of scenario so that if you play 10 different careers a player can go in different directions based on those which are revealed the longer and longer you keep a player on the team. I would like to see those revealed through notifcations from some of the coaches or teammates talking to the coach. It would add personality to the teams.

I would also like to see GM's/coaches decisions have long term effects. If I'm known for cutting decently performing starters have it negatively effect them in free agency or if they rarely play veterans have rookies refuse to workout with certain teams.

Anyway progression wise I agree fully that progression should not be tied to on field production as that logic as never made sense. I do think some attributes should be tied to progression though. Like the more reps a CB gets of live game action the better their awarenss and the better they get in their coverage ratings, but another bump based off their under the hood badges.

I would like to see some players just make a massive jump from year to year and regression to be spread all over the place. Have some young players that immediately get worse, have a couple random older guys have a career resurgence. Have some players that just never get better throughout their careers. Have some guys with a really high dev rating never follow through on their potential and not get much better.

Sorry for anyone reading this as I'm all over the place. Just random ideas that would add personality and less predictability to the franchise modes.

[drugsbunny]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

Progression should have a user element to it. There is a practice mode and drills available, why not tie the two together and add that user element to progression. Derrick Henry not getting faster at 31 is meaningless because, 31 is an age that can certainly allow one to gain physical skills that they didn’t have. If he drops 10 pounds and links up with a speed coach, he will certainly gain speed. Barry Bonds (although chemically enhanced) gained much strength towards the end of his career. I feel that progression should be in the hands of the user. I would tie it to the reps of skill games as one ages. A rookie may gain +1 speed if he runs drills 10 times and gets a certain score whereas an older player may have to run it 15 times at that score to see gain. I would like to see interactive practices. Run plays and be smart or get hurt or lose skills by not completing them on task. The who practice aspect has been quite stagnant for a while. Sure, you can learn plays and such. But how about the mode actually mattering on a long term basis. Set a timer for practice mode and if you over practice, it could be a hinderance to your growth.

[GAMEBREAKER85]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

Madden 12 had fantastic progression.

I know, because I designed it. It's simple and it works. All it takes is a high school understanding of math and the willingness to use it.

I doubt EVERYONE loved it, but some very prominent Sim people did, and I'm darn proud of it considering how little I had to work with.

The last Madden I committed to b/c everything worked & it was simple.

[adembroski]

Re: Why Does Progression in Sports Games Usually Suck?

I am trying to remember how it was specific to Madden 12. Was this back when each player had a letter grade for a potential rating and it wasn't performance/stat based progression?

I 100% preferred that system setup to what we have now and feel that's significantly more realistic than what we do have.

I would love to have added more interactivity, but we were flipping to Frantk the following season so I could only work within the existing framework, but I rewrote the formula.

Yes, there was a potential grade, but it wasn't a hard limit and most players actually fell a little short. But you could also exceed it.

I would like to have tied it to coaches so your staff decisions made a difference. But as it was it made the draft important and you could have been guy not develop for **** in 3 years and suddenly hit potential in year 4, or you could have a guy expend àll of his potential I year 1 and not improve anymore. It was all organic and so long as the draft class was balanced the league would stay balanced

I tuned the import draft class feature as well. It was OK Not perfect but good. I won't speak to the generated classes, I think they were good, but I didn't work on them.