Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

[TeamBuilder]

Remember Madden 2006 for XBOX, with Donovan McNabb on the cover? That game had perfect progression.

-Young players would progress in their first few years (as they should).

-Every 4 weeks your players would progress if they played well.

-Pre-season was useful because if you played well your players would progress.

-Making a run in the playoffs would progress your players. Makes perfect sense, playoff experience.


I remember I would use the Cardinals and start 65 overall rated John Navarre. I played on All-Madden and threw 31 TDs and 34 INTs while going 15-1 (won 6 games by one FG). Navarre progressed up to a 72 OVR and then after the playoffs progressed to a 75 OVR. The next year I had 38 TDs and 14 INTs and he finished the year at 89 OVR after the Super Bowl. NOW THAT WAS PERFECT PROGRESSION.

EDIT: I think the current system would be okay if we were able to train a few players each year to increase their potential. I think that's a cool scenario instead of having everything set in stone.

[TeamBuilder]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

There were no pre-determined potentials or anything like that. Imagine if this system of "A,B,C,D,F" potentials were used when Tom Brady was still a backup for Bledsoe. What would he be, "D" rated potential?

[radog99]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

I stopped playing the regular Xbox version of Madden after Madden 2005. Madden 2006 was the first year of Xbox 360 if I recall (and didn't even have a franchise). But I agree, the progression system in those two years on current gen were perfect. I long for those days again.

Next gen has NEVER gotten it right.

[TeamBuilder]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

I stopped playing the regular Xbox version of Madden after Madden 2005. Madden 2006 was the first year of Xbox 360 if I recall (and didn't even have a franchise). But I agree, the progression system in those two years on current gen were perfect. I long for those days again.

Next gen has NEVER gotten it right.

And that is the part the blows my mind. Why try and fix something that wasn't broken. It was perfect so why change it?

[rckabillyRaider]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

I was just thinking about the same thing today. I loved the preseason and in-season progression.

[fahrenheit]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

And that is the part the blows my mind. Why try and fix something that wasn't broken. It was perfect so why change it?

I don't think it was a matter of change, I think they just haven't recaptured it on next gen. Madden had five years on PS2 before they produced (what some would call) the best madden (05). Madden 10 is the fifth installment and by far the best next gen game.

[tooldude79]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

I don't think it was a matter of change, I think they just haven't recaptured it on next gen. Madden had five years on PS2 before they produced (what some would call) the best madden (05). Madden 10 is the fifth installment and by far the best next gen game.

What makes progression logic that hard to reproduce? I think they're just overthinking it.

[jip4]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

What makes progression logic that hard to reproduce? I think they're just overthinking it.

I posted this on another thread, but I'll repost here:

It's important to realize what "progression" is. It is a player increasing their ability level. It is not a re-evaluation of the players ability level (which is what mid-season roster updates are, and what mid-season/preseason progression simulates). It makes no sense to re-evaluate the a Franchise player's ability level, because we know precisely what that ability level is.

This isn't true in real life. Matt Cassel probably started last season with his Madden rating at ~70. He probably finished it at ~85. Now let's think about what happened. Did he really get 15 points better over the course of the season? Or was he really an 85 all along, and we just didn't know it (this one)?

The difference between real life and the game is that, within the context of the game (and more specifically, within the context of Franchise mode), we do know exactly how good every player is. It's in a nice little spreadsheet, with all kinds of sub-categories that we can sort. It's those numbers that determine how players perform, not how good they "really" are. Give a 70 OVR running back a great offensive line and he can have a great season, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a 70 OVR. And just because I decide on a whim not to throw a single ball to my 99 OVR receiver all season doesn't mean he's suddenly a 65. Or even a 95.

The "performance-based potential" arguments mistake the cause and effect relationship between ratings and performance. High ratings are not a reward for performing well. High ratings cause you to perform well. If a bad player plays well, one of three things is happening:

1. There's a flaw in the game (and this is entirely possible: if you're getting 1600 yards with a 65 OVR running back, something ain't right)
2. You've designed your system around the player, and/or put him in a position personnel-wise to be successful (i.e. he's a product of the system)
3. You just got lucky (i.e. he's a one-year-wonder)

What isn't happening is that the player is suddenly 15, 10, or even just 5 points better. Heck just from knowledge the game, we know that players get better from practice, from working out, from studying film, from training in the offseason; but not from catching 6 balls instead of 3 on Sunday.

Sorry if this seems kind of rambling, but IMO performance-based potential is a franchise killer, and it worries me just how much some are pushing for it.

[Glorious Arc]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

There were no pre-determined potentials or anything like that. Imagine if this system of "A,B,C,D,F" potentials were used when Tom Brady was still a backup for Bledsoe. What would he be, "D" rated potential?

Would it matter? His overall back then would have been poor anyways and would have needed a roster update to fix.

You confuse roster updates and how the real world interacts with the video game. If there are players that are real(not from premade drafts) that perform they will see a ratings boost to correct that.

Once you start playing a franchise, that is when the fantasy world starts. EA then basically turns into an omniscient being with the premade drafts. They know all of the Tom Bradys and Ryan Leafs before the drafts even happen. That is why they can give potential grades to these players. If this was not the case then every single rookie could turn into an overall 99 and that completely unbalances the game and is completely unreal.

In the real world, no one really knows how good someone can really be until the moment of truth. Do you see the difference between RL and Madden now?

For everyone that says performance=progression...I will ask you a simple question. Have you ever played a sport IRL? Heck, I will go as far as have you ever had a job?

I ask this because if you think that if you step onto a baseball field and hit four home runs or if you go to work and make a really good presentation....That it means you are now a better baseball player or a better person in the office then your reason and logic are flawed.

People perform better by practicing, gaining knowledge from others, and getting experience. The fruits of their labor are 4 home runs and a good presentation at work. Madden should base it's progression system on those factors...Not how well a player does in a season.

jip4, I completely agree.

[jip4]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Once you start playing a franchise, that is when the fantasy world starts.

+ a million. This is the part that soooo many people miss.

[TeamBuilder]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Would it matter? His overall back then would have been poor anyways and would have needed a roster update to fix.

You confuse roster updates and how the real world interacts with the video game. If there are players that are real(not from premade drafts) that perform they will see a ratings boost to correct that.

Once you start playing a franchise, that is when the fantasy world starts. EA then basically turns into an omniscient being with the premade drafts. They know all of the Tom Bradys and Ryan Leafs before the drafts even happen. That is why they can give potential grades to these players. If this was not the case then every single rookie could turn into an overall 99 and that completely unbalances the game and is completely unreal.

In the real world, no one really knows how good someone can really be until the moment of truth.

For everyone that says performance=progression...I will ask you a simple question. Have you ever played a sport IRL? Heck, I will go as far as have you ever had a job?

I ask this because if you think that if you step onto a baseball field and hit four home runs or if you go to work and make a really good presentation....That it means you are now a better baseball player or a better person in the office then your reason and logic are flawed.

People perform better by practicing, gaining knowledge from others, and getting experience. The fruits of their labor are 4 home runs and a good presentation at work. Madden should base it's progression system on those factors...Not how well a player does in a season.

The reason I made the Brady comment about having a "D" potential is because if you have an excellent career with a player he can only progress as far as the "D" will allow him. And I'm saying that is where the flaw is.

[TeamBuilder]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

I posted this on another thread, but I'll repost here:

It's important to realize what "progression" is. It is a player increasing their ability level. It is not a re-evaluation of the players ability level (which is what mid-season roster updates are, and what mid-season/preseason progression simulates). It makes no sense to re-evaluate the a Franchise player's ability level, because we know precisely what that ability level is.

This isn't true in real life. Matt Cassel probably started last season with his Madden rating at ~70. He probably finished it at ~85. Now let's think about what happened. Did he really get 15 points better over the course of the season? Or was he really an 85 all along, and we just didn't know it (this one)?

The difference between real life and the game is that, within the context of the game (and more specifically, within the context of Franchise mode), we do know exactly how good every player is. It's in a nice little spreadsheet, with all kinds of sub-categories that we can sort. It's those numbers that determine how players perform, not how good they "really" are. Give a 70 OVR running back a great offensive line and he can have a great season, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a 70 OVR. And just because I decide on a whim not to throw a single ball to my 99 OVR receiver all season doesn't mean he's suddenly a 65. Or even a 95.

The "performance-based potential" arguments mistake the cause and effect relationship between ratings and performance. High ratings are not a reward for performing well. High ratings cause you to perform well. If a bad player plays well, one of three things is happening:

1. There's a flaw in the game (and this is entirely possible: if you're getting 1600 yards with a 65 OVR running back, something ain't right)
2. You've designed your system around the player, and/or put him in a position personnel-wise to be successful (i.e. he's a product of the system)
3. You just got lucky (i.e. he's a one-year-wonder)

What isn't happening is that the player is suddenly 15, 10, or even just 5 points better. Heck just from knowledge the game, we know that players get better from practice, from working out, from studying film, from training in the offseason; but not from catching 6 balls instead of 3 on Sunday.

Sorry if this seems kind of rambling, but IMO performance-based potential is a franchise killer, and it worries me just how much some are pushing for it.

My main argument is that no single player should have a Capped potential rating. Take what I said about Tom Brady for example. If a rookie player that is 61 OVR and a "D" potential has the same exact career as Tom Brady he won't even progress into the 70s because of his "D" potential. Don't you think there is something wrong with that?

[Glorious Arc]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

The reason I made the Brady comment about having a "D" potential is because if you have an excellent career with a player he can only progress as far as the "D" will allow him. And I'm saying that is where the flaw is.

No, that is not the flaw. It is the realism. If a player with D potential is producing great numbers then either the game is broken, you are playing on to low of a difficulty, or he has great WRs/Oline to support him.

Just because you have a great career does not mean you have any real talent. It means you had enough talent to produce in that given situation.(great WR core/Oline)

Have you ever heard of Timmy Smith? I doubt it but he ran for over 200 yards in super bowl 22. Do you think he should have had a 10+ in his current 60 overall? If you did you would be wrong because following that he never produced anything else in his career. He was able to put up big numbers because of his offensive line.

This is the biggest reason why we need a potential cap. To make Madden more realistic and more sim. Performance based progression ruins any type of progression that would relate to RL.

[jip4]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

Well, first off, like I said if you have an "excellent career" with a player who has a 60ish OVR, that's likely a problem right there. But even if it isn't, so what? You have a QB that puts up good numbers, he's the product of your system. Why do you need/want his rating to be any higher?

Here's another way to think about it. Let's say I took my kicker, put him at QB, and just threw swing routes to Adrian Peterson all day long. I'd end up with a ton of yards and a sky high completion %. But that doesn't mean my kicker is suddenly Peyton Manning. And it doesn't mean that if I traded my kicker to a CPU team, he would be able to put up the same kind of numbers actually playing the QB position correctly.

[TeamBuilder]

Re: Madden 2006 Had Perfect Progression

No, that is not the flaw. It is the realism. If a player with D potential is producing great numbers then either the game is broken, you are playing on to low of a difficulty, or he has great WRs/Oline to support him.

Just because you have a great career does not mean you have any real talent. It means you had enough talent to produce in that given situation.(great WR core/Oline)

But how can you determine what players should be rated with what potential? That completely eliminates any late round greats like Tom Brady or Terrell Davis because they would have "D" potential and could never become great.