Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

[splff3000]

Well by now, most of us in here have had some kind of experience with this new progression system. From what I can tell, the old "Potential" system was much much better. The only thing that EA needed to do was hide the actual "Potential" rating.

Way back in 2009, when the devs told us about this new "potential" rating, we begged them to do just that ...... hide it. They said they didn't wanna do that. In fact, they wanted to show the exact number of your potential at first, but we at least talked them into just showing a letter which would cover a broader range than the exact number. A few of us also asked them to change the name of this new rating as the "potential" rating might be confusing to some. We asked them to change the name to something more finite. What the devs added was a ratings cap for each player. The term "potential" does not make someone think of a cap, but how likely they are to reach their cap. For example if you said player 1 had A potential and player 2 had D potential, it would make you think that player 1 had a greater chance of being a good player. It does not make you think that player 2 has NO CHANCE of being a good player, which was the case in previous Maddens. It just makes you think it's less likely. Hence the reason we wanted them to change the name for this rating. They didn't hide the rating nor change the name and as some of us suggested, there was confusion for some about the "potential" rating. That confusion led to an outcry of complaints from users wanting their players to be able to "exceed their potential" (which is what players do all the time IRL), which in turn led to this flawed performance based system that we have now.

Check out these threads and you can definitely tell there was some confusion with "potential".

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...potential.html

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-thing-me.html

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...fluctuate.html

A few of us saw this stuff and tried to get it rectified:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ds-hidden.html

And when it wasn't, we saw what would happen with a progression based system:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ogression.html

Fast forward to Madden 13's release and what a lot of us thought was gonna be a problem is indeed a problem:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...on-system.html

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...on-broken.html

As has been said in a lot of these threads, performance based progression is pretty absurd if you think about it. It's essentially the tail wagging the dog. The ratings of your player determines how he plays on the field so how can how you play on the field determine his rating? It's a paradox. As the 2nd to last thread that I posted suggests, it leads to "success breeding success". For instance, if you have a 59 ovr RB and are able to rush for 1200 yds with him, why does he need a rating increase? You can already rush for 1200 yds with him!!! This was the case in the past if the player had low "potential" ( Man, I really wish they had came up with a better name for that rating) and it made sense. Ratings progression was separate from performance because it was known that ratings DETERMINE performance, not the other way around. Now tho, you will get more progression for that 59 ovr RB because he got 1200 yds rushing, which in turn will allow you to rush for more than 1200 yds which just keeps going on and on and on.

This is why the cpu's bench players don't get good progression. Rashad Jennings is never gonna perform as good as MJD for the cpu because MJD's ratings are much better than his. That's why when you're in year 5 and 6 and 7 and later, the best players now are still the best players then. For those of you not there yet, it's discussed here:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-year-1-a.html

They have the ratings to perform, which is what this progression system is based on, and the others don't. I feel sorry for you guys with a lot of cpu teams in your CC.

For those of us in online CC's with multiple users it's not good for us either. Since this progression system is based on performance, the best users will always have the better players because they most likely will always perform well because of the users skills and thus progress nicely. I know one guy in our CC( one of the top 2 guys ) was talking about how he gets about 10,000-15,000 XP a game for Calvin Johnson and he's trying to raise him to 99 speed. It's not cheating or unsim. It's how the game works. He's good and plays real good with CJ so he gets a butt load of XP in every game. It's pretty absurd. Back in the old system, there would be no chance for him to do something like that.

An ideal system would be a system that had a cap for each player like "potential" was, but also allow some performance to influence how likely and how fast that player reached his cap. I'm sure most of you would agree with that. Oh wait, we had that system..... It was the system we were using. All the devs had to do was tweak how much performance influenced progression and we would probably be in nirvana. In classic EA fashion tho, they scrapped the old system completely instead of tweaking and improving on what they already have. Now we have a system that rewards the cheesers and glitchers that get insane stats and severely hinders the cpu and the less skilled players from progressing their team. *sigh* I wanna go back.

[Farmer joe]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

I didn't like the old system, after a few good seasons with a team, most of the players ratings would be in the 90s OVR. I don't cheese and like for my backups to get some time when I feel it's realistic, so this new xp system works fine for me. I don't cheese the CPU. I like playing single player offline usually, just playing online solo ccm until more of the offline issues are fixed. Maybe they just need a different system for you online multi player users. I like this system just fine.

[splff3000]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

I didn't like the old system, after a few good seasons with a team, most of the players ratings would be in the 90s OVR. I don't cheese and like for my backups to get some time when I feel it's realistic, so this new xp system works fine for me. I don't cheese the CPU. I like playing single player offline usually, just playing online solo ccm until more of the offline issues are fixed. Maybe they just need a different system for you online multi player users. I like this system just fine.

You don't mind that the cpu players don't progress well and the best players now are still the best players down the road in CC?

[KBLover]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

The only thing that EA needed to do was hide the actual "Potential" rating.

*snipped for length*

Hide it and make it mutable based on various factors and make it per rating, and it would have been nice, imo.

Kinda like how OOTP does it, even with scouts off. You know exactly where he is NOW, but various factors/events can come into play (like major injuries, insufficient playing time, morale, personality traits) can cause shifts in potential over time, changing how the player develops from then on.

Throw in individual growth curves/career arcs based at heart around how players of that position typically develop in the NFL, and I think that would have been a robust, easily understood system.

From what I hear - M13 has some of that with ratings that impact development? Maybe a marriage of the two systems is what's in order - replacing XP with "training focus" where the player's coaches work with him on certain areas, which help influence his growth/maintaining ability going forward.

[dirtysouth1295]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

Well by now, most of us in here have had some kind of experience with this new progression system. From what I can tell, the old "Potential" system was much much better. The only thing that EA needed to do was hide the actual "Potential" rating.

Way back in 2009, when the devs told us about this new "potential" rating, we begged them to do just that ...... hide it. They said they didn't wanna do that. In fact, they wanted to show the exact number of your potential at first, but we at least talked them into just showing a letter which would cover a broader range than the exact number. A few of us also asked them to change the name of this new rating as the "potential" rating might be confusing to some. We asked them to change the name to something more finite. What the devs added was a ratings cap for each player. The term "potential" does not make someone think of a cap, but how likely they are to reach their cap. For example if you said player 1 had A potential and player 2 had D potential, it would make you think that player 1 had a greater chance of being a good player. It does not make you think that player 2 has NO CHANCE of being a good player, which was the case in previous Maddens. It just makes you think it's less likely. Hence the reason we wanted them to change the name for this rating. They didn't hide the rating nor change the name and as some of us suggested, there was confusion for some about the "potential" rating. That confusion led to an outcry of complaints from users wanting their players to be able to "exceed their potential" (which is what players do all the time IRL), which in turn led to this flawed performance based system that we have now.

Check out these threads and you can definitely tell there was some confusion with "potential".

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...potential.html

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-thing-me.html

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...fluctuate.html

A few of us saw this stuff and tried to get it rectified:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ds-hidden.html

And when it wasn't, we saw what would happen with a progression based system:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ogression.html

Fast forward to Madden 13's release and what a lot of us thought was gonna be a problem is indeed a problem:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...on-system.html

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...on-broken.html

As has been said in a lot of these threads, performance based progression is pretty absurd if you think about it. It's essentially the tail wagging the dog. The ratings of your player determines how he plays on the field so how can how you play on the field determine his rating? It's a paradox. As the 2nd to last thread that I posted suggests, it leads to "success breeding success". For instance, if you have a 59 ovr RB and are able to rush for 1200 yds with him, why does he need a rating increase? You can already rush for 1200 yds with him!!! This was the case in the past if the player had low "potential" ( Man, I really wish they had came up with a better name for that rating) and it made sense. Ratings progression was separate from performance because it was known that ratings DETERMINE performance, not the other way around. Now tho, you will get more progression for that 59 ovr RB because he got 1200 yds rushing, which in turn will allow you to rush for more than 1200 yds which just keeps going on and on and on.

This is why the cpu's bench players don't get good progression. Rashad Jennings is never gonna perform as good as MJD for the cpu because MJD's ratings are much better than his. That's why when you're in year 5 and 6 and 7 and later, the best players now are still the best players then. For those of you not there yet, it's discussed here:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-year-1-a.html

They have the ratings to perform, which is what this progression system is based on, and the others don't. I feel sorry for you guys with a lot of cpu teams in your CC.

For those of us in online CC's with multiple users it's not good for us either. Since this progression system is based on performance, the best users will always have the better players because they most likely will always perform well because of the users skills and thus progress nicely. I know one guy in our CC( one of the top 2 guys ) was talking about how he gets about 10,000-15,000 XP a game for Calvin Johnson and he's trying to raise him to 99 speed. It's not cheating or unsim. It's how the game works. He's good and plays real good with CJ so he gets a butt load of XP in every game. It's pretty absurd. Back in the old system, there would be no chance for him to do something like that.

An ideal system would be a system that had a cap for each player like "potential" was, but also allow some performance to influence how likely and how fast that player reached his cap. I'm sure most of you would agree with that. Oh wait, we had that system..... It was the system we were using. All the devs had to do was tweak how much performance influenced progression and we would probably be in nirvana. In classic EA fashion tho, they scrapped the old system completely instead of tweaking and improving on what they already have. Now we have a system that rewards the cheesers and glitchers that get insane stats and severely hinders the cpu and the less skilled players from progressing their team. *sigh* I wanna go back.

If someone rushed for 1200 yards in real life would he be rated a 59 in Madden. NO!!! I don't understand how anyone could like the potential system over this.

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

Great thread Spliff and I don't know what can be said about this that hasn't already but I will give it a shot. The premise behind the XP in M13 is not bad, imo, because I think it's trying to replicate that any player can improve. I would argue that if Jerry Rice didn't have the work ethic that he did AND had the variables around him, HOF coach, players, avoiding injury, etc, he wouldn't be the HOFer he is today, soley from natural talent. So I picture the XP system as allowing every player, barring injury, to have the chance to excel, like Jerry Rice.

Now the key to this is to separate a hard cap/ceiling on physical ratings, while leaving skill/teachable ratings essentially uncapped. So some people have said to add a work ethic rating but I don't think that's necessary, I think for those skill ratings, the progression should be dictated by playing time, practice, according to their confidence and consistency which is effected by the coaching staff/system and results.

All that said, again, the current XP system has a lot of potential, it just needs to be fleshed out more. Picture it like this, each player in the NFL should theoretically have the chance to improve all skill ratings, given ideal conditions. They limitation is there is only so many snaps and so much time to accomplish that and there is not enough of either for every NFL player to max out. Also every player starts from a different level. To keep from trying to type out a longer post, I will use Wes Welker as an example. In Miami he had the same raw talent, it was just nurtured in NE to make him what he is today. Likewise in Madden, they need that element of the coaching staff/system to effect a players confidence and consistency to effect their skills with playing time, practice and results. Results is key because failure can adversely effect a players confidence and stringing together poor performances should eventually effect consistency. As well as needing other variables like wear-n-tear injury system, playbook knowledge, chemistry and morale.

So essentially a player in the right environment has the "potential" to improve greatly but the more time spent on improving that or those players, the less you have for others as well as those other variables providing unpredictability. I think that is the premise of the XP progression, it just hasn't been fleshed out enough and doesn't have enough variables represented yet. Not to mention even IF the system is finally fleshed out more, along with added variables, the game play still needs to be elevated so different skill sets and ratings equate to different playstyles on the field. It's hard to discuss things like this concerning Madden because even a solid progression system in the team management is diminished by the lack of influence of ratings to differentiate game play.

It's like Josh Looman with regard to career and the game play team are making two entirely different football games at times.

[KBLover]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

If someone rushed for 1200 yards in real life would he be rated a 59 in Madden. NO!!! I don't understand how anyone could like the potential system over this.

Why is a 59 OVR player capable of rushing for 1200 yds consistently?

Sounds like something other than progression is at work for that. Of course, judging players by OVR is...inexact at best.

Especially if the weaknesses of the player's skill set do not translate onto the field. So if his OVR is low because his AWR and BCV are low, but you're controlling the HB, then the things that make him a 59 are not going to show up nearly as much because his BCV becomes your eyes that can, literally given the gameplay view, see the whole field and his AWR is your reaction time and your football knowledge and your skill at hitting buttons and the sticks, etc.

And in real life - there's a lot more dynamics that goes into a player's performance. A player can indeed be a very average HB, but if he has a good line and a good blocking scheme, he can put up higher tier numbers.

Plus, one year does not a career make. I looked up some of Denver's HB during Shannahan's time there and found guys with 1100 yd seasons...and never did anything close to that ever again. I'm sure there's plenty of other examples. Should that guy get some high rating for 1 year, and then perform at that level always? Sounds like these guys would be perfect examples of scrub HB that had one good year, but are inconsistent-at-best in terms of real ability.

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

If someone rushed for 1200 yards in real life would he be rated a 59 in Madden. NO!!! I don't understand how anyone could like the potential system over this.

See this is what I was getting at. Let performance allow XP or progression of applicable skill ratings, not some wide open system for every rating. I like that progression/XP allocation is available manually for those that want it but for others that want a more automated process, allow that performance to effect applicable skill ratings. The players 59 OVR would increase but it would be due to their BCV and/or AWR rating increasing, not their SPD, ACC, etc.

[Fr8Train]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

I don't think its possible to disagree any more than I do on this topic.

The old progressive system was absolute crap. You had guys that didn't play a single snap progress faster than guys that routinely broke NFL records. You would know what everyone would progress to if you simply created a test franchise and sim'd it 3-4 years into the future...

The old progression system would sometimes progress Awareness for Quarterbacks/Half backs, which play zero role in the performance of the player. But it bumps up the imaginary Overall Rating that the CPU uses to determine trade value.

Now, is this current system perfect? No. But I actually agree with some of the marketing pieces about this progession system. IF you have a Wide Receiver that has trouble catching the ball, u place him in front of a jugs machine and have him practice catching the balls. With the XP progression, you simulate that buy focusing on the CTH trait... (just one example).

I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would like the old way of progression.

[splff3000]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

See this is what I was getting at. Let performance allow XP or progression of applicable skill ratings, not some wide open system for every rating. I like that progression/XP allocation is available manually for those that want it but for others that want a more automated process, allow that performance to effect applicable skill ratings. The players 59 OVR would increase but it would be due to their BCV and/or AWR rating increasing, not their SPD, ACC, etc.

I can kinda dig what you're saying, but the x factor in all of this is the human element. You have a human user controlling these players most of the time and all users have different skill levels. If you have any kind of performance based progression you are essentially punishing the less skilled users. What I was suggesting is using performance as some sort of modifier, but in no way would it be the determining factor for any ratings increase. You still need that cap for all ratings IMO. For example, let's say we have a 59 ovr WR this time and he has 60 catches for 1200 yds on the season (which can actually happen in madden based on his speed rating). You get XP points for his yards and decide to raise his low route running rating up. This process continues until his route running is 99 and he's the greatest receiver of all time lol. If you allow any progression based solely on performance you're gonna just make the strong get stronger.

In Madden 13, the development trait is a modifier for progression with performance being the end all be all ultimately. If you have a high development trait (quick, superstar) it doesn't mean nothing if you don't perform. IMO it should be reversed. The development trait should be the most important and performance should be the modifier. For instance if you had a high development trait, you would be more likely to progress, but if you had a high development trait AND performed well you would progress slightly more. That way, even guys on the bench that didn't really play, could still progress a good bit if they had a high development trait. It wasn't based on their performance or the team's performance or anything.

Look at Darren Mcfadden for example. His first few years in the league were anything but spectacular. This is his year to year totals in the NFL:

2008 - 113att, 499yds, 4.4ypc
2009 - 104att, 357yds, 3.4ypc
2010 - 233att, 1157yds, 5.2ypc
2011 - 113att, 614yds, 5.4ypc
2012 - 57att, 201yds, 3.5ypc

As you can see, he was not doing anything special when he joined the league and I'm sure you all know the Raiders certainly weren't doing anything special lol. So what happened in 2010? Hue Jackson did that's what. He became the Raiders offensive coordinator. The scheme changed and he became better. Look at the drop off in 2012. What happened then? Hue Jackson left, that's what happened. He reverted back to how he was before Hue. His progression (and regression) had nothing to do with is performance. So why does it have everything to do with performance on the game?

[TMJOHNS18]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

My problem with the new system is how limited the distribution of XP is in the game. I'm on an online CC with Splff and playing as the Jets I prefer to run more than pass (when I can help it). The problem I have with the XP system is the goals don't seem to care what kind of player you are, they just are predetermined regardless of your play style.

For example, I don't pass the ball much. My ideal game would be 10-15 attempts. Yet, weekly goals for my QB want me to throw 250+ yards and multiple touchdowns. 7-8 weeks into the season and I have 1 multi passing TD game and only 1/2 over 250 yards passing. On top of this, my year goal is 35 touchdowns, regardless of how talented my QB is (Tebow). My backup also has a yearly goal of 35 touchdowns, pretty high for someone who should never see many snaps.

As for running, I like to use multiple backs, yet weekly goals want individual backs to go over 100 yards. Doesn't matter if I have 3 guys combine for 150+ yards when none of them eclipse 100 by themselves. At least for the RBs the backups have lower yardage goals.

Team goals on the other hand feel underpowerd. I got 100 XP for holding the opponent under 100 yards total rushing? 100 XP for limiting then to under 200 passing? But, then I allow over 250 yards of offense and I get 500 XP? That doesn't make sense.

I haven't played a CC longer than a year so I don't know if these goals change over time or if they remain the same. One would think that goals should depend on both the rating and past performances of the player.

What I would like to see, other than the suggestions above, is a more dynamic XP system. The system would basically use a combination of the players OVR and previous stats (last years/avg over X amount of games) and it would use this to come up with a realistic weekly/yearly goal and also an XP amount based off the players rating. The goals/XP rewards could also be based off a static amount (say the 35 passing TDs a year) but each "milestone" level (5,10,20, etc) would give out XP at different levels depending on the players OVR and past performance.

Basically, the system would reward "overachievers" more than taking a stud and producing the same results. If MJD runs for 1,100 yards and some 2nd string 70 ovr HB has the same year, the lower rated player should receive more XP for overproducing (say that player never ran for more than 600 yards in a year) versus MJD only going for 1,100 after winning the rushing title the year before. If the HB who had a "breakout" year would now receive substantially less XP (probably close to MJD) if he rushes for 1,100 the following year because he is expected to perform in that range.

Same thing would apply to the "studs" around the league. If a user has a huge year with Megatron, then Megatron's goals the following year would have to be significantly harder to achieve and pay less XP overall until he at least achieves the same performance. This would prevent guys from simply raking up points year in and year out with top players because they can throw 5000 yards easy with their QBs. The way I see it, if player is consistently finishing in the top 5 statistically at their position then there is less of a need for XP since they are already performing at a very high level with their current ratings. I think a system like this would end up with more low 80s rated players and only a few 90s rated players because of the need for them to perform at a very high level yearly in order to gain the XP needed to progress more.

[splff3000]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

I don't think its possible to disagree any more than I do on this topic.

The old progressive system was absolute crap. You had guys that didn't play a single snap progress faster than guys that routinely broke NFL records. You would know what everyone would progress to if you simply created a test franchise and sim'd it 3-4 years into the future...

I agree the old way is flawed as well. I wouldn't say it was crap, but it was flawed. That's why I said it needed tweaking. Why can't a guy on the bench progress faster than a guy that broke records? A team can't have 2 good players on their team? If what you said happened IRL, we would have never heard of a guy name Steve Young and many others. Just because you sit on the bench doesn't mean you can't progress, sometimes faster than the starter that's breaking records. In Madden 13 that can't happen tho. The guy that's breaking records will just keep getting better and better, even tho he's already good enough to break records, and the guy that's on the bench will never progress enough to supplant that starter. Also, performance did influence progression some. It wasn't much, but it did have an impact. Yes soem guys seemed like they had predetermined progression the first season, but what happened after that. It's not uncommon to have predetermined things in the game the first year ala the cpu Cleveland Browns signing Donovan McNabb and the Seahawks dropping TO in every CC in preseason this year.

The old progression system would sometimes progress Awareness for Quarterbacks/Half backs, which play zero role in the performance of the player. But it bumps up the imaginary Overall Rating that the CPU uses to determine trade value.

I agree with this. This is one of the flaws of the old system and would be one of the things that needed tweaking.

Now, is this current system perfect? No. But I actually agree with some of the marketing pieces about this progession system. IF you have a Wide Receiver that has trouble catching the ball, u place him in front of a jugs machine and have him practice catching the balls. With the XP progression, you simulate that buy focusing on the CTH trait... (just one example).

I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would like the old way of progression.

Just because a player works on a certain aspect of his game doesn't mean he's gonna get better at it. I'm sure every long time Raiders fan in here knows the name Ricky Dudley. He was big and he was fast, but he couldn't catch a cold. He could be the superstar TE that we needed if he could just catch the ball. I remember them going over and over and over about how he works late catching balls and stuff, but he never learned how to catch lol.

I'll concede to the notion that you want to progress your players YOUR way. I can dig that. Why change the whole system tho. Why not just keep the old way and allow you to distribute the points for each player however you wanted it. If you wanted to get give the WR better catching you would still be able to do it, but his points that he received wouldn't be based on how well he did. Or better yet, a system where there are points that are applied to certain areas automatically then a few few "free" points that you can apply to an area of your choice. There are plenty of alternatives than just performance based progression. With performance based progression, you're essentially saying all other aspects of the game are meaningless as far as progression is concerned and that just isn't the case.

[DUDERMAN]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

splff3000, I agree with everything you have stated.

Rewarding players for their superior skill will always create an unbalanced game. It's the main reason I stay away from the Call of Duty games, if you are good enough in those games, you get rewarded with better guns/perks and other special advantages during a game that makes it nearly impossible for an inferior player to ever have a fair chance to build up their skills.

I feel this is the same thing we are doing now in Madden. Unlike COD, I am a very competent player in Madden, and so I'm seeing the advantages when it comes to the XP gain.

This system actually started in last year's Superstar mode. It should have been a sign of things to come but nobody really played the mode to get a feel for how broken this XP system can be. In Madden 12, you could have any superstar have a 99 in every category by mid season of year two. This left the mode almost unplayable because there were no more incentives to play other than for the stats.

I know I started this by saying I agree with everything you have stated so far, however I do disagree that the previous system was good. As many stated before, the old system basically had a predetermined increase or decrease for every player regardless of performance, coaching, etc.

There's a second problem here that needs to be addressed.... player regression. This has plagued Madden for years. Players will progress much fast than they will regress so as long as you keep a young roster, you would be able to have a strong team without fear of any regression. Age is not the only determining factor when it comes to a player losing their skill in real life but it seems to be the only factor in Madden. In the NFL, you see players get worse every year due to a number of reasons. It could be because of a previous injury, or a lack of motivation, or bad coaching, or contract issues, or the occasional mystery reason that can't be determined that will have a good/great player just have a down year. You don't see this at all in Madden.

Winning in the NFL is pretty much a roll of the dice. Everyone believes there are an expert in preseason, only to see their predictions of certain players and teams fail miserably. I see people on this board all the time that want to cry fowl when they get beat as the Patriots against a bad team like the Jags... but this happens in real life every week. I love the DPP that was added last year but it needs to be expanded upon to help with progression/regression.

Whatever the answer is, I feel this needs to be the top priority to perfect for CCM in Madden 14. With a great progression system, everything else will fall into place.

[splff3000]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

I agree that regression needs to happen more often and in more cases. I also agree that the old system was flawed as well. I just would have rather them tweaked the old system than trash it in favor of the new performance based system. I know it was flawed. I was just comparing the two progression systems because that's what we know in Madden. Ultimately tho, like you, I just want a more balanced progression system.

[GiantBlue76]

Re: Performance Based Progression vs Potential Progression

I haven't read EVERY post in the thread so forgive me if this was mentioned. However, one of the biggest problems with this is that it's too universal. Players should have different progression options available to them based on many factors. These factors should include age and position (30 years old for an OL or a QB is still very young as opposed to a HB), injuries, playing time, player character (hard worker/slacker), etc. etc. I think it's ridiculous that you can make CJ get to 99 speed. In real life, how much faster can an NFL athlete make themselves? Sure, they might be able to shave off some of their 40 time, but they aren't going from a 90 to a 99 - EVER! This is something that should be capped realistically or have a threshold for improvement.

I also agree with what one poster mentioned about using multiple backs and things of that nature.

Basically, there are not nearly enough differing factors involved to make this progression system work well.