Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

[Hooe]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

So basically, if the Tiburon and EA Austin devs and designers don't reach out to the community for input as to how they'd like the game tuned, they don't care about their fan base, but if and when they do reach out to the community, they are incompetent. Got it, absolutely no problem in the logic there.

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

So basically, if the Tiburon and EA Austin devs and designers don't reach out to the community for input as to how they'd like the game tuned, they don't care about their fan base, but if and when they do reach out to the community, they are incompetent. Got it, absolutely no problem in the logic there.

C'mon man, you know there is a difference between reaching out to the community beforehand versus after the fact. For example, reach out initially about what type of progression system to use, not only after deciding to use XP progression and then asking what's the best way to do this unrealistic feature. In fact that seems to be the same MO often used for the EAGC and CD/CE programs.

[kingsofthevalley]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

So basically, if the Tiburon and EA Austin devs and designers don't reach out to the community for input as to how they'd like the game tuned, they don't care about their fan base, but if and when they do reach out to the community, they are incompetent. Got it, absolutely no problem in the logic there.

I have to say, I'm with you on this one.

[Hooe]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

C'mon man, you know there is a difference between reaching out to the community beforehand versus after the fact. For example, reach out initially about what type of progression system to use, not only after deciding to use XP progression and then asking what's the best way to do this unrealistic feature. In fact that seems to be the same MO often used for the EAGC and CD/CE programs.

Let me spin your criticism into a positive: they are reaching out midstream during the development of Madden NFL 14 (...er, Madden NFL 25) as to how their internal design decisions and implementation can best be tuned to meet the wishes of their player base. It was a new system this year, it wasn't going to be perfect the first time - nothing in any walk of life ever is - and they are making adjustments to make it better and soliciting constructive criticism to that end.

The XP system is another topic of discussion altogether so I'll avoid it here, but I'll sum up my opinion in a sentence in that in concept it's my favorite part of the game.

[RyanMoody21]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

So basically, if the Tiburon and EA Austin devs and designers don't reach out to the community for input as to how they'd like the game tuned, they don't care about their fan base, but if and when they do reach out to the community, they are incompetent. Got it, absolutely no problem in the logic there.

What a short sighted overview of the problem that antidote is.

First off, some things the NFL answers the question with no user input needed other than "why is this not working".

The complexity of changing a players positon "breaks" the system. You realize the sport was built on the backs of two way players. You comprehend in high school many of us played multiple positons? So that's a basic aspect of the game, understand how that being misunderstood from a in game concept point can been seen as incompetence?

Secondly and on a nearly primitive scale, game schedules are on a 4 year loop? Lets forgo the fact coveted international games haven't been included since 2007. We're talking about basic code to generate unique schedules, which may not be possible?

The outreach to the fanbase seems nothing more than a pacifier to quench the anger. The hope a glimmer of progress will subdue the outspoken fans.

The bottom line is quite simple, if they played this game it's painfully obvious to see core things broken. The CD guys should be able to see fundemental flaws, the fanbase should be able to see the small nuances. The Devs should be able to fix and progress the title.

When the fanbase points out basic issues, the CD guys say the game is "solid" and the Devs admit they can't fix things, you tell me what you call this period of gaming.

[Hooe]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

If their strategy is told or kept in-house it still can be considered a bad idea. This might be extreme: But if I posted on here I'd kill 5,000 people tomorrow, or told my brother that, it's still a bad idea either way. Just because now it's made public doesn't mean we can't ridicule and tell them what they can do better. Better yet, lets just all praise a lackluster and failed product just so they keep down the road they're headed. Well, actually it doesn't seem like our sim ideas are being heard anyhow.

I would say equating an opinion-based and team-driven design decision for a creative work of art that is a video game to an individual decision to commit mass murder is a bit extreme, yes.

The assertion that Madden is a "failed product" is laughable. Constructive criticism is welcome, I have my opinions on a number of things that Madden could do better, but blanket absolutes do no one with a stake in the success of game - the devs, the designers, the players, and so on - any good.

[Big FN Deal]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

Let me spin your criticism into a positive: they are reaching out midstream during the development of Madden NFL 14 (...er, Madden NFL 25) as to how their internal design decisions and implementation can best be tuned to meet the wishes of their player base. It was a new system this year, it wasn't going to be perfect the first time - nothing in any walk of life ever is - and they are making adjustments to make it better and soliciting constructive criticism to that end.

The XP system is another topic of discussion altogether so I'll avoid it here, but I'll sum up my opinion in a sentence in that in concept it's my favorite part of the game.

I get that but let me be facetious for a moment. If someone asks what's the best way to domesticate a grizzly bear for a house pet, that's difficult to answer when you think the whole thing is a bad idea, lol.
Ditto for asking the community about a progression system that is flawed from the onset, in relation to simulating football progression. I tried to look at this from another POV but the fundamental problem with this system and by extension this outreach about it, is that it requires thinking outside of trying to emulate real football.

I feel like I may be explaining myself poorly, so let me give an example. The "throw a receiver open" mechanic turned out to be flawed from the onset because it was meant to "change the receiver's route with the left stick". So when they asked for input from EAGC and CD/CE attendees about how to tune it to improve it, that did nothing to change the core problem with the feature. So essentially is just asking what's the best shade of lipstick to put on this pig. They should have had a well thought on plan to makeover that pig before deciding to use a pig in the first place, lol.

[Hooe]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

The complexity of changing a players positon "breaks" the system. You realize the sport was built on the backs of two way players. You comprehend in high school many of us played multiple positons? So that's a basic aspect of the game, understand how that being misunderstood from a in game concept point can been seen as incompetence?

How many two-way players are in the NFL, right now? Tiburon is in the business of making an NFL football game. Granted, some position swaps need to be allowed or at least minimally penalized absent a direct position swap, the most apparent being 3-4 pass rush linebacker to 4-3 pass rush defensive end, but I would assert that rarely in the NFL does one see a successful player listed at multiple positions over the course of his career outside of the 4-3 DE to 3-4 OLB scheme switch. Given the infrequency of real-life position changes, along with that the player has a large amount of flexibility in his personnel deployment thanks to depth charts, formation substitutions, and right stick package substitutions, I'd argue that direct position swapping functionality isn't really high priority.

Secondly and on a nearly primitive scale, game schedules are on a 4 year loop? Lets forgo the fact coveted international games haven't been included since 2007. We're talking about basic code to generate unique schedules, which may not be possible?

From a software developer's point of view, the game successfully generates a 256-game schedule for the entire league without fail that can be played through season-over-season. Adjusting how this is done to more accurately reflect how the NFL schedules games is likely a to-do thing for Tiburon and is doable, but likely a low-priority item. When they say "they can't do it", what they likely mean is that they haven't budgeted time for it in the current development cycle.

International games - my best guess here - haven't been included yet due to stadium licensing issues. Doesn't excuse their absence, but it must be an acceptable explanation for it unless us the fans want to pony up the licensing costs for Tiburon ourselves, I'm sure they'd appreciate that.

The outreach to the fanbase seems nothing more than a pacifier to quench the anger. The hope a glimmer of progress will subdue the outspoken fans.

Again, so what's better - they not solicit constructive criticism at all and seem uncaring to their target audience, or ask for that feedback and have their requests be dismissed as "pacifism" and "incompetence"? The argument has already been framed so that the developer can't win, which begs the question as to why the one posing the argument in such terms is wasting his time with such an apparently hopeless situation in the first place.

The bottom line is quite simple, if they played this game it's painfully obvious to see core things broken. The CD guys should be able to see fundemental flaws, the fanbase should be able to see the small nuances. The Devs should be able to fix and progress the title.

When the fanbase points out basic issues, the CD guys say the game is "solid" and the Devs admit they can't fix things, you tell me what you call this period of gaming.

I would venture to say nothing in Madden is "broken". A broken game would crash ad nauseam, the release of a game that crashes frequently would imply profound developer incompetence. One thing I take issue with is that the word "broken" is thrown around here unfairly; the game clearly produces a result that the player can work with; the correctness of that result compared to a real-life scenario is up for debate, sure; I'd be speaking double-talk if I just dismissed incorrectness compared to the real-life scenario, particularly given the "Tiburon is in the business of making an NFL football game". However, it's not "broken", the game through its process of building a schedule generates a result that the player can work with.

Are there things that need adjustment? Yes. Is the game a 1:1 match with real life? Absolutely not. Does it need to be to be fun and enjoyable? I argue no, and I also argue that making the game 1:1 with real life would make it entirely inaccessible for those of us who have never played professional football, which I assume is the vast majority of us.

[RyanMoody21]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

The assertion that Madden is a "failed product" is laughable.

Ill agree that's not a proper assememt, but I can see how it could be justified.

Lets note that your signature has a quote from Ian Cummings, talking on the stupidity of trolls. Ian also said that he felt Madden 10 would put to rest the "2k" debates as what game was better.

Let's not turn this into another one of those, but lets ask ourselves if 4 years later Madden has had that watershed moment.

Just some basic principles of football, have they been placed in Madden;

Defensive Reaching
Double Team Blocking
Ball Carrier and Blocker Interactions
Consistent "One Angle of Attack" Pursuit
Consistent "Second Level" Blocking
Run Block Engagments the Duration of a Play


The 360 was twice as capable as its orginal predecessor, yet in 8 going on 9 development cycles those issues critical to simulating football have went practically untouched. It appears likely that the 360 generation of Madden football will pass and never see them implemented.

Madden is still trying to catch up to a competitor for this long and cant surpass them in most areas? Taking video game out of the picture, in most if not all areas of business some may see failure a term that might used to describe that situation.

To respond to your rebuttal about player positons, many times out of college a player is moved to a different positon once in the NFL. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to draft a player and find he fits better somewhere else. It may be with varying levels of success, but I'd wager to say upwards of 50 times a season it happens. I suppose I wasent clear enough in where those positon changes would be made. So to reiterate my point, it's unacceptable to not be in the game. Perhaps have a first 3 season window it can be done, I recall a lot of Plaxico Burress DB's a few years ago.

[Hooe]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

Ditto for asking the community about a progression system that is flawed from the onset, in relation to simulating football progression. I tried to look at this from another POV but the fundamental problem with this system and by extension this outreach about it, is that it requires thinking outside of trying to emulate real football.

To this I respond that Tiburon is in the business of making a fun video game foremost and a simulation football game second. That's been apparent for the entirety of Madden's existence. The XP system clearly is a bit of a contrived RPG-ification of how football players actually improve, sure. From a strictly video game perspective, I'd argue it's a great fit; the player is directly rewarded for his successes on the field with resources with which to improve his roster, and how the player allocates his earned resources is a game unto itself and play again to earn more resources and continue to build his team into a formidable and versatile squad. To me, the XP system as a team-building mechanic, realistic or not, is the most enjoyable part of the game.

I feel like I may be explaining myself poorly, so let me give an example. The "throw a receiver open" mechanic turned out to be flawed from the onset because it was meant to "change the receiver's route with the left stick". So when they asked for input from EAGC and CD/CE attendees about how to tune it to improve it, that did nothing to change the core problem with the feature. So essentially is just asking what's the best shade of lipstick to put on this pig. They should have had a well thought on plan to makeover that pig before deciding to use a pig in the first place, lol.

We're not seeing eye to eye on this either, as the opening up of the passing game via "throwing guys open" is another big plus for the game in my book. What the game lacks, in my opinion, is a good number of options on defense to counter this mechanic, it lacks the ability to easily let the defense try to confuse the quarterback into throwing a pass that won't actually be open. I want more options to disguise my defense's coverage and confuse the opponent QB's pre-snap reads. I want the user quarterback to more actively be required to make presnap reads, particularly with regard to pass protection calls.

An example as to what I'm looking for: say the offense calls a play where the strong-side flanker runs what the game would call a fade route. If the defense comes out in a one high safety look with the CBs playing off and the right CB's first step is backward, I'm leading that receiver running the fade to the sideline and zipping him the ball ASAP, it's an easy eight yards and my QB can make that throw. Playing that from the defensive side of the ball, I want in the game the ability to deploy in that one-high-safety look, but then have my actual called play be something completely unexpected for that alignment, perhaps a Cover 2 where the CBs are going to crash down and the safeties immediately sprint back, for example. Basically, I want more options to try and confuse the QB with having to call a last-second audible or call eleven defensive hot routes (which are difficult enough to call already, particularly if one's opponent comes from the "set-hike" school of snap counts).

[mvb34]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

[QUOTE


From a software developer's point of view, the game successfully generates a 256-game schedule for the entire league without fail that can be played through season-over-season. Adjusting how this is done to more accurately reflect how the NFL schedules games is likely a to-do thing for Tiburon and is doable, but likely a low-priority item. When they say "they can't do it", what they likely mean is that they haven't budgeted time for it in the current development cycle.[/QUOTE]


I just want them to balance the home and away... No team plays 6 of there first seven games on the road or at home at one time..

[zacmonte]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

What I personally believe that CCM needs the most is a mix between the XP/Performance based progression system and the Potential based progression system. Personally, I don't want to have to play through EVERY practice just to get the XP benefits from it for my players, but if I don't play the practices, the young players on my bench don't get any better. I don't feel like I am developing anyone when I draft, I feel like it's hit or miss if the players are good enough to play or not. I have ALWAYS been for performance based progression, but the place where players get better is OUTSIDE OF GAMEDAY AND IN PRACTICE. Yes, we have a practice feature in M13 but it is too time consuming for a lot of people like myself to even bother with. So, what you can do is have a flat-potential based progression like the old game that isn't too dramatic like it used to be (instead of young players who didn't see the field getting a plus 6, maybe a +2, +3, or +4, that runs of an algorithm based on scheme fit and their developmental trait or something like that. Do this while also having the XP based progression. I have had HUGE years with players (ex 4500 yds 30TDs with a QB) and, even with a Normal or Quick development trait, it hardly felt as if they got any better despite them having a great year on the field. So it hardly feels like there was any performance based progression. Also, ratings just don't feel that they fluctuate as well as they should. No huge progressions or regressions or anything, it feels very bland and alike every year. So, even though it would be complicated, you could make X portion of the progression XP based, Y portion of progression similar to the "Potential" based system, and Z portion of the progression directly proportionate to their stats on the year. As some guy said earlier, if a guy has 10 drops but catches a few TDs, would it make sense if we were to use the XP to make his hands better even though they proved to be so bad? Quite simply, I want there to be a good amount of players that fall off the face, drastically improve, regress substantially to a point where it resembles the constantly changing faces of the NFL. I hate seeing the RBs look basically the same as they did before 3 years into my CCM, while almost all of them are close to or past 30 years old. The current system simply does not accurately reflect the NFL, and we need some sort of drastic change.

[nyrangers81]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

All I want, besides HC09 into CCM mode properly, is for young undrafted players to possibly get good. It's interesting that last weekend the Chris Collinsworth Super Bowl Special had London Fletcher and Jeff Saturday interviewed with Payton Manning and they all came from the same draft class. Neither London or Jeff were actually picked and yet look how they turned into superstars.

[KBLover]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

Since OLB's don't even have season goals how can a switch to DE break anything? Just give them the same goal then.

OLBs do have season goals. There's a bug with them though.

If you have players that look like 0 OVR QBs on your goals list, those are your OLBs, though they won't have season goals. However, if you DON'T get the bug, OLBs DO have season goals.

Not sure what triggers it.

[ajk49er]

Re: Josh Looman CCM progression talk on Twitter

2 way players isnt a problem? how many 2 way players?

example: Tamba Hali, KC ran a 4-3 D, they switched to a 3-4, he was a 4-3 DE, he became a 3-4 OLB, sure it was a transition, but he became a better player in the 3 -4, had andy reid decided he wanted to move the team to a 4-3, back hali would have gone to DE. if you take that out of our hands, then this which also happened with the colts and their switch to a 3-4, cannot be replicated.

there is so much wrong with this game it hurts. hall is broken. cpu ai is broken, management of rosters broken, player cards are broken, the game doesnt even keep track of what team you played for each year. it doesnt even track your pro bowls. it doesnt have a working challenge system. you can throw for 34 tds, but if your goal is 35, you wont see a high percentage of that goal, you will see basically nada.

in a game that has an XP system that makes sense, it is crushed when you realize that its based on stats, as it should be, yet the problem is, the stats are virtually impossible to replicate without losing the fun of playing. putting in tackle goals that are insane while taking out assisted tackles? good grief!

I think all would be fixed if they just let us have an option to turn on editing of CPU team depth charts, re-signings, basically full control without having to switch over. I dont think they will ever get it how we want it, but at least we could spend an hour fixing the cpu's stupid mistakes in ccm.

but when you have stuff like, "hey, the chiefs fired their head coach, hey they are now back to running a 4-3 defense!!! I cant wait to play them and see their 2 new beastly defensive tackles!---you play them, and out comes romeo crennel's 3-4 defensive playbook. which basically negates the ENTIRE point of this switching concept.

this is where the defense of devs is annoying to me. you mean they cant see that teams let go of their top picks after big performances after their first contract without a tag. players dont progress correctly w/ the cpu. we cant challenge what we want. the cpu will run the clock out instead of kicking a game winning field goal.

with the hall, did the person in charge of that just make the qb's/hbs, wrs, tes make sense, then just totally forget to make the defensive players and offensive lineman have a system that makes it remotely realistic for them to make the hall? that just shows of piss poor development. piss poor testing, and piss poor work to fix the problem. I bet its there in 14!