Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

[T4VERTS]

I was approached to try and get some feedback in concern to what everyone's thoughts are with the current progression system. What did you like, what don't you like, what frustrates you? I posted it on my twitter but figured I'd ask here to so we could get a little better picture in totality.

I'll say "blow it up" isn't probably a viable option, however different ways of approaching the problem are always welcome!

Thanks

[Rayzaa]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

Are you a dev and can do something about it? Who asked you to do this?

[bcruise]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

Are you a dev and can do something about it? Who asked you to do this?

He runs a popular podcast and has a line with the devs similar to that of the gamechangers (I don't think he is one himself, but please correct me if I'm wrong?)

It couldn't hurt to bounce ideas off him.

[T4VERTS]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

He runs a popular podcast and has a line with the devs similar to that of the gamechangers (I don't think he is one himself, but please correct me if I'm wrong?)

It couldn't hurt to bounce ideas off him.

What he said, and nope not a GC just a guy who enjoys trying to make the game better.

[Rayzaa]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

There is alot more wrong than the progression part of it is why I was asking. It's presentation is just stale and has many issues in game play.

Id refer you to Dueces thread but word is the Devs already have that blueprint.
Personally I'd like to see in the game of what is in the blueprint but I have huge doubts we will see it

[T4VERTS]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

There is alot more wrong than the progression part of it is why I was asking. It's presentation is just stale and has many issues in game play.

Id refer you to Dueces thread but word is the Devs already have that blueprint.
Personally I'd like to see what is in the blueprint but I have huge doubts we will see it

Yea, this was a very specific request around progression.

[4thQtrStre5S]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

I would like to see progression based on reps, practice, game time. Give me a reason to use a low level player and build plays around a player I wish to develop.

Scheme and player type should be a part of progression. Maybe allow for options on players. For example, with a lot of tweeners coming into the NFL, give me the ability to re-assign a player and give them reps. Let me put a rookie behind another player and if they match styles or schemes, the rookie "learns" from the veteran.

I would like the ability to groom players. I look at the patriots and I see a history of them bringing in role players. Look at Julian Edelman. He is part of a legacy of Belichick bringing in a specific player type of smaller, but shifty and quick receiver to fill a role, which includes Wes Welker, Danny Amendola and Edelman himself. I would also bet that, if the draft goes well for the Pats, they will grab Clemson's Hunter Renfrow. I would like to see these types of schemes among CPU teams and have them draft according to the needs of their scheme.

[reyes the roof]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

There has to be a better way to progress guys without compiling stats and awards. The way they set up acquiring XP with the game plan drills and the three designated focus players isn’t realistic. There should be no limit on how many guys can acquire XP during the practice week

[Rayzaa]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

There has to be a better way to progress guys without compiling stats and awards. The way they set up acquiring XP with the game plan drills and the three designated focus players isn’t realistic. There should be no limit on how many guys can acquire XP during the practice week

I always skip/sim practice so there should be a way other than practice. And your practice squad players never get any points

[jfsolo]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

First of all I hope that Coordinators are in and that they(and the head coaches) all have specialties that influence the development of position groups on their teams in specific ways. For example some coordinators should make it more likely that a player will make a big jump in play recognition while others will really enhance route running improvements.

Even though it was improved this year, I'd still like to see more variability in regression. A 30 yr old with a normal development trait is a lock to regress at too predictable a rate.

[stinkubus]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

There has to be a better way to progress guys without compiling stats and awards. The way they set up acquiring XP with the game plan drills and the three designated focus players isn’t realistic. There should be no limit on how many guys can acquire XP during the practice week

CBA severely restricts practice time. NFL teams don't have reps to give everyone.

[sinthros]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

Practice is barren and it's been the same for years. Scheme fits/archetypes were a move in the right direction, but the scheme fit giving double xp is pretty op, and also, we need to be able to create custom schemes. Additionally, schemes that have WR's as deep threat scheme fits don't have EVERY WR as a deep threat (just as one example); that's dumb and needs to change.

[stinkubus]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

Custom schemes would be OP, too. Without hard trade offs there's no balance.

I also like the fact that you can't have it all and are forced to pick just one type of receiver to maximally develop. If I got to pick different archetypes for all three spots then they'd all be goons by the end of the first year.

The current system is actually pretty interesting, imo, because you can get creative by changing guy's positions to make them scheme fits or by trying to convert them.

Those midget deep threat WRs that litter every EA-generated draft class can be turned into amazing slot receivers who also just so happen to have better than average JMP and SPC because they started out as deep threats.

You can do the same thing with late round power OL who just so happen to have decent PBP. If your scheme fit is Pass Protector this type of player is easily converted, and they will start out with much better run blocking which you can't develop on a Pass Protector.

The biggest flaw, as I currently see it, are the existence of strategically dominated/dominating archetypes.

As an example: West Coast QBs are inferior to all others. SAC threshold is low (80), so there's no benefit to a high rating there. TUP is nice, but it can be overridden by traits.

Strong Arm (THP, DAC) and Field General (MAC, DAC) get upgrades to more useful attributes. Even if I was making a conscious effort to run a West Coast-themed offense I can't use any of the WC schemes because I don't want a WC QB.

I'd rather have a Strong Arm QB, no matter what offense I'm running, because there's no substitute for THP and it helps whether you throw short, deep, or in between. This means I can only use the Vertical schemes on offense if I need to develop a QB.

[sinthros]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

Custom schemes would be OP, too. Without hard trade offs there's no balance.

I also like the fact that you can't have it all and are forced to pick just one type of receiver to maximally develop. If I got to pick different archetypes for all three spots then they'd all be goons by the end of the first year.

The current system is actually pretty interesting, imo, because you can get creative by changing guy's positions to make them scheme fits or by trying to convert them.

Those midget deep threat WRs that litter every EA-generated draft class can be turned into amazing slot receivers who also just so happen to have better than average JMP and SPC because they started out as deep threats.

You can do the same thing with late round power OL who just so happen to have decent PBP. If your scheme fit is Pass Protector this type of player is easily converted, and they will start out with much better run blocking which you can't develop on a Pass Protector.

The biggest flaw, as I currently see it, are the existence of strategically dominated/dominating archetypes.

As an example: West Coast QBs are inferior to all others. SAC threshold is low (80), so there's no benefit to a high rating there. TUP is nice, but it can be overridden by traits.

Strong Arm (THP, DAC) and Field General (MAC, DAC) get upgrades to more useful attributes. Even if I was making a conscious effort to run a West Coast-themed offense I can't use any of the WC schemes because I don't want a WC QB.

I'd rather have a Strong Arm QB, no matter what offense I'm running, because there's no substitute for THP and it helps whether you throw short, deep, or in between. This means I can only use the Vertical schemes on offense if I need to develop a QB.

Custom schemes would of course be op under the current system. Obviously I'd only advocate for custom schemes under an adjusted system.

[ijumpedthegun]

Re: Soliciting Feedback: Thoughts on Franchise progression?

Rookies and young players should progress faster. Try getting a promising 75 OVR rookie WR to amount to anything in the league.

I would love to have some of it tied to production, some of it not. Also, progression should look differently at different points in a players career. For example, a rookie backup should still have his awareness increase (or other "knowing the game" related stats) regardless of their playing time, etc., because they're spending time practicing and being a part of the pro game.