|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by canes21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support the idea of having more fog of war, but I wish we would get rid of numbers. I don't look at Tom Brady in real life and think he has 47 speed, I look at him and think he is slow. I look at Tyreek Hill and think he is fast.
I'd rather Madden(all sports games) ditch the numerical rating system and simply give us detailed scouting reports that put players and their skillsets into tiers.
For example, Tom Brady as a whole is in the +++ tier of QBs. You can call it the 1 tier, the A tier, the +++ tier, whatever, that's semantics. Then when you click into his player card you'll see a list of strengths.
+++ Football IQ
+++ Leadership
+++ Work Ethic
++ Play Action
++ Footwork
- - - Top Speed
- - - Quickness
- - - Agility
And then a section detailing durability and past injury history and whether or not any past injuries are ones that could lead to further "re-injury" in the future. For example, a guy like Gurley would show he has knee issues and it would have a note detailing how he is likely to have future injuries because of the past injuries and what they've done to his knees.
This system would give the player a great idea of a players overall skill by having them in macro tiers and then breaking down their individual skills into further sub-tiers allows you to compare them head to head, looking at their strengths and weaknesses and making decisions based off of that.
It gives you plenty of information to not be lost, but it rids of the issue you highlighted in your post where you simply know with 100% accuracy who is better than who in a numerical rating system.
The system could and should also implement consistency like you described. That would be a part of a player's scouting report in their player card. Brady would be a very consistent player. His attributes behind the scenes would have a small range of numbers they'd fluctuate between game to game, drive to drive. Other players would have notes saying they are somewhat consistent, not consistent, very inconsistent, and so on. These guys would all have bigger and smaller windows their attributes could fluctuate in behind the scenes.
Also, to keep the scouting report from being an overload of information, it should really only highlight true strengths and weaknesses and note that all else is assumed to be average compared to the player pool at that position. So some very average players would simply have small scouting reports that maybe highlight one or two things and it'll also tell you the player is about league average as a whole.
A system that combines these ideas is one that instantly adds variety to franchise mode for the user even if the CPU logic remains terrible. The user is no longer omniscient and position battles will be a thing again and you'll have valid reason to rotate players in and out to see who does perform best for your team when you don't have a standout player who is the obvious starter.
It provides enough information for the casual gamer, but keeps enough information hidden in the fog so that any hardcore franchise player can find longevity in the mode.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would be perfectly happy with a system like this and agree that numbers are kindof dumb. However, the player ratings are a huge selling point/marketing tool for the game so I feel they would likely never go anywhere. If we stick with numbers then in competitive modes and for marketing purposes the players can simply have numbers like they do now. But when a user enters franchise mode it could create the ranges and could randomize where the players’ “true” ratings are in those ranges at the start of the franchise (so us franchise players couldn’t simply refer to the “true” ratings from the competitive side). Again, there would be some logic to the ranges. Due to consistency and the league’s familiarity with him, Tom Brady’s range (maybe 87-95) would be tiny compared to Kyle Trask’s range (maybe 50-80).
But I do think that with a number system that is shrouded with ranges, it can still really create that uncertainty - even though there are numbers. A rookie with a 50-80 could very well be better than a vet with a 76-85. The rookie’s actual rating could be an 80 while the vet’s could be a 77 (and this is obviously simplifying things because of course every attribute would have a range, but for the simplicity of the discussion I’ll just refer to overall ratings). Close observation in practice and in games could make the rookie’s talent clear to a user. Or the dice rolls could play havoc, in a good way. The rookie could have a good game just by luck and the user could assume that the rating is high...then they realize the hard way that they were wrong. Or maybe the good game was true and then a few bad games are flukes. Will the user give up too quickly? Or will they trust what they saw in the good game and ride out more games? Meanwhile, if we had some semblance of locker-room management the vet player could be annoyed that they were benched for the rookie. It creates whole storylines and difficult decisions just based on uncertainty - even if there are still numbers at play.
So while I do like your system, and in many ways I like it more, I do also think it would be more difficult to implement since Madden will want to keep using numbers for the competitive crowd and for marketing purposes.