adembroski's Blog
It's difficult to think of any one game that has mastered the art of player progression. It always seems like its too fast, too slow, too arbitrary, too predictable, too random, or non-existent. Madden itself has run that entire gambit in its history. NFL Head Coach 09's player progression was very fair, very transparent, and utterly wrong.
It's hard for me to say that as I truly consider NFL Head Coach to sport the single greatest franchise mode this side of Front Office Football and other text-based simulations. The game was a work of genius and, to my mind, set the standard for all console franchise modes to come. However, NFL Head Coach fell into the same trap as most games, and indeed most gamers, do. The belief that, somehow, player progression should be tied to performance. (coaching also played a role, but ultimately it was performance that made the ratings increase)
How often have you seen it? An angry gamer posting on a sports game forum; "My 68 rated runningback ran for 1600 yards! He only gained 1 point!" On the surface, this seems to make sense. Clearly if he ran for 1600 yards, he must be better than a 68, and thus he should get such recognition. But what happens if he gains the progression to put him at a rating befitting a 1600 yard performance? He's now, say, a 90 overall. Now how many yards is he going to run for? 1800? 2000? Talk about a quick way to destroy a franchise mode.
In reality, improvement begets production, not the other way around. So what dictates a player's real life progression? Personal work ethic and coaching, mostly. So why don't games reflect this? Mostly because of us. We, the player, demand that our 68 rated back who ran for 1600 yards be rewarded, even though, in that scenario, he probably simply benefited from a great offensive line.
In this new era of intimate developer interaction, we, as gamers, need to start getting our priorities straight. If they're going to listen to our input, we have to take responsibility for making sure our input is worthwhile and, more importantly, good for the game. In respect to progression, we need to stop and think about what really makes a player improve, and act on that.
# 1
rudyjuly2 @ Mar 11
Definitely a chicken and egg thing with regards to progression. This is a tough thing to get right.
# 3
CapnKill @ Mar 11
I personally do want progression to be mostly based on performance, since it does make it fun for the gamer. In the example that you posted I don't think the problem is that a 68 OVR HB gets big time progression for running for 1,500 yards, in turn I think the main issue is that a 68 OVR HB CAN get 1,500 yards in a season.
The game physics are certainly flawed when someone can take a 68 OVR HB and run for 1,500 yards simply because the HB has a good SPD rating. If the core of the game is fixed so that a 68 OVR HB would have a hard time getting 500 yards either do to poor stats in other departmnets, like CAR, or spin, juke, etc... then everything else would fall in place and make sense.
The game physics are certainly flawed when someone can take a 68 OVR HB and run for 1,500 yards simply because the HB has a good SPD rating. If the core of the game is fixed so that a 68 OVR HB would have a hard time getting 500 yards either do to poor stats in other departmnets, like CAR, or spin, juke, etc... then everything else would fall in place and make sense.
# 4
adembroski @ Mar 11
You make a very good point what with a 68 getting 1500 yards, but I think my point remains valid. Progression should be more based on player work ethic and coaching than performance. The development of players should be almost a game within the game.
# 5
CapnKill @ Mar 11
I understand your angle, but after playing the PS2 game for a while I find that it's just far more of an enjoyable experience to see the work you do on the field somewhat directly effect your players progression. It's just more satisfying that way. It should probably be toned down a bit... if you won the SB in the PS2 game you're entire team would just end up with mad progression... but I still think it should be based on performance.
# 6
Glorious Arc @ Mar 11
The SB increase happens because thats the general thought process that the best team with the best players wins the SB...But that doesnt always happen IRL. If that were the case there would be more dynastys IRL. Most teams cant repeat the following year and its almost impossible to go for three in a row.
I agree that player progression should be more based on the coaching staff and their work ethic. I have a Blog with a link to Week Prep. that would be a decent way to add in coaching up your players to improve them. Please tell me what you think.
I agree that player progression should be more based on the coaching staff and their work ethic. I have a Blog with a link to Week Prep. that would be a decent way to add in coaching up your players to improve them. Please tell me what you think.
# 7
savsr @ Mar 11
i personally think that perhaps madden should take a progression similar to how players progress in the immensly popular football manager series (that would be soccer to most of you reading this i would guess).
This takes players and gives them a potential ability rating from 1-200. this immediately places a ceiling on how good someone can become just like natural talent does in real life.
with a 'ceiling set' various factors then play into the players development or progression. hidden attributes factor in, two of which are professionalism and ambition and training is also very important.
however, adem, in your blog you pretty much state that these should be the only things. in fm, first team experience playing matches is also hugely important and therefore i dont think its a case of one or the other but a case of compromise.
with regards to madden and how progression relates to performance, stats alone doesn't work for me. I think that there should be a weighted average which tends towards clutch situatuations and important plays. maybe for linebackers or dts, 3 goal line stops per season should count for more then tackles, or perhaps how successful your team is against the run instead of tackles. to illustrate this example, take cato june, an average player at best....he led the nfl in tackles a couple of years ago but he is definitely not in 90's in madden ability IMO. another example of stats gone wrong, the mighty anthony henry had around 7 picks last season i think, but i'm pretty sure asomugha, who had 1, is better.
so to sum up, all factors should play in but a basic stats related progression definitely doesn't cut it
This takes players and gives them a potential ability rating from 1-200. this immediately places a ceiling on how good someone can become just like natural talent does in real life.
with a 'ceiling set' various factors then play into the players development or progression. hidden attributes factor in, two of which are professionalism and ambition and training is also very important.
however, adem, in your blog you pretty much state that these should be the only things. in fm, first team experience playing matches is also hugely important and therefore i dont think its a case of one or the other but a case of compromise.
with regards to madden and how progression relates to performance, stats alone doesn't work for me. I think that there should be a weighted average which tends towards clutch situatuations and important plays. maybe for linebackers or dts, 3 goal line stops per season should count for more then tackles, or perhaps how successful your team is against the run instead of tackles. to illustrate this example, take cato june, an average player at best....he led the nfl in tackles a couple of years ago but he is definitely not in 90's in madden ability IMO. another example of stats gone wrong, the mighty anthony henry had around 7 picks last season i think, but i'm pretty sure asomugha, who had 1, is better.
so to sum up, all factors should play in but a basic stats related progression definitely doesn't cut it
# 8
kcarr @ Mar 12
I am glad that at least a few people out there can see that progression based on performance makes absolutely no sense. First off in the case with the 68 overall running back this is the cause of one or more of the following all of which have no real life correlation to progression:
Stick skills of a player overriding the player's ratings due to broken gameplay
A great oline
A passing game which takes a lot of pressure off of the running game
constantly playing with a lead and being able to run a lot despite lack of a good back
Now I do think there should be a confidence type rating that should change pretty greatly due to performance. This should effect overall performance by making the player slightly less prone to mistakes but any mistakes should lead to drops here. Somewhat like an individual momentum but it needs to have a pretty small effect.
Chemistry should also be added and linked at least somewhat to performance. When players are playing well, and especially when they are winning, they will be happier with each other and there will be less locker room problems and maybe more being of the same mind during gamepley.
Also leadership, which should have an effect on how well a player keeps the team together in tough situations, should be linked somewhat to performance. Each player should have individual mins and maxes based somewhat on personality type but also they should improve based on overall career body of work. Players are more likely to follow a player who has played well and done that for a long time than to follow someone who hasn't ever been very good or hasn't played as long.
Also, with playbook learning there might be a very small, nearly negligible, increase due to running the plays during the game but it should be nowhere near the increase gained during practice.
Physical abilities should be increased and decreased based in very small amounts based almost solely on work ethic, discipline, and weight changes.
Skills should be increased based on work ethic, how coachable the player is, and the ability of the coaching staff.
Stick skills of a player overriding the player's ratings due to broken gameplay
A great oline
A passing game which takes a lot of pressure off of the running game
constantly playing with a lead and being able to run a lot despite lack of a good back
Now I do think there should be a confidence type rating that should change pretty greatly due to performance. This should effect overall performance by making the player slightly less prone to mistakes but any mistakes should lead to drops here. Somewhat like an individual momentum but it needs to have a pretty small effect.
Chemistry should also be added and linked at least somewhat to performance. When players are playing well, and especially when they are winning, they will be happier with each other and there will be less locker room problems and maybe more being of the same mind during gamepley.
Also leadership, which should have an effect on how well a player keeps the team together in tough situations, should be linked somewhat to performance. Each player should have individual mins and maxes based somewhat on personality type but also they should improve based on overall career body of work. Players are more likely to follow a player who has played well and done that for a long time than to follow someone who hasn't ever been very good or hasn't played as long.
Also, with playbook learning there might be a very small, nearly negligible, increase due to running the plays during the game but it should be nowhere near the increase gained during practice.
Physical abilities should be increased and decreased based in very small amounts based almost solely on work ethic, discipline, and weight changes.
Skills should be increased based on work ethic, how coachable the player is, and the ability of the coaching staff.
# 9
Coach3K @ Mar 12
There are some really good points here. I understand concerns regarding performance and how that relates to progression. There are definitely issues you'd have to weigh in balancing that.
However, performance DOES directly affect ratings...in real life, no less. In that sense, I'm talking about the real-life-performance/game-life-ratings dynamic.
There’s no question that in Madden 10, Antonio Bryant will see a significant improvement in his rating. It’s already happened for him and countless others in personally-altered rosters across the nation. That’s a rating change based on performance…he’s generally got the same physical skill-set he had 9 months ago…opportunity and the filter of performance just alters our view of him, thus how he is going to be rated.
As kcarr notes, gamey factors come into play that can allow a low-rated player to excel and, in an imperfect system, have their rating jump radically. That’s different from the Bryant example above. But that’s not necessarily the end of the world. I mean, if that person is gaming things and rushes for 1,600 yards and you reward them with some improved measurables/ratings in-game, they’re not suddenly going to be rushing for 2,300 yards. And if they do…well, that’s their game they are ruining, not mine…what they are doing in the privacy of their own home doesn’t really affect me.
The fact is, you can’t really balance for the people who are going to “exploit” the game to chase some stats. They are going to do that with their favorite players by whatever means available to them anyway. Balance it for the people who want to play a balanced, realistic game, whether “sim” or not. Those people aren’t going to have 68-rated RB’s rushing for 1,600 yards anyway. And if they do, then you can mentally explain it away as a “diamond-in-the-rough” find – an under-developed player exposed by good coaching and/or bad initial scouting.
As for actual implementation of a progression system: I like the idea of some kind of MOSTLY HIDDEN potential rating/curve, which would allow personal progression based on some combination of personal performance and team success, with a small random component based on some ratings like “Motivation” and “Character” and a team component of “Chemistry.” There’d have to be maximum improvements each year with diminishing returns the closer you get to the top of the curve. Rush for 1,600 yards as a 68, and you may see yourself progress to 77 the next year. Rush for 1,600 yards as an 88, and you maybe see yourself jump only 3-4 points. Either way, it would take 4-6 years for that 68-rated player to turn into a low-mid-90’s player IF their max potential would even allow that…and they’d have to be consistently performing at that level for all those years to get there. And if they’re getting 1,600 yards for 5 years in a row…well wouldn’t you rate that level of player as a 90-something anyway if you were manually updating ratings anyway?
I say “mostly hidden” above, because though I like the idea of TRUE potential being hidden (unlike Head Coach), I think there should be minimal hints about a player’s potential that can be unlocked through some level of scouting before the draft. That way, it pays to actually work a player out and scout them. This is running into a bit of “Head Coach” territory, but I really like something along these lines, as opposed to pre-determined, random, and/or straight performance-based progression. That might be asking a lot though.
However, performance DOES directly affect ratings...in real life, no less. In that sense, I'm talking about the real-life-performance/game-life-ratings dynamic.
There’s no question that in Madden 10, Antonio Bryant will see a significant improvement in his rating. It’s already happened for him and countless others in personally-altered rosters across the nation. That’s a rating change based on performance…he’s generally got the same physical skill-set he had 9 months ago…opportunity and the filter of performance just alters our view of him, thus how he is going to be rated.
As kcarr notes, gamey factors come into play that can allow a low-rated player to excel and, in an imperfect system, have their rating jump radically. That’s different from the Bryant example above. But that’s not necessarily the end of the world. I mean, if that person is gaming things and rushes for 1,600 yards and you reward them with some improved measurables/ratings in-game, they’re not suddenly going to be rushing for 2,300 yards. And if they do…well, that’s their game they are ruining, not mine…what they are doing in the privacy of their own home doesn’t really affect me.
The fact is, you can’t really balance for the people who are going to “exploit” the game to chase some stats. They are going to do that with their favorite players by whatever means available to them anyway. Balance it for the people who want to play a balanced, realistic game, whether “sim” or not. Those people aren’t going to have 68-rated RB’s rushing for 1,600 yards anyway. And if they do, then you can mentally explain it away as a “diamond-in-the-rough” find – an under-developed player exposed by good coaching and/or bad initial scouting.
As for actual implementation of a progression system: I like the idea of some kind of MOSTLY HIDDEN potential rating/curve, which would allow personal progression based on some combination of personal performance and team success, with a small random component based on some ratings like “Motivation” and “Character” and a team component of “Chemistry.” There’d have to be maximum improvements each year with diminishing returns the closer you get to the top of the curve. Rush for 1,600 yards as a 68, and you may see yourself progress to 77 the next year. Rush for 1,600 yards as an 88, and you maybe see yourself jump only 3-4 points. Either way, it would take 4-6 years for that 68-rated player to turn into a low-mid-90’s player IF their max potential would even allow that…and they’d have to be consistently performing at that level for all those years to get there. And if they’re getting 1,600 yards for 5 years in a row…well wouldn’t you rate that level of player as a 90-something anyway if you were manually updating ratings anyway?
I say “mostly hidden” above, because though I like the idea of TRUE potential being hidden (unlike Head Coach), I think there should be minimal hints about a player’s potential that can be unlocked through some level of scouting before the draft. That way, it pays to actually work a player out and scout them. This is running into a bit of “Head Coach” territory, but I really like something along these lines, as opposed to pre-determined, random, and/or straight performance-based progression. That might be asking a lot though.
# 10
kcarr @ Mar 12
Ok, yes with the example of stick skills causing unbalance, that can be controlled. The other situational reasons(great oline/passing game) that can actually happen in real life do not lead to progression in real life. For instance the pats running backs this last season. They often excelled even though they were not super talented backs. This was due to them being in a situation with enough other weapons on the field and a good oline where they could put up numbers with only average talent.
As for the Antonio Bryant example, initially it looks like you have a point with this but let's examine this further. Antonio put up a very good season, his best of his career so far. Yes, he will be rated higher in madden 10 than he was in madden 09 at least relative to other WRs. His overall ratings may actually drop with them spreading out the ratings, I don't know, but relative to the pack he will improve. Let's look at why his rating will improve though.
Is it because he is going to improve greatly this offseason and be a much better reciever than he was last year? This is obviously not the case, who knows wether or not he will improve this offseason. There is no real evidence as to how he will develop just based on last season. However, if progression was to be based on preformance that is what you are saying should be expected. How often does that really happen in real life where after putting up better than normal numbers a guy goes and actually develops further and is even better the following year?
Now let's look at another possible explanation for Bryant's rating increase. Perhaps EA missed some previous improvement or misjudged antonio's abilities because a player's improvement is difficult to judge before actually seeing him perform. Therefore any improvement we are seeing reflected in these ratings actually occured before this previous breakout season based on either work that bryant put in in that off time or due to him developing. Either that or he didn't actually improve and was just in a better situation here and didn't actually progress. Any of those explanations make way more sense than the idea that his performance last season indicates a huge future developement.
As for the Antonio Bryant example, initially it looks like you have a point with this but let's examine this further. Antonio put up a very good season, his best of his career so far. Yes, he will be rated higher in madden 10 than he was in madden 09 at least relative to other WRs. His overall ratings may actually drop with them spreading out the ratings, I don't know, but relative to the pack he will improve. Let's look at why his rating will improve though.
Is it because he is going to improve greatly this offseason and be a much better reciever than he was last year? This is obviously not the case, who knows wether or not he will improve this offseason. There is no real evidence as to how he will develop just based on last season. However, if progression was to be based on preformance that is what you are saying should be expected. How often does that really happen in real life where after putting up better than normal numbers a guy goes and actually develops further and is even better the following year?
Now let's look at another possible explanation for Bryant's rating increase. Perhaps EA missed some previous improvement or misjudged antonio's abilities because a player's improvement is difficult to judge before actually seeing him perform. Therefore any improvement we are seeing reflected in these ratings actually occured before this previous breakout season based on either work that bryant put in in that off time or due to him developing. Either that or he didn't actually improve and was just in a better situation here and didn't actually progress. Any of those explanations make way more sense than the idea that his performance last season indicates a huge future developement.
# 11
kcarr @ Mar 13
Yes, in real life you cannot tell progression until after it has occurred. Therefore the initial ratings given in madden are based on how a player is viewed. This is because there is no real way to know a guys exact rating in each area, all you can have is someones view of how good that player is.
The difference is once you have entered franchise mode, or any gameplay for that matter, the ratings are not how good that player is viewed to be within the franchise. They are how good that player actually is within the franchise.
As long as we continue to use the current rating system showing exactly how good players are there is nothing to show how a player is viewed within franchise mode. This is part of why I am in favor of a system with hidden ratings and what can be viewed by the user just being a representation of how the player is viewed. This could add to the game in a lot of ways, but as long as EA sticks with this system where the ratings shown are the actual abilities then they really should have nothing to do with how that player is viewed within the franchise based on his production, they should be based solely on that player's abilities within the franchise.
As for the example with Rashard Davis, this is a matter of a coaching staff making an incorrect evaluation of a player. This happens all the time and has to be accepted. However was Rashard actually less talented at the end of the bad season than he was at the beginning? No. He was percieved as worse. Therefore views about him might change and people might rate him differently but it has nothing to do with him actually progressing and regressing.
As long as the ratings are how well a player actually plays they should not change in the same way as views about a player change.
The difference is once you have entered franchise mode, or any gameplay for that matter, the ratings are not how good that player is viewed to be within the franchise. They are how good that player actually is within the franchise.
As long as we continue to use the current rating system showing exactly how good players are there is nothing to show how a player is viewed within franchise mode. This is part of why I am in favor of a system with hidden ratings and what can be viewed by the user just being a representation of how the player is viewed. This could add to the game in a lot of ways, but as long as EA sticks with this system where the ratings shown are the actual abilities then they really should have nothing to do with how that player is viewed within the franchise based on his production, they should be based solely on that player's abilities within the franchise.
As for the example with Rashard Davis, this is a matter of a coaching staff making an incorrect evaluation of a player. This happens all the time and has to be accepted. However was Rashard actually less talented at the end of the bad season than he was at the beginning? No. He was percieved as worse. Therefore views about him might change and people might rate him differently but it has nothing to do with him actually progressing and regressing.
As long as the ratings are how well a player actually plays they should not change in the same way as views about a player change.
# 12
Coach3K @ Mar 13
Ultimately, there's no perfect way to set up ratings or progression. Even in a system where each player is painstakingly analyzed individually and ratings take into account things like real-life work ethic/motivation and even some intangibles that you’d need a real-life scouting agency to help quantify, you’ll have players perform differently from their ratings. Then you have the conflict in a player’s mind between what they see in the game world vs. what they see in the real world, at least in the first few years of a franchise.
I think what people generally want as a STARTING point for a franchise is an accurate representation of players in comparison to one another. That’s why you see some people waiting to start their franchises until certain points of the year – after they see how rookies and surprise players come out of the blocks, in addition to what final team rosters actually look like. They then go get updated rosters and start fresh from a point that parallels what they are seeing on TV and ESPN. Obviously, game-world quickly veers off from reality once a franchise starts, but at least people know that they started from a point that they can easily reconcile with reality for at least a little while.
I mean, think about starting up a franchise last year and just leaving ratings as they were. In an un-altered franchise world on a computer-controlled Titans team, you probably wouldn’t see Chris Johnson take over a starting role for at least 4-5 years, if at all. I think his overall is somewhere in the mid-to-high 70’s and White is in the low 80’s. After one or two years, the Titans AI might even use a first rounder on a marquee RB, pushing CJ into obscurity.
In reality, though, he’s looking like a big part of their future offense – if not as a franchise back, at least as a key component. And his official, updated ratings reflect that. I started up a new PS2 franchise last night and I think he’s in the mid-to-high 80’s now. Starting from that point, a player can reasonably expect to have the AI properly use and develop him and see CJ’s name actually pop up in league-leader lists, as you can expect in reality (and as actually happened last year). And I think people like to see that initial game-world reflect reality. If that weren’t the case, then the rush for updated rosters wouldn’t be so huge at the beginning of each season. We like to have our game worlds make some kind of sense compared to reality.
I think people like to see their franchises at least START in a way that somewhat reflects that current season’s reality…if not from a team standpoint, at least in individual performance. The imperfect way to achieve that is to use a rating system that reflects actual performance vs. some of the more in-depth analysis that could quickly become moot once people see how players actually perform.
Now, this discussion is centered on systems of progression, but you have to start somewhere, and initial ratings are an integral part of progression. We want to see players perform at a level that reflects their ratings. Generally, the mechanics for future in-game contracts (and how that affects our personnel decisions/salary cap management) are based on ratings, too. That 68 RB that rushes for 1,600 yards in his contract year doesn’t get a big payday just because of his production. The game AI would only push to get him that big contract if his rating at the time of negotiations warrants it. We’ve all used that to our advantage at one time or another by locking up a future, rising star with an initial low rating. That dynamic has to be considered in this discussion too.
It really is hard to separate the chicken from the egg here.
I think what people generally want as a STARTING point for a franchise is an accurate representation of players in comparison to one another. That’s why you see some people waiting to start their franchises until certain points of the year – after they see how rookies and surprise players come out of the blocks, in addition to what final team rosters actually look like. They then go get updated rosters and start fresh from a point that parallels what they are seeing on TV and ESPN. Obviously, game-world quickly veers off from reality once a franchise starts, but at least people know that they started from a point that they can easily reconcile with reality for at least a little while.
I mean, think about starting up a franchise last year and just leaving ratings as they were. In an un-altered franchise world on a computer-controlled Titans team, you probably wouldn’t see Chris Johnson take over a starting role for at least 4-5 years, if at all. I think his overall is somewhere in the mid-to-high 70’s and White is in the low 80’s. After one or two years, the Titans AI might even use a first rounder on a marquee RB, pushing CJ into obscurity.
In reality, though, he’s looking like a big part of their future offense – if not as a franchise back, at least as a key component. And his official, updated ratings reflect that. I started up a new PS2 franchise last night and I think he’s in the mid-to-high 80’s now. Starting from that point, a player can reasonably expect to have the AI properly use and develop him and see CJ’s name actually pop up in league-leader lists, as you can expect in reality (and as actually happened last year). And I think people like to see that initial game-world reflect reality. If that weren’t the case, then the rush for updated rosters wouldn’t be so huge at the beginning of each season. We like to have our game worlds make some kind of sense compared to reality.
I think people like to see their franchises at least START in a way that somewhat reflects that current season’s reality…if not from a team standpoint, at least in individual performance. The imperfect way to achieve that is to use a rating system that reflects actual performance vs. some of the more in-depth analysis that could quickly become moot once people see how players actually perform.
Now, this discussion is centered on systems of progression, but you have to start somewhere, and initial ratings are an integral part of progression. We want to see players perform at a level that reflects their ratings. Generally, the mechanics for future in-game contracts (and how that affects our personnel decisions/salary cap management) are based on ratings, too. That 68 RB that rushes for 1,600 yards in his contract year doesn’t get a big payday just because of his production. The game AI would only push to get him that big contract if his rating at the time of negotiations warrants it. We’ve all used that to our advantage at one time or another by locking up a future, rising star with an initial low rating. That dynamic has to be considered in this discussion too.
It really is hard to separate the chicken from the egg here.
# 13
Coach3K @ Mar 13
I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don’t want player development to be entirely predictable, but I also don’t want it completely arbitrary. I want it to involve a complex interplay of personal and team performance, personality, character, motivation, athleticism, coaching, and randomness. I want coaching/scouting ability to be able to mitigate, but not eliminate, the random component in both evaluating talent and affecting progression. I need to know there’s some level of randomness, otherwise I’ll ALWAYS know exactly what to look for when drafting/trading for a sure-fire future superstar and I’ll lose interest like I have within a few seasons of many of my next-gen franchises (if they haven’t locked up first). I need to know that even if I evaluate perfectly and have the best coaches and scouts money can buy, I have some chance of ending up with Ryan Leaf instead of Peyton Manning…because that’s what really happens, even with the teams with the best personnel departments.
I guess I’m wanting some perfected/tweaked hybrid of some of the best parts of Head Coach and Madden Franchise. I can’t see Head Coach rolled out en mass as a fully-functional franchise mode for Madden, as its complexity would turn off a lot of casual gamers. But they could definitely bring over some scaled-down components such as Potential (though it should be more hidden, even with maxed out personnel skills), Coaching abilities and personalities affecting player performance and development, basic GM/scouting abilities and how the quality of your scouting personnel can affect how well you evaluate players for perceived vs. actual rating/ability, etc.
Specifically relating to progression/regression, as I said above, I like the idea of individual Potential Curves that can be affected slightly (+/- 5-10% max) by coaching (good or bad). Each year’s draft would be randomly generated, not pre-determined, and would have a random distribution of different tiered players within hard-coded limits – one year, you might have 6 guys with 96-99 POT and 21 with 92-95 POT…and the next class may have 2 and 27. But you know you’ll never see fewer than 2 or more than 7 of those 96+ superstars in a class or something like that, and some of those superstars with high POT would be late-round gems due to low starting ratings.
After taking all of the above progression factors into account, with a well-balanced formula, I want to know that a player who has a great season on a Super Bowl team might NOT progress at all because the random and/or character/motivation/personality component(s) weighed more for THAT player’s calculation THAT year. The next year, with similar personal/team production, he may see drastic improvements because the positive parts of the formula happened to count for more during that year’s calculation. The random component could also scale downward with multiple years of “positive” factors. For example, if a player does rush for 1,400+ yards on a playoff-caliber team for 3 years in a row, the random component goes from being 25% of the calculation to 15% or something like that, as that player has “proven” over time that they can produce and their skills are legit. Keep scaling that downward to 5-10% or something with continued years of production/success.
Anyway, I know that’s a tall order, and given the current exclusivity, we’re not likely to see that level of innovation, but a man can dream, right?
I guess I’m wanting some perfected/tweaked hybrid of some of the best parts of Head Coach and Madden Franchise. I can’t see Head Coach rolled out en mass as a fully-functional franchise mode for Madden, as its complexity would turn off a lot of casual gamers. But they could definitely bring over some scaled-down components such as Potential (though it should be more hidden, even with maxed out personnel skills), Coaching abilities and personalities affecting player performance and development, basic GM/scouting abilities and how the quality of your scouting personnel can affect how well you evaluate players for perceived vs. actual rating/ability, etc.
Specifically relating to progression/regression, as I said above, I like the idea of individual Potential Curves that can be affected slightly (+/- 5-10% max) by coaching (good or bad). Each year’s draft would be randomly generated, not pre-determined, and would have a random distribution of different tiered players within hard-coded limits – one year, you might have 6 guys with 96-99 POT and 21 with 92-95 POT…and the next class may have 2 and 27. But you know you’ll never see fewer than 2 or more than 7 of those 96+ superstars in a class or something like that, and some of those superstars with high POT would be late-round gems due to low starting ratings.
After taking all of the above progression factors into account, with a well-balanced formula, I want to know that a player who has a great season on a Super Bowl team might NOT progress at all because the random and/or character/motivation/personality component(s) weighed more for THAT player’s calculation THAT year. The next year, with similar personal/team production, he may see drastic improvements because the positive parts of the formula happened to count for more during that year’s calculation. The random component could also scale downward with multiple years of “positive” factors. For example, if a player does rush for 1,400+ yards on a playoff-caliber team for 3 years in a row, the random component goes from being 25% of the calculation to 15% or something like that, as that player has “proven” over time that they can produce and their skills are legit. Keep scaling that downward to 5-10% or something with continued years of production/success.
Anyway, I know that’s a tall order, and given the current exclusivity, we’re not likely to see that level of innovation, but a man can dream, right?
# 14
kcarr @ Mar 13
Ok coach 3k, that was a very nice story about CJ. All it really proved though is initial ratings should be based on a person's perception of the player's ability. Once you enter franchise mode you have now accepted that these ratings are the best representation available to you and now are uneffected by the real world.
There are some problems or possible exploits involved with not linking progression to preformance. These can more realistically be fixed by developing a more realistic rating system. This idea of completely showing player's ratings is really unaccurate and is the source of a lot of the problems within the game.
Hiding these ratings and using a system blending what APF does and what madden does will give a lot more potential to what you could do with draft, free agency, trade, contract signing phases of the game. I could also see adding in parts from each head coach game's system. A hidden set of ratings only seen like when creating and editing players on a range somewhat like the original head coach. Then what should be shown is abilities somewhat like APF along with size ratings, athleticism ratings etc based on letter grades like the second head coach. The shown abilities could then be used as how the player is viewed and linked more to production than to the actual ratings. This would be what the player's actual value was and would lead to a lot more realistic valueing of players in all of the previously mentioned systems.
This way contracts and value could improve based on production but actual progression could be based on what realistically effects progression.
There are some problems or possible exploits involved with not linking progression to preformance. These can more realistically be fixed by developing a more realistic rating system. This idea of completely showing player's ratings is really unaccurate and is the source of a lot of the problems within the game.
Hiding these ratings and using a system blending what APF does and what madden does will give a lot more potential to what you could do with draft, free agency, trade, contract signing phases of the game. I could also see adding in parts from each head coach game's system. A hidden set of ratings only seen like when creating and editing players on a range somewhat like the original head coach. Then what should be shown is abilities somewhat like APF along with size ratings, athleticism ratings etc based on letter grades like the second head coach. The shown abilities could then be used as how the player is viewed and linked more to production than to the actual ratings. This would be what the player's actual value was and would lead to a lot more realistic valueing of players in all of the previously mentioned systems.
This way contracts and value could improve based on production but actual progression could be based on what realistically effects progression.
# 15
adembroski @ Mar 13
Great replies, guys, thanks. Since this was so popular, I'm going to actually post a new blog entirely in response to these points this weekend.
adembroski
43
5,801 Forum Posts
20 Blog Entries
474 News/Blog Comments
0 Reader Score Votes
156 Friends
25 Chalkboard Messages
9 Screenshots
0 Videos
122,336 Arena Visits
adembroski's Blog Categories
More
adembroski's Friends
Recent Visitors
The last 10 visitor(s) to this Arena were:
adembroski's Arena has had 122,336 visits
- 0blong00
- Hilman11
- Icelandair
- Jayyd11
- JGRIPP81
- JoeC
- kennylc321
- lawspecter816
- Shogunreaper
- toodles2you90
adembroski's Arena has had 122,336 visits
Working...