Progression Idea

[ecsdcopper]

This idea isn't original by any means, but it seems that it would be rather easy for programmers to base progression on performance. Increases could and SHOULD be tied based on what you do.

For example, awareness would increase depending on your time on the field. A full year starter would most certainly increase his game awareness if he had a full year experience on the field, and on the other hand the second stringers wouldn't progress very much. However, it would give you incentive during that big blow out to put in your second string to get them game experience.

Again, tie the progression to performance. If a QB throws for 4000 yards and 20 TD's then he should be rewarded for it. If he threw a lot of INT's then perhaps his accuracy wouldn't go up, but at least his awareness and maybe even arm strength could most certainly improve.

Same goes with any position. You could easily tie in increases to individual yearly stats. Receivers with x amount of catches could increase between a random 1-3 points in catch. Receivers with a top tier amount of catches may increase more, say 2-5 points in catch.

Let's get some innovation here. What incentive do you really have to put in your second stringers EVER (maybe besides avoiding injury). It really would put a higher level of excitement (for me anyway) to have performance based progression.

[pdiehm]

that's how it should be. The more you play, the better you become, your awareness and ability should increase.

Off season training helps strength, and speed. It helps the kick power and accuracy.

[LambertandHam]

Quote: Originally Posted by pdiehm

that's how it should be. The more you play, the better you become, your awareness and ability should increase. Off season training helps strength, and speed. It helps the kick power and accuracy.

Couldn't agree more. I had Lewis from Pitt rush for 2,000 + and 3,000 all purpose yards, and he increased by 2 overall.

[fhhs63]

Exactly, from my experience, speed and strength NEVER change...so, what, they don't do offseason conditioning?

[jbrew2411]

I have been posting this in "Wish List" threads for 2 years now.

This is why we need what I call "True Progression". It's looks like this.

Players will only progress due to three factors.
1) Potential: EA has a potential grade in the game but we can't see it. They need to show us like in Madden. Not every 5* player will have A potential and not every 2* player will be a D. Mix some gems in like we have in real life (D. Ware, A. Curry) to name a few. A player with A potential will improve 10-15 points over a career. A player with a B will increase 6-10 points over a career. A player with a C will increase 2-6 points over a career. A player with a D will increase 0-2 points.

2) Weekly Training: EA needs to add a weekly training feature like other sports games have. We will be able to assign time for things like film study, practice/position drills, and time in the weight room. Each will have there own effects.
-Film Study: will improve a players awr, play recognition
-Practice/Position Drills: will improve catch, thp, tha, run/pass blocking, footwork, tackle, block shed, pass rushing skills, pass coverage ability.
-Weight Room: will improve strength, spd, elu, acc, agility, juke, run/pass block strength.

3) Playing Time & On field Performance: How well a player perform on the field and how much playing time a player receives.

For a player to reach max progression the player would have to participate in all 3 areas.

[Special27K]

I hate the idea of progression being tied to performance... unless players can digress also. You want to give that star recruit time and put him in the slot or as your #2 that upper classman should suffer. Progressing minimally.

I feel like its a little harder than just saying X yards and X TD's means your WR gets a little extra bonus. Aren't some players expected to put up those numbers? Players should have expectations and when/if they exceed those expectations is the only time they ever should get extra progression. If they don't meet those expectations they should equally be punished and digress. It also to me makes more sense for younger players (Fr and So) to benefit more from playing time than the upper classmen.

Examples
Jr WR#8 - 95OVR --- 1,139 yds - 8 TD's
Shouldn't receive 0-1 extra progression boost in his skill ratings. He's clearly a star WR and is expected to have 900-1200 yds and 8+ TD's

Jr WR#8 -95OVR --- 873 yds - 6 TD's
Now he should receive -1-0 points of progression added to his skill ratings (factored into the already regular progression). He underperformed, not by much but it should be reflected.

Fr WR#81 - 77OVR --- 391 yds - 5 TD's (41% of snaps played)
This incoming star played as the 3rd string receiver and played a considerable amount, what I would say is far more than expected. Just based on shear playing time he acquired he would get 0-2 in skill ratings and 1-4 in other ratings such as AWR.

Sr WR#17 81OVR --- 412 YDS - 5 TD's (40% of snaps played)
This senior has virtually the same stats and playing time accumulated as the freshman but, because he's far more experienced he doesn't receive the same progression boost. He shouldn't receive any at all in my opinion he has much less to learn and benefit from getting more playing time.

Jr WR#7 88OVR --- 519 yds - 4 TD's
For whatever reason this #1/#2 WR far underperformed what was expected and he is going to get worse based solely on his disappointing season. I would assume something like -4-0 skill points to be assessed after regular progression.

[NaptownMVP]

The problem with linking progression and performance is with human players. Some people can play 8 minute quarters and rack up large numbers. Some people (like me) have things that eat away at the time we would rather be gaming, and can only play 3 minute quarters and have less than stellar numbers.

Maybe % of plays ran could play in it somehow.

[Special27K]

Quote: Originally Posted by NaptownMVP

The problem with linking progression and performance is with human players. Some people can play 8 minute quarters and rack up large numbers. Some people (like me) have things that eat away at the time we would rather be gaming, and can only play 3 minute quarters and have less than stellar numbers. Maybe % of plays ran could play in it somehow.

This is another thing expected statistics need to be figured through some kind of formula based on quarter length