Chatting With Josh Looman About Madden's Franchise Mode

[JaySmooov]

Quote:

OS: Are there team-building stages in Franchise mode now? To be clear, will some teams play the veteran who is slightly better while chasing a Super Bowl, while another rebuilding team will play the rookie with the higher potential even though he may have a lower rating than some veteran? Looman: Well, we added a lot of different things in there that sort of combine to create that type of effect I guess you could say. We added the player roles back in, which was a feature we had during the last generation. A lot of those roles affect the logic in the game. So if you have a guy on the team who has the role of “quarterback of the future,” a team won’t go into free agency or select a QB early in the draft because they’re trying to build around that QB. We also rewrote all of our re-sign logic, and we added new logic that we haven’t had before, such as “cut dead weight” logic in the offseason. And what happens then is teams will go through the roster player by player and evaluate how they need to go forward. I think my example was that last year if the Redskins signed Donovan McNabb to a seven-year deal, our logic would make him stay on the team for seven years; they would never consider cutting him, and he would be there until 2017 as the quarterback of the Redskins. This year, what they’ll do is take a look at the talent on the roster, and they’ll factor in the fact that they could probably draft a guy early in the draft or potentially sign a free agent to replace a guy like McNabb, and so they’ll just cut McNabb at that point. They do sort of execute a lot more intelligently to build for the future, so yeah there’s a lot of that stuff in there that makes them a lot smarter

Guess this means teams won't bench a QB for the QB of the future if the starter is struggling. He basically went around the question.

[guaps]

Quote: Originally Posted by JaySmooov

I don't think a Long Snapper position would exist. LS are usually backup lineman, so it wouldn't make sense to have a specific position for it. However, it would be easier with the expanded rosters to include every team's LS in the game, and make them a decent Lineman so we could keep them as a serviceable backup if we wanted, or cut em outright and make someone else the LS. Some teams use a LB as the long snapper.

Actually, no. All thirty-two NFL teams have specialized players just to long snap. You might find a few that are backups at other position, but you rarely see them on the field other than as a long snapper, because the teams don't want to see them get injured.

[xblake16x]

And chase, is this a response to the questions thread we had last week?

[K_GUN]

EA is due for some good luck with their football series, so I'm rooting for this to succeed

glad to see Consistency is in.....I always thought players should have a consistency rating (ala that other game a few years back)

kudos EA!

[GiantBlue76]

Quote: Originally Posted by guaps

Actually, no. All thirty-two NFL teams have specialized players just to long snap. You might find a few that are backups at other position, but you rarely see them on the field other than as a long snapper, because the teams don't want to see them get injured.

Absolutely correct. I'm tired of seeing Chris Snee or Shaun O'Hara as the long snapper on special teams for the Giants. Zak DeOssie is the long snapper. He should be on the roster and he isn't.

[huskerwr38]

In pre-season, accuracy of rookie ratings should depend on the strength of your coaches or even for everybody's ratings for that matter. I always thought this was a good way for your coaches to actually matter. For instance, say you had a QB that was rated at a 90, but he keeps under performing. It turns out your QB coach is horrible and you hire a new one only to find out he's (your QB) actually rated a 78 or so. Or say you had a really good QB coach and your players were over achievers. For example, say your QB is rated at an 85 and your QB coach retires and you hire a new one only to find out that your QB is actually rated at like a 75 or so. I think this would add a whole new dimension to the game.

[JaySmooov]

Quote: Originally Posted by JerseySuave4

i dont like that free agents just go where they are offered the most money. Lets say the Patriots are offering Chad OchoCinco and the Browns are offering Chad OchoCinco and the money is close but the Browns are offering more you think he's going to just take the money and play on another crappy team, in a crappy city where he's gotta play Pittsburgh & Baltimore twice a year and prob never win a Super Bowl. Or is he going to go play with Brady, play on a team constantly in the playoffs where he has a chance to win? Thats why i dont like that guys just go to the money. Other factors should be considered. If its a young guy then maybe money is more important than rings but if its a guy who hasn't won a ring yet he'll be more willing to take less for a shot at a title.

True. But that was in Madden 11 last year. I bet you couldn't tell though, when FA rolled around. That's how broken it was. You could buy any player you wanted, as long as you had the cap space. With the bidding, and refined salary/cap, you wont see random guys going to play for random teams just because. I mean, it'll still be random, but teams will have to settle if they lose on a bid because other teams will overbid. Kind of like Auction drafts in fantasy football. And with the potential, DDP, etc., they may hit on a diamond in the rough in an underachiever anyway.

[JaySmooov]

Quote: Originally Posted by horrormaster

Wasn't this "Dynamic Player Progression" already apart of Madden during the Playstation era? I remember playing those Madden games and every game your player's ratings would either go up or down depending on how well he has been playing. Problem was that by the end of the season all your players could be 99 overall if you completely destroyed every team. Sounds like EA took another feature they removed and shined it up a little.

Do you EA bashers take pride and glory in going back to see if EA already used a feature?

I mean, even you stated it was horribly broken, so isnt it kind of, i don't know, GOOD they "shined it up a bit?"