I'm not understanding player progression or potential?

[steelsnarf]

I thought I had a pretty good idea of how player progression worked, where rookies and 1 year pro guys almost always go up the most in their overall, regardless of potential, and the older they are the less they improve (in most cases.)

But I've come across some things that annoy me a bit, I just completed a first year franchise with the Panthers and early in the season their starting RE (Charles Johnson, OVR 86, POT A) got put on IR in week 1. Now understandably he went down I believe it was 3 or 4 points overall, and that's reasonable to me since most injured reserve players do regress in some physical skills. But what doesn't make any sense whatsoever is Johnson's backup, (Everette Brown, OVR 70, POT A) filled in and had a respectably good season with nothing to show for it. This guy is in his 3rd year at age 23 with an A potential, and his stats were 44 solo, 23 assists, and 8 sacks. Guess how much he progressed at the end of the season? None. Still a 70 overall.

Naturally being completely dumbfounded I decided to investigate, so I started another franchise with Carolina and put Everette Brown at the bottom of the depth chart seeing as he wouldn't get any play time. So he had no stats at all at the end of the season, and he was still a 70 overall! How did EA manage to screw something like that up. So I guy can have 40+ tackles with 8 sacks and not improve, or not play one down all year and have the exact same results? I'm starting to think progression is rigged..

[hofmeister929]

Their progression is set. Whether they play the whole season or are on the bench

[steelsnarf]

Quote: Originally Posted by hofmeister929

Their progression is set. Whether they play the whole season or are on the bench

Leave it to EA to create such a massive flaw.

[Bull_Dozer]

The progression system needs to be redone. It's totally unrealistic as is.

[Big FN Deal]

I guess I just keep repeating this because it makes me feel better in some weird way for trying to understand WTF happened this generation but the majority of this generation EA/Tiburon has not been attempting to make player progression, potential or most anything else realistic, just "fun", imo.

Donny Moore and Josh Looman created HC09 which has a much more realistic, team system and injury based progression/potential than Madden, so they know what to do, they just haven't been doing it Madden.

It seems past developers have been so concerned about alienating the Madden loyalist by creating a game that plays like real football, not "fun" Madden-ball, that this is what we have been given, even for career modes.

The silver lining to this is that there seems to be a good chance, that philosophy is no longer practiced by the current developer team and we can probably expect M13 to at least try to address unrealistic issues with the game.

[funnyfiggy]

Some of it is that Madden is made for a casual offense, not hardcore gamers. They have some sort of algorithm in place that decides development of players. I think they need this, but with some random factors. There are too many A pot players; it would be even worse if they all got there.

[cmo1qb17]

Progression and potential are flawed all together. I just finished the second year of my franchise with Baltimore. In the offseason I decide to look at other teams player progression, noticed that both Arizona QBs were injured for season and rookie Kellen Moore (I import NCAA draft classes) started half the season. Was 64 ovr and had D potential. Finished the season with 10 tds, 3 int, over 1500 yds and 75.0 QB rating. With stats like that and having D potential one would reasonably presume that his overall would stay the same or possibly even go up by only 1 point if anything. But what was the result....... -19 ovr progression so he ended up being 45 overall. What is the logic in that????? Went and checked other teams and noticed that 3-5 other low rated rookie QBs also had -15 to -25 regression, most with having no stats at all. Potential should not be a constant but something that would be upgraded and downgraded based on performance or not even be in the game at all. Im sure when the Patriots drafted Tom Brady, they didnt think he had "A potential" but he sure does now in the game.

[funnyfiggy]

Quote: Originally Posted by cmo1qb17

Progression and potential are flawed all together. I just finished the second year of my franchise with Baltimore. In the offseason I decide to look at other teams player progression, noticed that both Arizona QBs were injured for season and rookie Kellen Moore (I import NCAA draft classes) started half the season. Was 64 ovr and had D potential. Finished the season with 10 tds, 3 int, over 1500 yds and 75.0 QB rating. With stats like that and having D potential one would reasonably presume that his overall would stay the same or possibly even go up by only 1 point if anything. But what was the result....... -19 ovr progression so he ended up being 45 overall. What is the logic in that????? Went and checked other teams and noticed that 3-5 other low rated rookie QBs also had -15 to -25 regression, most with having no stats at all. Potential should not be a constant but something that would be upgraded and downgraded based on performance or not even be in the game at all. Im sure when the Patriots drafted Tom Brady, they didnt think he had "A potential" but he sure does now in the game.

How do you think the game would work if there was no progression?