Some Madden NFL 16 Features Revealed, Pre-Order & Deluxe Edition Details

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

When the NDA ends, I expect to see answers about that because we've never heard them before.

I'd imagine, like you probably would, the gist of it is something like," it takes a lot of time to add something like gap assignments due to the OL/DL being tied together in the original code and that time is hard to come by when you have to add other things year over year". I think you have even posted something to the effect they can't very well tout or market "we worked on getting the OL/DL untethered this year so next year we can begin to add real defensive front concepts". Maybe they are trying to do something along those lines, which causes those that go to Tiburon and have this explained, be more understanding.

That's pretty much the way I see it but I still rant over EA because that's a terrible position to put people designing Madden into and culture to create for producing a consumer product. Also that still doesn't account for other teams/departments seemingly going rouge, while still others are tampered with by marketing.

The point being I think these type of questions have been answered before, if somewhat indirectly, because it seems most of Madden's shortcomings stem from bad development choices that, are all that's left due to shortsighted financial decisions.

[jpdavis82]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

I just played a CFM last Friday, Packers vs Seahawks, after several months of slider testing: Wilson- 93% Rodgers-84% I'd like to see the testing CPU vs CPU or Human vs CPU. I rarely hear the Madden team testing that way, it's usually human vs human.

I play on all-pro default in my CFM so I don't know man. I think I played 5 games Saturday and never saw myself or CPU go above 65% but I've seen extremely high numbers in the past like you're saying.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

I've never played The Show, so bear with me / please explain to me any fine points I miss. That said: Mechanically, what is the difference between "telling Torrey Smith to work on his Run Routes / Catch In Traffic ratings // become a better possession receiver", with the game deciding how much those ratings increase based on his statistics and a potential rating (is this a development pace modifier or a growth cap? I'm assuming the latter) explicitly increasing Torrey Smith's RRT / CIT ratings as the user's discretion by directly spending experience gained from on-field performance (as opposed to spending XP to increase any other ratings), with the rate of progression of those ratings affected by a player's development pace modifier The two difference I can think of are ( A ) a cap on player growth at some point - which I gather from your message The Show has, while Madden obviously does not have this - and ( B ) a more authentic presentation of player development at the expense of user control; The Show is more limiting, not less (which depending on your view point is potentially a good thing). It's hiding the inner workings of the player progression system for the sake of presentation, whereas Madden is exposing all the levers available for the sake of user control and customization. Is there anything I'm missing, beyond that? This isn't intended as a criticism, I'm just trying to understand the difference because right now I don't see any major functional difference. And again, I've never played The Show, so please enlighten me if I've missed something.

Good questions.

First is something people may not often think about at first -- the xp system encourage people to "grind" with players. I think by simply putting it "under the hood" so to speak you will see gamer's behavior change.

Growth pace/Cap -- Ideally it should be both and I believe that is how the Show handles it. A player has a potential that serves as a cap, but the rate of progression is controlled by age. Also if we ever get actual coordinators added they should play a role as well. I should point out that I am a big advocate of hiding the potential rating completely.

Another game to borrow from is Fifa from several years ago. It use to have separate progression arcs for different attributes. Physical improved quickly at a young age, around 28 intangibles/mental attributes started to improve quickly, physicals started to go down shortly after 30, and mental never actually regressed (I think). Throw that into the mix as well.

With my preferred system it is more of an unknown. Lets say one category for WRs is "play physical." We tell Torrey Smith to improve in that area.
The result would be an increase in maybe release, CIT, stiff arm, strength, trucking. Some would be weighted and impacted more than others (strength may be capped by size for example), and there would be overlap with other "groups," e.g. CIT may also be affected by the possession direction.

So mechanically speaking instead of taking 8,000 XP and putting it all into CIT to create some kind of beast, the improvement is being spread out over related attributes. And each player has a defined developmental arc, there may be some variation of course (won't progress as quickly if he is not producing) but due to uncontrollable factors there will be a point where added production does not lead to faster growth.

More stuff:

Spoiler

I want to see two potential types:
Overall cap (100% hidden in game)
Growth rate (not fully revealed but hinted at)

Under player management there should be arrows/chevrons. Green arrows up mean player is progressing, red pointing down means regressing. A straight yellow line in the middle means stable. Should be a max of 3 in either direction. So a player with 3 arrows pointing up mean this player has what we would call superstar development. But we have no idea how long that will keep up. If he is a 75 he may increase to a 95, or he may even stop at 82.

This would create great personnel decisions and leave more mystery to draft success. You would not have a full picture until years down the line.

But because of the directed progression you have some control over how the player does progress.

It is more sim. I like being tricked into forgetting it is a video game. Impossible yes, but lets strive for it. NBA 2k does something very similar with its player training system where we could tell a guy to work on his ability to attack the basket. His success/progression is controlled under the hood.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by N51_rob

Nothing in this that changes much of how I felt prior to it.

I feel the same way, but only because I dislike Maddens off field stuff so much. Some of the gameplay stuff looks like it's moving forward. For me the off field stuff has taken a huge step backwards ever since the connected career/franchise was introduced.

So I do give Rex and his team credit. The off field stuff is what keeps me disinterested.

[SolidSquid]

Quote: Originally Posted by jpdavis82

I play on all-pro default in my CFM so I don't know man. I think I played 5 games Saturday and never saw myself or CPU go above 65% but I've seen extremely high numbers in the past like you're saying.

I too play my cfm on all pro default bc the sliders frustrate me to no end but our experience could not be more different. Bucs (me) vs Jets (cpu), McCown 12 for 14, 193 yards 2 Tds, Geno Smith 19 for 23 207 yards 2 Tds. McCown and Geno smith have never been known to put up numbers like that in fact I recall a game irl where Geno only three like 9 passes bc his accuracy was so bad.

I understand it's a game and needs to fun but my idea of fun is taking a team with a bad qb and finding a way to win despite that, not making every qb play exactly the same.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by SolidSquid

I too play my cfm on all pro default bc the sliders frustrate me to no end but our experience could not be more different. Bucs (me) vs Jets (cpu), McCown 12 for 14, 193 yards 2 Tds, Geno Smith 19 for 23 207 yards 2 Tds. McCown and Geno smith have never been known to put up numbers like that in fact I recall a game irl where Geno only three like 9 passes bc his accuracy was so bad. I understand it's a game and needs to fun but my idea of fun is taking a team with a bad qb and finding a way to win despite that, not making every qb play exactly the same.

Too keep this going, I had a different experience from both of you.

The completion percentage was a little high but not absurdly so. The problem was how the plays unfolded. Somewhat typical was a Qb going 14 for 20 for 82 yards. Instead of checking the primary read the QB would throw to the first man to get open. There were a few times where the AI did something where I tipped my hat to them and got giddy, such as mistakenly leaving a WR 1v1 and Webb missing the press resulting in a 60 yrd TD strike, but aside from that every game was the same.

[GiantBlue76]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

Good questions. First is something people may not often think about at first -- the xp system encourage people to "grind" with players. I think by simply putting it "under the hood" so to speak you will see gamer's behavior change. Growth pace/Cap -- Ideally it should be both and I believe that is how the Show handles it. A player has a potential that serves as a cap, but the rate of progression is controlled by age. Also if we ever get actual coordinators added they should play a role as well. I should point out that I am a big advocate of hiding the potential rating completely. Another game to borrow from is Fifa from several years ago. It use to have separate progression arcs for different attributes. Physical improved quickly at a young age, around 28 intangibles/mental attributes started to improve quickly, physicals started to go down shortly after 30, and mental never actually regressed (I think). Throw that into the mix as well. With my preferred system it is more of an unknown. Lets say one category for WRs is "play physical." We tell Torrey Smith to improve in that area. The result would be an increase in maybe release, CIT, stiff arm, strength, trucking. Some would be weighted and impacted more than others (strength may be capped by size for example), and there would be overlap with other "groups," e.g. CIT may also be affected by the possession direction. So mechanically speaking instead of taking 8,000 XP and putting it all into CIT to create some kind of beast, the improvement is being spread out over related attributes. And each player has a defined developmental arc, there may be some variation of course (won't progress as quickly if he is not producing) but due to uncontrollable factors there will be a point where added production does not lead to faster growth. More stuff: Spoiler I want to see two potential types: Overall cap (100% hidden in game) Growth rate (not fully revealed but hinted at) Under player management there should be arrows/chevrons. Green arrows up mean player is progressing, red pointing down means regressing. A straight yellow line in the middle means stable. Should be a max of 3 in either direction. So a player with 3 arrows pointing up mean this player has what we would call superstar development. But we have no idea how long that will keep up. If he is a 75 he may increase to a 95, or he may even stop at 82. This would create great personnel decisions and leave more mystery to draft success. You would not have a full picture until years down the line. But because of the directed progression you have some control over how the player does progress. It is more sim. I like being tricked into forgetting it is a video game. Impossible yes, but lets strive for it. NBA 2k does something very similar with its player training system where we could tell a guy to work on his ability to attack the basket. His success/progression is controlled under the hood.

Good post, and even much more could be added to this. However, the main thing here is that this is one of the main factors as to what differentiates teams and players (along with many others that don't exist in Madden). You can still take any player, even slow development scrubs, and turn them into unbelievable superstars ratings wise. It's not at all realistic.

[therizing02]

The throwing percentages were a little high for a number of reasons. I'm hoping that the new "feature" this year addresses most of them to bring about a more realistic NFL style passing game.

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't think accuracy is the problem. Most NFL quarterbacks can complete a majority of the throws we see in Madden. Regardless of skill level, the slant, the quick out, and the comeback are easy throws to make. What isn't easy for everyone is the ability to read defenses and know where and when to throw the ball.

This is where I think Madden has an opportunity to improve. I'd like to see a difference in game management ability from the Mannings to the Manziels. Reading defenses and coverages combined with accuracy ratings and a QB knowing when to get rid of the ball will lead to a more believable passing game.