How Madden's Progression System in Franchise Mode Gets Things Entirely Backwards

[ChaseB]

With the release of our first glimpses of Madden 21 these past couple weeks, it's a...

Written By: Kevin Scott

Click here to view the article.

[XtremeDunkz]

XP based progression was the worst idea ever.

In essence, Madden makes it so EVERY PLAYER goes up constantly until they hit 28 or 29, then EVERY PLAYER regresses in the same arch (based on dev of course, but theres only 3 dev levels)

Players dont stagnate, regress, you can't have late bloomers, early burnouts etc. This complete ruins franchise after a few seasons. If I have a superstar dev player he is guaranteed to become a 90+ overall. Devs no longer drop, theres a million breakout scenarios per season that inflate dev level. It is a huge part of the joke of a franchise we have been given by this company.

[mtmetcalfe]

“It would seem that Madden has things all backwards when it comes to how players make strides in real life.“

This is something I desperately liked changed in franchise. I don’t think about it much though because out of all the improvements and changes I’d like to see in Madden, the way progression is handled will probably be the one aspect that’s here for eternity.

[JoshC1977]

There isn't a right answer here; it comes down to how one perceives sports games holistically.

Two points of view:

• Sports games are simulators
• Sports games are RPGs

If one views sports games as simulators, then yes, this article is not far off the mark.

If one views sports games as RPGs, then the current system (while flawed) makes sense. I personally consider sports games like Madden to be RPGs. You have an avatar, you make decisions that influence the story, you have NPCs, tasks/quests/challenges to overcome, and character development. Even in franchise mode, you ARE playing a role (as an owner or coach/GM) and in-game, are playing the role of a player. The typical trapping of an RPG is that you characters accrue XP for successfully completing tasks.

But there are two aspects of interest here with Madden's system:

- "Leveling up" is heavily biased towards in-game outcomes. From an RPG perspective, this is spot-on, you gain the XP for "defeating enemies" and "completing quests" (often with bonuses for how effectively you do so). The "quest completion" gains also vary depending on the nature/duration of the quest (so in Madden terms completing a game vs a season). However, as alluded to, this almost puts the "cart before the horse" - and a system where training the character as the predominant XP gainer makes more sense.
- Unique to sports games, characters have finite lifespans that do not encompass the entirety of the storyline. In most RPGs, you see a snippet of a character's life; you don't see the effects of age and wear/tear that degrade your skillset. This is the other area that needs a fair bit of effort. Adding in a semi-randomized growth curve that varies for each character would make a ton of sense.

Now, another franchise mode that I enjoy is MLB: The Show's. It takes more of a 'simulator' pathway to player development and it does it well (if one uses a good roster - another topic for another day w/r/t Madden). But it too acknowledges the RPG aspects of sports gaming by allowing for attribute gains to occur based on character output (though a far greater emphasis is placed on the aging curve - which is out of the hands of the user).

IMO, it seems that Madden has gone all-in on an RPG model for their franchise mode. I personally have no issues at all with this, but I 100% acknowledge that the user-facing XP gains ARE done to excess. However, I do not believe it is appropriate for a Sports RPG to go entirely to a model that ignores user input and drives progression entirely under-the-hood (a model more suited for a text simulator).

As with most things in life, it comes down to moderation...too much of a good thing...etc, etc.

[canes21]

Quote: Originally Posted by XtremeDunkz

XP based progression was the worst idea ever. In essence, Madden makes it so EVERY PLAYER goes up constantly until they hit 28 or 29, then EVERY PLAYER regresses in the same arch (based on dev of course, but theres only 3 dev levels) Players dont stagnate, regress, you can't have late bloomers, early burnouts etc. This complete ruins franchise after a few seasons. If I have a superstar dev player he is guaranteed to become a 90+ overall. Devs no longer drop, theres a million breakout scenarios per season that inflate dev level. It is a huge part of the joke of a franchise we have been given by this company.

I have never been a big fan of the last few progression systems EA has tried with Madden, but I absolutely hate the XP system. Players perform better because they get better. They do not perform better in order to get better. It makes no sense.

Before this system, though, we had the potential ratings that were A, B, etc. I hated those as well because you knew a guy was practically guaranteed to progress to a certain point. You also knew if a player was a bust or worth investing into immediately or not. A 5th round draft pick may have a killer per-season, but when you see D Potential, you cut him because why would he be worth keeping around?

I've wanted a system that is much more organic and customizable by the user for years now. Simply look at what Out of the Park Baseball does with its system and try and recreate it.

Players have current ratings and potential ratings. These potential ratings are not all-knowing, unless you set your game up to where they are. You can customize the game to where the potential ratings are 100% accurate, highly accurate, accurate, not very accurate, etc. It is up to the user.

Players also are not guaranteed to ever reach their potential, they are also not guaranteed to stop progressing when they reach that potential. They are also not guaranteed to grow as set ages. A guy can enter the league and be the same player from 20 to 28 then randomly blossom. That guy could never grow as a player in another save. He may enter the year at 20 years old, regress at 21 and 22, then explode into an all-star at 23.

No franchise is the same, no players follow the same progression paths. Some guys peak at 24, others at 34. It feels natural, no GM, you or the CPU, ever truly knows how good or bad anyone will be in a year from now or 10 years into the future, unless you set the settings up.

You can also customize how ages affect progression and regression. You can make hitters regress quicker than pitchers, you even have the ability to make it to where the progression between years is more random or more streamlined in your franchise. You can just about eliminate the randomization, take all the organic feel away, and make the game's system act as static as Madden's if you really wanted.

This is one of the major reasons OOTP is as popular and replayable as it is. In my most recent Braves franchise, Ozzie Albies was a star for me in the first two years. He performed like he did in real life. In most people's franchises he is a perennial all-star and potential HoF player. Well, after my first two season, he got hurt and missed a couple of months. I rushed him back with no rehab assignment. Ozzie Albies came back and slumped.... or so I thought. His slump never ended. He performed poor all year. He performed poor into the postseason. Then after having my scouts run multiple reports on him it turns out that he's not in a slump, his injury may have been coincidental, or it may have completely derailed his career. He still had decent fielding ability, but he could no longer hit at all. He lost all ability at the plate. He turned into a hole in my roster that I didn't want to get rid of because 1) I love Albies, and 2) he was one of the most popular players in my franchise with the fanbase, and 3) he had a clubhouse presence that was worth keeping around.

In the majority of franchises, Albies would not regress so hard. He would have continued to get better and probably does have a HoF career based off of his first couple of years for me. Instead, I got the playthrough where he regressed in his mid-20's and it felt completely natural and not like the game was screwing me over. The same type of thing happens the the AI teams as well. I traded away Sonny Gray after he had an all-star year. I didn't want to do the trade at first, but I couldn't pass up what I was getting offered in return. I traded him away. I followed his career closely. I won the trade 100%. Sonny Gray had a great 1st half of a season after I traded him away. Then his career declined and he became a journey man who was lucky to hold a place in a rotation for most clubs.

That kind of organic randomness is what helps separate an average franchise mode with an elite one.

[ranger91]

Perfect article.* I've HATED the XP system for the exact reason stated.* It's completely backwards and leaves me trying to force a young player into a game and try to get stats to improve which makes no sense at all.**

[The Senator]

Great article, XP was a mistake from day one, and this does a great job explaining a big reason why.**

[Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by XtremeDunkz

In essence, Madden makes it so EVERY PLAYER goes up constantly until they hit 28 or 29, then EVERY PLAYER regresses in the same arch (based on dev of course, but theres only 3 dev levels) Players dont stagnate, regress, you can't have late bloomers, early burnouts etc. [...] If I have a superstar dev player he is guaranteed to become a 90+ overall. Devs no longer drop, theres a million breakout scenarios per season that inflate dev level.

All of these very legitimate critiques - the overarching theme of that collection being that player progression in Madden 20 franchise mode is uniform and one-size-fits-all - are each addressable without removing the idea of players earning XP in practices and on game day to indirectly increase their ratings. But that's a separate topic.