Madden 2010 News Post

Madden NFL 10 Blog: Franchise Mode Improvements

07:28 PM - April 6, 2009 by buddyhobbs321813

EA has just posted another Madden NFL 10 blog. This one covers franchise mode improvements.

Quote:


	"This week I wanted to give you an update on what we�re addressing in franchise mode this year. We�re probably going to have a few blogs about franchise mode from now until August, so I�m just going to touch on a couple of things we�ve been working on since I joined the team. One thing we learned on NFL Head Coach �09 was that in order to have a great franchise mode, you need a solid base. You wouldn�t put a 2nd or 3rd addition on your house if the foundation is crumbling, right? Since our �foundation� is the logic behind every decision made in franchise mode, we knew we really wanted to address that foundation before anything else major was applied. I know some folks may be expecting the entire NFL Head Coach �09 game to be dropped into Madden this year, but that�s not going to happen. We have a lot of work to do and it�s going to take us some time to start with the core of franchise mode and take it where we all want it to be. I�ll break down some of the problems we�ve encountered so far and talk about how we�re addressing them below."

Game: Madden NFL 10Reader Score: 7.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 76 - View All

Madden NFL 10 Videos

Member Comments

# 161 achain @ 04/07/09 10:28 AM

Atleast the draft is finally getting some attention. A buddy and myself were just discussing how broken the current system is.

I hope you guys can change the graphical interface too. Something about the current gen menus just look awful to me. Can someone confirm if these are changing?

# 162 RogueHominid @ 04/07/09 10:31 AM

Regarding scouting, if this game is to be the most accurate reflection of what we see in NFL games and in NFL culture, scouting comments should not be anything like "he'll have awareness of no higher than 80." In baseball they use an 80 scale, but they seem to use different skill-based verbiage when talking about players in the NFL draft. Some guys are explosive off the ball, some are strong at the point of attack, some are very good at moving to the ball without wasting steps, etc.

I think the philosophy is thus off regarding how to build this "base." Simply put, I don't want my scouts to reveal exact ratings unless they're real measurables like a 40 time or a shuttle drill. And even then I want there to be a difference between raw speed and football speed, just like real life.

I'm also not sure about revealing a player's potential rating. There are guys we know have near limitless athletic potential but it feels a little cheap to know that rating ahead of time. If scouts really knew what players were capable of, the draft wouldn't be such a crapshoot. As it stands, it's a glorified guessing game.

I like most of what I've heard thus far from Ian, but I'm lukewarm about this posting, especially since I'm really into franchise modes.

# 163 brza37 @ 04/07/09 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FadeEmAll


	LOL funny this is the most disgruntled I have seen the OS fan base after a blog and in my opinion this blog has been the most informative and game changing to date. The blog was excellent to me and points to marked improvement in the franchise mode, far more important to me than hand towels and colored cleats....

+1

We got things that a lot of people have been asking for plus the promise that there is more to come and the explanation that we need to be a bit patient seeing that it is only April.
Plus, the most hotly debated topic "created rookies" is something that is optional, so if you don't like it use NCAA draft classes.
I hope we can all relax, be glad that we've gotten so much info already and let the devs keep doing their jobs.

# 164 bigrice25 @ 04/07/09 10:59 AM

i just recently started playing HC and im loving it.
I have faith in the HC guy in handling maddens franchise mode.

I have no problem with the precreated rookies, sometimes the randomness of the randomly generated players didnt make sense. and as long as i have the option to import players from NCAA, im good.

you guys should give HC a spin, its a pretty good football game.

now im just hoping for online franchise

but im not expecting it this version.......

# 165 Step2001 @ 04/07/09 11:02 AM

The NFL Draft

When a team is on the clock & then trade's the pick. That team that traded for the pick gets whatever time is remaining to make there selection.

Hopefully that is the way it will be done eventually.

In H.C. 09 the team that traded into the pick would get a fresh 10 minutes.

# 166 N51_rob @ 04/07/09 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FadeEmAll


	LOL funny this is the most disgruntled I have seen the OS fan base after a blog and in my opinion this blog has been the most informative and game changing to date. The blog was excellent to me and points to marked improvement in the franchise mode, far more important to me than hand towels and colored cleats....

Yeah, I really enjoyed this blog. I am looking forward to all the scouting and planning that will go into the draft with Madden now.

# 167 PacMan3000 @ 04/07/09 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcarr


	OK, so if as an 85 overall a player is able to run for 2000 yards then a 90 overall should be able to easily break 2000 and probably hit near 2300 or 2400 right. When was the last time you saw a runningback follow a 2000 yard season with another 2000 yard season? Even with an 1800 yard season? 1500? Jamal followed his 2000 yard season with 1006. Terrell Davis followed his 2000 yard season with a 211 yard season. Eric Dickerson followed his 2000 yard season with a 1234 yard season. OJ Simpson followed his 2000 with 1125. Barry Sanders did the best of 2000 yard backs I can find following up his 2000 yard season with 1491 yards the next year. Where within that do you see any great progression caused by that 2000 yard rushing season?

I admit you make some good points--ones I hadn't quite considered.

At the same point, if a running back runs for 2000 yards, it's due to a variety of factors. Health, the quality (or lack thereof) of quality opposing defenses, how many times he was handed the ball, etc. So, while he may not get 2000 yards the next season, it's very conceivable the reason is that teams game planned for him better. Or he had tougher defenses to go against. I remember in 2007, Derek Anderson lit up the league. Why? Because he was new on the scene, no defense had any film on him, and he was playing against teams like the Rams and Dolphins.

I think you can run for 2000 yards, improve as a player, and have a worse season statistically the next season. I also think that is based on a lot of different factors, though. No different than if you make the Deans List one semester, and the next you make Honor Roll/Honorable Mention. Still doesn't mean that you didn't work your butt off from one semester to the next.

I think my thing is simply this...I sort of like the progression thing to a degree, but I don't see the point. If my player is not being rewarded for rushing for 2000 yards--meaning he is not progressing but rather staying pat or even regressing--what's the point of the ratings systems? Why not just scrap it?

I would almost rather have ratings and potential judged on numbers or what you do for your team in a given season--almost like an incentive laden contract. So if your safety has eight INT's in year 1 of franchise, he will go up 1 point in OVR rating. If he has 80+ tackles, he'll gain another point. If he can get 6+ sacks, he'll get another point. If he makes the Pro Bowl, he'll get another point. If your team goes to or wins the Super Bowl, he'll get one or two extra points.

That way, it's not random. It's not a situation where it's like..."well Joe Blow scored 12 TD's and 1,500 yards rushing, so that's good for 10 progression points, right?"

# 168 kcarr @ 04/07/09 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacMan3000


	I admit you make some good points--ones I hadn't quite considered. At the same point, if a running back runs for 2000 yards, it's due to a variety of factors. Health, the quality (or lack thereof) of quality opposing defenses, how many times he was handed the ball, etc. So, while he may not get 2000 yards the next season, it's very conceivable the reason is that teams game planned for him better. Or he had tougher defenses to go against. I remember in 2007, Derek Anderson lit up the league. Why? Because he was new on the scene, no defense had any film on him, and he was playing against teams like the Rams and Dolphins. I think you can run for 2000 yards, improve as a player, and have a worse season statistically the next season. I also think that is based on a lot of different factors, though. No different than if you make the Deans List one semester, and the next you make Honor Roll/Honorable Mention. Still doesn't mean that you didn't work your butt off from one semester to the next. I think my thing is simply this...I sort of like the progression thing to a degree, but I don't see the point. If my player is not being rewarded for rushing for 2000 yards--meaning he is not progressing but rather staying pat or even regressing--what's the point of the ratings systems? Why not just scrap it? I would almost rather have ratings and potential judged on numbers or what you do for your team in a given season--almost like an incentive laden contract. So if your safety has eight INT's in year 1 of franchise, he will go up 1 point in OVR rating. If he has 80+ tackles, he'll gain another point. If he can get 6+ sacks, he'll get another point. If he makes the Pro Bowl, he'll get another point. If your team goes to or wins the Super Bowl, he'll get one or two extra points. That way, it's not random. It's not a situation where it's like..."well Joe Blow scored 12 TD's and 1,500 yards rushing, so that's good for 10 progression points, right?"

I am not saying that you can't improve at all after a 2000 yard season but you shouldn't improve due to the 2000 yard season. Actually of those players only eric dickerson and oj simpson even ever had a 1500 yard season against in their career at any point after the 2000 yard season by the way

# 169 PacMan3000 @ 04/07/09 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcarr


	I am not saying that you can't improve at all after a 2000 yard season but you shouldn't improve due to the 2000 yard season. Actually of those players only eric dickerson and oj simpson even ever had a 1500 yard season against in their career at any point after the 2000 yard season by the way

And my point is that, if players aren't improving based on what they did the season prior, what is their reason to progress?

# 170 youALREADYknow @ 04/07/09 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exonerated


	Potential rating in HC09 was amazing. Potential varied by scheme, production, coaches and other stuff. Like Adrian Peterson had a potential of 95 at one time and 99 with another team, coaching staff, strong production etc.

I did not get the general impression from the last blog that they are bringing scheme based ratings or advanced coach ratings over to Madden. If that is the case, then Potential becomes static regardless of team.

Whether or not I'll like the Potential rating will depend on other factors, so I'll wait and see.

# 171 Layoneil @ 04/07/09 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacMan3000


	And my point is that, if players aren't improving based on what they did the season prior, what is their reason to progress?

progression should be based on many factors. Age, Coaching, Training, Statistics and Potential Rating should all be factors.

Statistics should only matter in a few Ratings, mostly things related to Awareness. Statistics really should be called Game Experience.

Age and Training matters the most in things like Strength, Speed, Agility, Acceleration, Throw Power, Kick Power, Run Block Strength, Pass Block Strength.

Coaching and Game Experience will matter for intangibles like Awareness, Kick Accuracy, Pass Accuracies, Route Running, Run Block Footwork, Pass Block Footwork, Man Coverage, Zone Coverage.

the game needs position coaches and a better training system to make it work.

Purely statistics based progression isn't good for a realistic Franchise Mode, it highly unbalances player controlled teams vs CPU simulated teams.

# 172 jfsolo @ 04/07/09 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layoneil


	progression should be based on many factors. Age, Coaching, Training, Statistics and Potential Rating should all be factors. Statistics should only matter in a few Ratings, mostly things related to Awareness. Statistics really should be called Game Experience. Age and Training matters the most in things like Strength, Speed, Agility, Acceleration, Throw Power, Kick Power, Run Block Strength, Pass Block Strength. Coaching and Game Experience will matter for intangibles like Awareness, Kick Accuracy, Pass Accuracies, Route Running, Run Block Footwork, Pass Block Footwork, Man Coverage, Zone Coverage. the game needs position coaches and a better training system to make it work. Purely statistics based progression isn't good for a realistic Franchise Mode, it highly unbalances player controlled teams vs CPU simulated teams.

Great Post.

# 173 countryboy @ 04/07/09 12:47 PM

My concern with progression is when Josh mentioned that RB's over 30 will decline fast.

To me, age should only effect a player's physical attributes(speed, agility, strength, ability to stay healthy, etc..) but not one's skills. Yes, maybe they should decline to a degree, but not rapidly.

.02

# 174 thudias @ 04/07/09 01:05 PM

I disagree with you CountryBoy.....Rb's over 30 should decline fast because they do in the NFL..its a fact, It's Sim..I don't care for it either but it happens, sure there are some people it doesn't happen with but they are the minority.

# 175 countryboy @ 04/07/09 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thudias


	I disagree with you CountryBoy.....Rb's over 30 should decline fast because they do in the NFL..its a fact, It's Sim..I don't care for it either but it happens, sure there are some people it doesn't happen with but they are the minority.

I don't have a problem with them declining a bit, but rapidly? I think thats a bit overboard. Of course, none of us right now know just how "rapid" these declines will happen because we aren't playing the game, but it does raise concern for me.

I don't want a guy having a great career and healthy to all the sudden hit age 30 and become "worthless" for lack of a better term. I don't know, its all subjective right now I guess, because we don't have anything other than own opinions, to base these concerns on.

# 176 sportzbro @ 04/07/09 01:37 PM

the season they have should have a direct effect on how much they decline. I would hate for them to decline arbitrarily just because they reach 30.

# 177 Krodis @ 04/07/09 01:44 PM

Priest Holmes, Age 30: MVP Candidate
Priest Holmes, Age 31: Injury-prone
Priest Holmes, Age 32: Essentially done

Shaun Alexander, Age 28: MVP
Shaun Alexander, Age 29: Injury-prone
Shaun Alexander, Age 30: Injury-prone
Shaun Alexander, Age 31: Done

Marshall Faulk, Age 27: MVP
Marshall Faulk Age 28: MVP Candidate
Marshall Faulk Age 29-30: Injury prone
Marshall Faulk Age 31: Essentially Done

Corey Dillion, Age 30: Starter on a Super Bowl team
Corey Dillion, Age 31: Essentially Done

Stephen Davis, Age 29: MVP Candidate
Stephen Davis, Age 30: Out for year
Stephen Davis, Age 31 Essentially Done

LaDanian Tomlinson, Age 28: Best RB in Football
LaDanian Tomlinson, Age 29: Injury prone, not as effective
LaDanian Tomlinson, Age 30: ??

The evidence is overwhelming. Almost without fail, runningbacks, even elite ones, DO fall off a cliff around Age 30. I just listed future hall of famers, and MVPs, and Super Bowl Starters.

# 178 Pnutt6 @ 04/07/09 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countryboy


	I don't have a problem with them declining a bit, but rapidly? I think thats a bit overboard. Of course, none of us right now know just how "rapid" these declines will happen because we aren't playing the game, but it does raise concern for me. I don't want a guy having a great career and healthy to all the sudden hit age 30 and become "worthless" for lack of a better term. I don't know, its all subjective right now I guess, because we don't have anything other than own opinions, to base these concerns on.

In all reality, it is a pretty rapid decline RB's take when around 30. The only exceptions I can think of recently are Barry Sanders and Tiki Barber, both of which didn't stick around past 30 or 31 to see their decline.

Many even faulter right before 30. I just hope it isn't a set thing so exactly when they turn 30 they fall off 10 points. It should vary slightly.

# 179 andre100672 @ 04/07/09 01:51 PM

I want to say I have been playing John Madden since the 1993 sega genesis version and this game was always considered to be a SIMULATION style game. With that being said I have to commend Ian and the team on thier efforts to get this game back to where it should be. I love the fact they are incorporating OUR feedback whether good or bad to making a better product. I would just love to see these things addressed as well in the upcoming updates:

SPECIALS TEAMS BLOCKING> NCAA SEEMS TO BE RIGHT ON POINT

RUN BLOCKING> THERE ARE NO RUNNING LANES EVEN WITH THE VIKINGS???

FAIR PLAY> WHY IS THIS NOT ON NEXT GEN ONLINE

WEEKLY ROSTER UPDATES> I WAS LOVING THE WEEKLY UPDATES KEEP THAT GOING

DEFENSIVE LINE PLAY> I DIDNT LIKE THE ADJUSTMENT LAST YEAR THE ENDS WHERE FASTER

THAN THE SCRAMBLING QBS LIKE TAVARIS JACKSON WAS BEING RAN DOWN BY DT's?

PRESENTATION> PRE GAME HALF TIME SHOW POST GAMES SHOW WITH STATS IS HUGE AND ITS

THERE ON SUNDAYS!

SIGNATURE THROWING AND RUNNING STYLES> WOULD BE NICE TO SEE.

ESPN INTERGRATION DURING THE GAME> SIDELINE REPORTING ETC PLAYER INTERVIEWS COACH INTERVIEWS LIKE THINGS YOU NEED TO CHANGE IN THE SECOND HALF TO WIN

HIGHLIGHT STICK> THIS REALLY DOESNT WORK THAT WELL I WOULD LIKE MORE PLAYER CONTROL BETTER JUKES, SPINS, BREAKING TACKLES THE DBS THIS YEAR BROKE MORE TACKLES THAN THE RBS

Some of the issues I have had already been addressed in earlier posts but I just thought I would chime in

# 180 countryboy @ 04/07/09 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krodis


	Priest Holmes, Age 30: MVP Candidate Priest Holmes, Age 31: Injury-prone Priest Holmes, Age 32: Essentially done Shaun Alexander, Age 28: MVP Shaun Alexander, Age 29: Injury-prone Shaun Alexander, Age 30: Injury-prone Shaun Alexander, Age 31: Done Marshall Faulk, Age 27: MVP Marshall Faulk Age 28: MVP Candidate Marshall Faulk Age 29-30: Injury prone Marshall Faulk Age 31: Essentially Done Corey Dillion, Age 30: Starter on a Super Bowl team Corey Dillion, Age 31: Essentially Done Stephen Davis, Age 29: MVP Candidate Stephen Davis, Age 30: Out for year Stephen Davis, Age 31 Essentially Done LaDanian Tomlinson, Age 28: Best RB in Football LaDanian Tomlinson, Age 29: Injury prone, not as effective LaDanian Tomlinson, Age 30: ?? The evidence is overwhelming. Almost without fail, runningbacks, even elite ones, DO fall off a cliff around Age 30. I just listed future hall of famers, and MVPs, and Super Bowl Starters.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't want it to be a set in stone ideaology. I mean, there are always exceptions to the rules. Like I said, maybe I'm getting too hung up on the word "rapid", but it does raise a level of concern.

Maybe in a future blog about franchise we could get some more detailed information about this.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910 11 Next »

More Links

Madden NFL 10 Blog: Franchise Mode Improvements