Proposal to overhaul progression

[torontogrudlies]

One of the possibilities with this app is to write code which will handle player progression, and if it can be done well enough, the in-game progression could just be shut down (I believe this can be done by just deselecting all the progression points?)

As discussed in other threads, before Madden I played Front Page Sports Football, and I liked the model they used. They had a collection of player attributes, fewer than Madden has but similar in concept. (speed, discipline, strength, agility, acceleration, intelligence, hands, endurance.) Each of these (I believe) had a corresponding "potential" value. This represented the highest the player could reach.

In my early design on TMA/TMM, I decided to go with a single attribute, potential OVR, which would represent the highest OVR they could achieve. Good GMs with excellent scouting skills would be adept at seeing this potential accurately, while worse GMs would tend to see more of the player's present-day attributes. However, after discussion on the subject with others here, I'd agree with them that it's a good idea to consider having several individual potential attribute fields. If we're going to consider rewriting core features such as progression, we should get as detailed as possible wherever we can, and this can easily be done in the secondary database.

Floor open for technical and non-technical discussion of what progression ought to look like, how it should tie in with stats and ratings (including ones being formulated for other parts of the app) and how frequently progression should be looked at.

[dawg317]

Well...Here's just a couple of thoughts...

I'd maximize increases by 15% from their rookie ratings. I'm basing this on rookie ratings because I feel that these are the base of their perceived potential. I used 15% because this will increase a 70 rating up to 80/81, 80 up to 92, etc. By using a % the higher the initial rating, the better chance of it increasing. Maybe toss in a randomizer that every great once in a while a player will have a significant increase. Like a player that is a rookie with a 65 rating that tops out at 85 instead of the 15% increase of 75.

Not sure how to work it in, but speed and strength should decrease over time, probably maximizing after a player has been in the league for 3-4 years. In most cases a player's awareness should typically increase each year, some positions (QB, WR, RB, DB) greater than others.

All of the ratings should be affected by the team's coaches.

I'm sure I can come up with some more suggestions given time. This was just quickly off the top of my head.

[torontogrudlies]

Now, when you're mentioning rating, do you have OVR in mind? Or specific attributes?

[dawg317]

Now, when you're mentioning rating, do you have OVR in mind? Or specific attributes?

I was kind of thinking most of them, not specifically OVR. Pretty much every attribute is really subject to increase/decrease.

[torontogrudlies]

Here's a suggested formula to calculate a potential rating for a given player.

We are looking at the running back position, and the agility attribute. The assumption is that he reaches his prime at age 28, at which time his potential starts to drop off. (This assumption, as well as the rate of increase or decrease, is of course up for debate.)

Column B represents how many years away from prime age, in either direction.
Column C is a list of AGI values which I used to chart the graph, which I then generated the formula from. This is based upon my estimation of what a decent RB's progression might look like over the course of a long career.
Column D, the potential differential, shows how far off from the potential. It is flawed on the back side of the "prime" age, which gets accounted for with a change to the column F formula.

Column F computes the potential... the highest rating the player can achieve, given his age and the AGI plugged in (in this case, in column E for testing purposes.)

This means if the RB is 24 years old and is at 79 AGI, the highest he can hope to achieve is 84.

Again, I'm sure the ages and the curve are open for discussion.

potential.png (40.83 KiB) Viewed 5075 times

[torontogrudlies]

In the Tuesday Morning Manager's secondary database, there are matching fields for all the attributes in the PLAY table. At the time of database initialization (and each time a new rookie is created) my idea is to use a formula similar to the one described: compute that player's potential rating for each of the attributes, based upon his present attribute. Then the player can grow toward this maximum (or even decrease toward it if he's an older player) and the rate at which he does so can be determined by playing time, coaching staff ability and peer mentors on the team.

[AaronS]

First off, I can do nothing but applaud what you're putting into the Tuesday Morning Manager.

Looking at the chart though, I guess the first thing that comes to my mind is, what about freak-of-nature players like Ray Lewis, Brett Favre, and Tony Gonzalez who deserve(d) high-80's or 90's ratings despite being in their late-30's?

[Drizzt_13]

I think it's problematic to make aging an overly predictable process. If I know exactly when my players start taking penalties for their age it makes it easy to decide when to start consider trading them or when to draft a replacement. In many of my franchises as soon as someone hits 31 I simply trade them away for a high pick and because progression is so reliable in madden amp I never have a poor team.

I think one aspect of aging is that players slowly get worse and that should be an element but sometimes players just dramatically hit a wall and suddenly decline. Look at farve, he had his best season when he was 37 or something and then he became terrible. McNabb was decent until he went to washington and part of that was the system but another part was him getting old. I think it would be more accurate to the NFL and, more importantly, make Madden more interesting if you combine slow slight decline as a player gets older with the possibility of a sudden drop off.

If we have only a slight decline then it's still worth keeping them around because it's hard to replace good players but there is still a risk because there is a chance they hit that wall. When exactly they do this would differ for each position, RB's could pretty reliably hit it around 30 but lineman would probably not hit it until the mid 30's. When QB's hit it could be as late as 38. The point is to make it so that I don't know exactly how much veterans will decline and I can't just trade them away as soon as they start doing so because they may not hit the wall for another few years.

[torontogrudlies]

Hmmmm.... we could also have an attribute which dictates which year they will peak....for a particular position it'll be around the same for most, but could occasionally vary...

[Littleware]

Sounds good, but no... There is no way any person/gm/coach can judge a player's potential performance simply by looking at them or their previous history of performance. Especially "Peak". If it were that easy for a gm or coach to judge potential, the draft wouldn't be the same. Lot's of player's wouldn't get drafted.

Progression is and should be based solely performance and injuries, good or bad nothing more. Plenty of players are great in the NCAA, doesn't mean their going to be great in the NFL, history lesson. Some guys are more hungry than others and they progress earlier in their careers that GM's and coaches expect.

If the proposal is to change the way "PC OWNED" teams simmed stats are more realistic, so that the PC controlled teams' players get reasonable progression, that will be great.

I don't think a defined "Peak Progression" time can be established for any player.