Proposal to overhaul progression

[torontogrudlies]

I think the main thing I'm trying to achieve is to come up with some sort of maximum possible potential for each player, but wasn't meaning that the way he gets there or declines from there is set in stone. The formula figures out how many years away from the estimated peak, then uses the "now" rating to compute how much he's likely to grow.

Performance and injuries are good factors, but if there are two rookie running backs who start out with 81 rating, both put up comparable numbers, and both spend minimal time on the injured list, will both grow exactly the same across all attributes? Probably not. RB1 is never going to bench 300 pounds, he just isn't built like that. RB2 isn't a rocket scientist, and simply isn't going to make it to 99 Awareness, even if he has the best coach mentoring him, getting 40 carries a game, etc.

This wouldn't really be a stat which is readily viewable (unless you "cheat" and crack open the DB editor lol).... Good GMs can "guess" it pretty close if they have great scouting talent, but so could a human.... if your 30-year old running back is having a pro-bowl year, he's probably still got some gas left in the tank.... if your WR is at about the same place as last year, he's maybe plateaued.

[Drizzt_13]

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.

I think coaches do make some sort of projection based on a players technique attitude and skill where they will be, most people who are drafted aren't necessarily ready to play in the NFL, they're drafted because they will develop. Analysts often talk about certain players having more upside because they are believed to be players who aren't great now but may become great in the future. The idea isn't to give coaches the ability to perfectly guess peak potential but rather that they have someway of estimating it and then going on that because we want t have more complex tendencies for different coaches.

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.

I don't think this is true but I also think we are getting way ahead of ourselves, we haven't talked about what will determine how players progress just a way of projecting how much they will progress. We are trying to create a more complex system of progression then maddens that will hopefully account for the fact that some good college player's aren't great ion the nfl (though I think that would be part of a draft engine rather then a progression mechanic).

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.

No, I think maddens progressions system is simplistic and uninteresting and also leads to much less parity then is present in the actual NFL, it should be overhauled outside of madden rather then fixed inside of madden.

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

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...

I think a variable peak progression is one solution. I think we do need to cap players abilities in some way, I just think it would be more interesting if players were capped differently so some players had higher potential then others. Ideally the dilemma we would want to create is something like, you could choose A who is average now or B who is poor now but has the potential to be great in the future. I think maybe the problem with Toronto gruddlies formula now (though I may have misunderstood something) is that if your max potential is based on your current rating then player A will always have a higher potential then player B because A's rating is higher than B's. Could we work in some sort of additional player rating which will serve as a constant by which the potential is multiplied (ideally the constant would be very close to 1). That way people with lower awareness then someone else can have the potential to surpass them therefore giving player an incentive to draft aggressively.

On an unrelated note I think the most important thing we can do is make progression unreliable. It's too easy to develop talent the way madden and madden amp are set up now and it's almost safe to assume that players will develop at a rate of 1 or 2 points per year. There are problems with this, oftentimes NFL players regress a little after they're best years but that never happens in madden. It also means that rookies have to be capped very very low. If players can be assumed to improve at a steady rate then we can't have any rookies who come in as 90's because they'll all be 99's in a few years and the league gets unbalanced. Ndamakung Suh had a great rookie year and should probably be rated in the 90's that year, but that doesn't mean he will automatically develop into a hall of fame DT. He may already be about as good as he is going to get, but madden would have him constantly improve. If we make progression less reliable we not only make the game more interesting but we also make it possible for higher impact rookies to be a part of the game and therefore make the game more accurate.

[torontogrudlies]

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.

I think coaches do make some sort of projection based on a players technique attitude and skill where they will be, most people who are drafted aren't necessarily ready to play in the NFL, they're drafted because they will develop. Analysts often talk about certain players having more upside because they are believed to be players who aren't great now but may become great in the future. The idea isn't to give coaches the ability to perfectly guess peak potential but rather that they have someway of estimating it and then going on that because we want t have more complex tendencies for different coaches.

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.

I don't think this is true but I also think we are getting way ahead of ourselves, we haven't talked about what will determine how players progress just a way of projecting how much they will progress. We are trying to create a more complex system of progression then maddens that will hopefully account for the fact that some good college player's aren't great ion the nfl (though I think that would be part of a draft engine rather then a progression mechanic).

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.

No, I think maddens progressions system is simplistic and uninteresting and also leads to much less parity then is present in the actual NFL, it should be overhauled outside of madden rather then fixed inside of madden.

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

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...

I think a variable peak progression is one solution. I think we do need to cap players abilities in some way, I just think it would be more interesting if players were capped differently so some players had higher potential then others. Ideally the dilemma we would want to create is something like, you could choose A who is average now or B who is poor now but has the potential to be great in the future. I think maybe the problem with Toronto gruddlies formula now (though I may have misunderstood something) is that if your max potential is based on your current rating then player A will always have a higher potential then player B because A's rating is higher than B's. Could we work in some sort of additional player rating which will serve as a constant by which the potential is multiplied (ideally the constant would be very close to 1). That way people with lower awareness then someone else can have the potential to surpass them therefore giving player an incentive to draft aggressively.

Well, that formula would be a ballpark... it could deviate randomly. A 79 rated rookie might max out at 92, another 79 rated rookie might cap at only 87.

My idea for the player's potential ratings are that they will just be computed once. When the TMM is initialized, it will compute them for all the players. Then, each year it will be run on the draft class (and we also might need to have a method to re-rate the class' actual ratings, kind of like Maddenamp has, as well.)

The only reason they would change would be in the case of a serious injury.... player with a 99 SPD potential breaks his leg, and that 99 figure likely gets knocked down somewhat. That, and possibly when the player is on the decline, his potential might decline too. If a WR is aging and his speed goes from 95 to 93, likely this means his present/future potential is 93 as well.

On an unrelated note I think the most important thing we can do is make progression unreliable. It's too easy to develop talent the way madden and madden amp are set up now and it's almost safe to assume that players will develop at a rate of 1 or 2 points per year. There are problems with this, oftentimes NFL players regress a little after they're best years but that never happens in madden. It also means that rookies have to be capped very very low. If players can be assumed to improve at a steady rate then we can't have any rookies who come in as 90's because they'll all be 99's in a few years and the league gets unbalanced. Ndamakung Suh had a great rookie year and should probably be rated in the 90's that year, but that doesn't mean he will automatically develop into a hall of fame DT. He may already be about as good as he is going to get, but madden would have him constantly improve. If we make progression less reliable we not only make the game more interesting but we also make it possible for higher impact rookies to be a part of the game and therefore make the game more accurate.

My basic thought, given the existence of the potential ratings more or less as outlined above: for progression, we factor in the quality and quantity of playing time, coaching/peer mentoring, etc. For the attributes which deal with physical ability, such as speed and strength, we throw in work ethic, plus how much time they've spent injured (i.e. unable to work/practice.) We then look at the existing rating and the potential rating, and these factors determine the % of the increase toward the potential.

One thing I simply don't "get"... with the existing progression, say a WR speed is 90. He performs really well....why does it follow that he then gets increased to a 92?

[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...

Come to think of it, this might not work so well. A player could reach and pass his peak for one attribute, but still continue to improve in another.

[torontogrudlies]

potential.png

So, here is what I think.

Going position by position, attribute by attribute. Assumptions: typical professional athlete in good health and physical shape for his position. Top-notch coaching staff, trainers and peer mentors on the team. Chart out what each of the player's relevant attributes are going to look like from age 22 to, say, age 38. Then, make the graph and get the formula, similar to what I did in the example snapshot.

Formula will be used to compute the peak value for that attribute, given a player's current age and rating. The formula can also be tweaked with random and non-random factors (maybe players with high Toughness and Work Ethic will keep increasing longer.) Once we have this and can generate potentials for all players, we can then figure out how to go about progressing them.

[Danchat]

potential.png

So, here is what I think.

Going position by position, attribute by attribute. Assumptions: typical professional athlete in good health and physical shape for his position. Top-notch coaching staff, trainers and peer mentors on the team. Chart out what each of the player's relevant attributes are going to look like from age 22 to, say, age 38. Then, make the graph and get the formula, similar to what I did in the example snapshot.

Formula will be used to compute the peak value for that attribute, given a player's current age and rating. The formula can also be tweaked with random and non-random factors (maybe players with high Toughness and Work Ethic will keep increasing longer.) Once we have this and can generate potentials for all players, we can then figure out how to go about progressing them.

The picture didn't show up.
What program are you using to make all of these formulas? Is it one of those programming ones?

[torontogrudlies]

Just Excel....when you have a graph, you can get a "trend line" from it, and translate into a bunch of formulas.

The pic in question is in an earlier post, a screenshot of what a basic graph looked like in Excel....

[Drizzt_13]

My basic thought, given the existence of the potential ratings more or less as outlined above: for progression, we factor in the quality and quantity of playing time, coaching/peer mentoring, etc. For the attributes which deal with physical ability, such as speed and strength, we throw in work ethic, plus how much time they've spent injured (i.e. unable to work/practice.) We then look at the existing rating and the potential rating, and these factors determine the % of the increase toward the potential.

Quick question, this sounds like a good guideline for passive (by which I mean no user involvement) improvement during the season but how do we want to handle off-season improvement. Do we want to make something active like the madden amp training camp where the players input decides how much and in what areas players improve? Do we want most improvement to come in the off-season or during the regular season?

One thing I simply don't "get"... with the existing progression, say a WR speed is 90. He performs really well....why does it follow that he then gets increased to a 92?

I'm thinking that a very good way to develop a more general picture of what we want out of this feature would be to start by listing all the flaws with the way the current modes of handling progression work (Regular madden, madden amp and nza's editor) and what we need to do to overcome them, keeping in mind a more general sense. Then we will have a better idea of what the finished mod will look like.

[torontogrudlies]

Work ethic can determine how diligent the player would be about working in the offseason to keep skills up or even improve them (different sport, but remember when Michael Jordan was filming Space Jam, and he built his own workout center on the studio lot so he could get ready for the 72-10 season.) Some players will get lazy.... I remember with the MaddenAmp training camp, there was a little sidebar where I was told that one of the players was reporting to camp seriously out of shape, and what did I want to do about it.

The offseason would be less about the team mentors and more about the player's ethics.... although if there's a "cleaning house" of coaching staff, everyone's AWR should go slightly down because they've got a new system to learn (although their potential doesn't change so they can still gain it back.) Same thing if they change teams.

Amp's training camp is a lot of fun, but in some areas I thought it was too tedious.

These are just a few thoughts, I'm sure there's a lot more to this segment....

[Littleware]

The idea's are great, but guys this is a video game with flaws. I feel the progression is exaggerated based on the simmed stats and needs to be toned down. I have 4-5 RB's that rush for over 2000 yards every franchise I play. 5-7 QB's that throw for over 4000 yards. What you guys are talking about is more real-life progression than video game. Desire, work ethic, attitude all play a major role in real life, but not in this game. When the game was designed, they never thought we'd want the realism of true life football. And as I have been playing both the Heisman Mod and the NFL Mod, the simmed stats for the Heisman Mod are lower at than those NFL stats. I think it's because the players are rated lower.

I agree with the AWR being lowered for all the teams who get a new coaching staff. Coaching staff's and GM's all over (in all Pro sports) never have been able to gauge a player's potential correctly. There is no "projections" to evaluate "Human" performance. Remember when guy's would be drafted No.1 and get paid millions before ever stepping onto the field of play, but once they did, they were bums!

Coaches and GM don't project anything! They guess and hope a player is hungry to play the game at a high level (every day) and get compensated accordingly!

So we may want to test a NFL franchise that has teams rated lower. Start with a 15% global decrease of OVR ALL.