Rex's Reflections on Madden 18 and the Future

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by triplechin

There are a lot of areas to improve obviously. I think the AI playcalling and situational awareness can benefit MUT as well since MUT guys do challenges vs CPU so hopefully that is something on the radar. The mess of CFM coding scares me. With XP as the base it is just dressing up a crappy system

Get rid of XP/Goals. Implement a realistic progression system.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Get rid of XP/Goals. Implement a realistic progression system.

If XP was earned by practices ..a training camp ..simulated film study and so on ...and the in-game goals and stats based element was reduced to only about 1/3 or so of the potential XP available ( call that game experience) and

It could only be spent on appropriate attributes ( by making the costs of inappropriate ones prohibitively high) ...XP can be made into a fairly realistic system and keep the people who do like it satisfied

[khaliib]

Quote: Originally Posted by briz1046

If XP was earned by practices ..a training camp ..simulated film study and so on ...and the in-game goals and stats based element was reduced to only about 1/3 or so of the potential XP available ( call that game experience) and It could only be spent on appropriate attributes ( by making the costs of inappropriate ones prohibitively high) ...XP can be made into a fairly realistic system and keep the people who do like it satisfied

1) It’s a MUT Lootbox/Rank Up mechanism inside a mode that’s suppose to be a “Simulation” of the sport.
- Rex let this cat out of the bag in an interview he did.

2) To me, this is a cracked door to introduce some type of monitization mechanism in the most consistently played mode by a large community.
- there’s a reason it was introduce and now Users have such control of it through sliders to play with, but other older Sim related aspects the community been asking to have injected still remain absent (ie coaches that impact player development etc...)

As I noted in a Tweet where Clint asked about what should dictate an outcome the most, Ratings or Stick Skills?
I responded that Ratings are a guard rail to help facilitate keeping players within their character (ie skill set) and aids in Player Differentiation (which we had before they monkeyed with the game pre-release).
- the XP mechanism inflated application destroys this.

XP is suppose to simulate a player improving/getting better, but they coded the AI to apply most of the points to AWR which is weighted very heavy to drive up the OVR rating, which is the focus/driving Rank Up mechanism for MUT.

Also, there’s already a Progression/Regression mechanism being used to -/+ impact each player’s ratings/abilities based on on-field performance (a carry over from DPP), but XP superseeds and overwrites these -/+ game-to-game Performance impacts with an artificial boost.
- yeah, DPP is still being used in CFM

XP really jacks the mode up when the AI bumps the OVR up, only to release mostly younger players into the FA Pool because the old heads are now T. Brady on rosters deep into their 30’s because of the higher OVR’s.

It’s a counter productive mechanism to the Sim experience in CFM.

Honestly, get rid of XP and allow Users ability to customize Player/Practice Goals and set what ratings and how many pts to be added to those ratings if goal is met
- Users have more input/control of their CFM Replay experience
- Gameplay/Practice Performance becomes the focus for improvement
- AI distribution can be controlled/focused by what ratings/pts User set

Could even take it a step further and link to Player contracts and their demands/hold outs etc... to add some character and realistic impact to a dull Contract mechanism that currently has no living role in each Users CFM.

I’m quite sure other thoughts could arise through this also.

[briz1046]

Quote: Originally Posted by khaliib

1) It’s a MUT Lootbox/Rank Up mechanism inside a mode that’s suppose to be a “Simulation” of the sport. - Rex let this cat out of the bag in an interview he did. 2) To me, this is a cracked door to introduce some type of monitization mechanism in the most consistently played mode by a large community. - there’s a reason it was introduce and now Users have such control of it through sliders to play with, but other older Sim related aspects the community been asking to have injected still remain absent (ie coaches that impact player development etc...) As I noted in a Tweet where Clint asked about what should dictate an outcome the most, Ratings or Stick Skills? I responded that Ratings are a guard rail to help facilitate keeping players within their character (ie skill set) and aids in Player Differentiation (which we had before they monkeyed with the game pre-release). - the XP mechanism inflated application destroys this. XP is suppose to simulate a player improving/getting better, but they coded the AI to apply most of the points to AWR which is weighted very heavy to drive up the OVR rating, which is the focus/driving Rank Up mechanism for MUT. Also, there’s already a Progression/Regression mechanism being used to -/+ impact each player’s ratings/abilities based on on-field performance (a carry over from DPP), but XP superseeds and overwrites these -/+ game-to-game Performance impacts with an artificial boost. - yeah, DPP is still being used in CFM XP really jacks the mode up when the AI bumps the OVR up, only to release mostly younger players into the FA Pool because the old heads are now T. Brady on rosters deep into their 30’s because of the higher OVR’s. It’s a counter productive mechanism to the Sim experience in CFM. Honestly, get rid of XP and allow Users ability to customize Player/Practice Goals and set what ratings and how many pts to be added to those ratings if goal is met - Users have more input/control of their CFM Replay experience - Gameplay/Practice Performance becomes the focus for improvement - AI distribution can be controlled/focused by what ratings/pts User set Could even take it a step further and link to Player contracts and their demands/hold outs etc... to add some character and realistic impact to a dull Contract mechanism that currently has no living role in each Users CFM. I’m quite sure other thoughts could arise through this also.

To qualify my earlier post what I'm trying to say is that XP is merely the coinage of progression...I have no problem with earning and spending a coinage in order to develop players

Are there issues at present with how this coinage is earned ( and can be spent) most certainly... far too much is available from in game goals/ stats and this ideally needs to change to emphasise practice etc ( introduce a training camp for example) and to include a system whereby relative strengths of coaching staffs influence how easy specific attributes are to upgrade ( either by reflecting this in the amount earned or by the upgrade cost )

Ideally I'd like to see no more than about a third of XP earned in game ( translatable to game time experience) and the vast majority earned by other means ( practice/ training/ film sessions)

This is all doable within the current system though , through expansion of practice mechanisms and tuning without tearing the house down to start over..withthe inherent time factors that brings

What can and can't be progresses can be regulated by cost, CPU AI can be programmed to be smarter/ more realistic ( especially if coaching staffs are introduced as they can be used to govern what attributes CPU teams are most readily able to progress)

I for one loathed XP on its introduction..and it's gamey/RPG feel .. but now we have it in place I think if it was to be developed with the right mindset it can be made to work in a way that satisfies people here

To summarize the system as is in game now is flawed but because of how it used not because coinage systems are inherently unrealistic
I'd rather they spend they're precious dev time /resources adding features ( TC coaching staffs eleven OTAs) and expanding practice etc and incorporating these within the current system in a realistic way than use that time to start over again and not see any rewards until I retire

[briz1046]

I remember well a lengthy Twitter discussion I had with Josh Looman when CCM as it then was called was 1st introduced

I was left with the impression that his mindset was that the only way to truly assess a player was by in game production ( stats) and that the ratings acted as a kind of scouting report ( ie they can be wrong)

The purpose of XP thereby was to correct ratings errors to be more in line with production ( much in the way weekly roster updates do ) rather than be a reflection of genuine player improvement

Thus stats drive the ratings rather than my own opinion that ratings should drive production

This is why it's the way it is in my opinion ...however that doesn't mean that's all it can be ...or needs to stay that way

[Devaster]

The only issue with the XP system is that there are no hard caps. If you are productive enough and earn enough XP you can max out any stat for a player.

The real truth of the matter is players generally don't improve their physical stats beyond what their combine numbers show. Sure, sometimes Madden makes some adjustments year-to-year and with roster updates to slightly improve a physical stat like SPD/ACC/AGI/STR if a player looks better on the field than they tested at. But once an NFL player is in the league for 2 or 3 seasons you rarely see their physical stats in Madden vary much. A point or two at the most. What you don't see is a player going from 90 SPD to 99 SPD. Players that run a 4.40 or 4.50 don't suddenly run 4.20.

Hard caps on physical stats should exist. Allowing you to improve them 1-3 points maximum in a player's first 4 seasons. And that 1-3 point increase should be random, or perhaps based on the development trait they are drafted with. Slow can't improve beyond combine number, Normal can improve 1, Quick can improve 2, and Superstar can improve 3. But at least that provides soft and hard caps on physical stats.

And then there should be other hard caps on the skills that are hidden from the user but determined when a player is drafted. Or perhaps keep them in line with the trait the player is drafted with. A Superstar drafted player can improve positional skills to 99, while Slow/Normal/Quick can't.

Those changes alone would solve many of the complaints about the XP system. Madden needed a progression system and XP works. I like XP because it allows the user to choose how to improve their players and that it is based on production. But without hard and soft caps it is completely unrealistic.

[jfsolo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Devaster

The only issue with the XP system is that there are no hard caps. If you are productive enough and earn enough XP you can max out any stat for a player. The real truth of the matter is players generally don't improve their physical stats beyond what their combine numbers show. Sure, sometimes Madden makes some adjustments year-to-year and with roster updates to slightly improve a physical stat like SPD/ACC/AGI/STR if a player looks better on the field than they tested at. But once an NFL player is in the league for 2 or 3 seasons you rarely see their physical stats in Madden vary much. A point or two at the most. What you don't see is a player going from 90 SPD to 99 SPD. Players that run a 4.40 or 4.50 don't suddenly run 4.20. Hard caps on physical stats should exist. Allowing you to improve them 1-3 points maximum in a player's first 4 seasons. And that 1-3 point increase should be random, or perhaps based on the development trait they are drafted with. Slow can't improve beyond combine number, Normal can improve 1, Quick can improve 2, and Superstar can improve 3. But at least that provides soft and hard caps on physical stats. And then there should be other hard caps on the skills that are hidden from the user but determined when a player is drafted. Or perhaps keep them in line with the trait the player is drafted with. A Superstar drafted player can improve positional skills to 99, while Slow/Normal/Quick can't. Those changes alone would solve many of the complaints about the XP system. Madden needed a progression system and XP works. I like XP because it allows the user to choose how to improve their players and that it is based on production. But without hard and soft caps it is completely unrealistic.

You obviously disagree, for a large percentage of us here however this is what makes it a bad system. Any player can be made into a Superstar. I understand you idea about hard skill caps based on development traits, but it still allows one to make any play really good and never have any busts.

Sometimes I will have a rookie Corner Back who I use as my number one Kickoff and Punt Returner. He isn't even on the depth chart at CB so he rarely plays on defense. He wins returner of the year and now get enough XP to make a 10 point jump in OVR and become my third Corner, just from being a return man. It's the system we have so I apply the points to him, but it always feels so cheap.

Potential(Hidden), coaching, schemes, practice, work ethic, positional snaps(not production) need to be what drives progression, IMO. I loved the way NCAA did it, it wasn't perfect, but tweaks of that system would be the best way to do it, IMO.

[Devaster]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

You obviously disagree, for a large percentage of us here however this is what makes it a bad system. Any player can be made into a Superstar. I understand you idea about hard skill caps based on development traits, but it still allows one to make any play really good and never have any busts. Sometimes I will have a rookie Corner Back who I use as my number one Kickoff and Punt Returner. He isn't even on the depth chart at CB so he rarely plays on defense. He wins returner of the year and now get enough XP to make a 10 point jump in OVR and become my third Corner, just from being a return man. It's the system we have so I apply the points to him, but it always feels so cheap. Potential(Hidden), coaching, schemes, practice, work ethic, positional snaps(not production) need to be what drives progression, IMO. I loved the way NCAA did it, it wasn't perfect, but tweaks of that system would be the best way to do it, IMO.

I didn't say it was perfect, but it is a good foundation. If you aren't allowed to change development traits from when a player is drafted that is another hard cap to the system. And how do you not draft busts? I've drafted Slow development players before. And Normal development players in the 1st round. I'm not always in a position to draft a player with a Quick or SS development draft story in the 1st round. I don't go out of my way taking advantage of the system and only drafting known Q/SS development players.

Should the amount of XP given to a returner that makes the Pro Bowl be the same as a WR/HB/CB/S? Of course not. That isn't an issue with the foundation of the XP system though. That is an implementation issue. I do like returners making the Pro Bowl and getting some XP though. These are sometimes players that are fringe at their position or could be starters with some more development, but then making the Pro Bowl as a returner opens up the possibility to start for them in the future. And a lot of times in my CFM it is bottom of the roster players being given a chance to be a 3rd stringer at HB/WR/CB or 2nd stringer at S.

And as for the hard and soft caps I was talking about it would need to be more in-depth, but a system like that would limit players from reaching 90+ OVR unless they are drafted as a Quick or Superstar development player. Slow players might cap out around 82 or 83. Normal around 87 or 88. And so on. That is the entire point of having caps. XP is there to grow a player to their full potential, but that full potential is capped based on the development and combine numbers they were drafted with.

I also wish some draft stories didn't guarantee a development trait. It is more fun when it is still random. A Heisman winner shouldn't be guaranteed Superstar development. There should be potential busts. Maybe the solution would be to have a 5% chance of those positive draft stories lead to Slow development.