Idea for Dynamic Player Progression

Discussion in 'NCAA Football' started by freernnur5, Jun 19, 2013.

  1. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36
    Hello, first time posting here but wanted to try and contribute an idea I had about Dynamic Player Progression that could help improve the immersion and customization of the NCAA series. What I came up with is the following:

    - Player work ethic
    - Ability to choose areas of focus

    Player work ethic
    As it is in real life, during the summer coaches are unable to talk to the players so it is up to the players to work out by themself or with teammates to better themselves and improve their skills. To simulate this, an attribute can be added to every player on a scale of A/B/C/D/F that would indicate how willing a player would be to put that extra bit of work in during the offseason. An A player is someone who will do something every day, whether its hitting the weight room or watching game film, to better themselves. On the other end of the spectrum, a F player is someone who is so cocky they don't think they need to improve or are to lazy to put in the work to improve.

    Users can also be given the option of designating captains, as in real life, that based on their work ethic attribute will work to get their scope motivated to work more during the offseason. This can be used as say a captain with an A rating would improve everyone in their scope's work ethic by a full grade, a B rating improving 2/3 of a grade, and a C rating improve 1/3 of a grade with D and F having no impact on anyone at all.

    Ideas for the scope of a captain's influence could be the following:
    Entire team - user would only designate one captain
    Specific side of the ball - user would designate 3 captains: offense, defense and special teams
    Position groups - user would designate many captains for each position group: QB, RBs, WR, TE, OL, DL, LBs, DBs, K/P
    Or a combination of those with the influence having a percentage based multiplier attached to it, i.e. an A captain in your position group would have more of an impact on you than the captain of the entire team because the position group captain may work out with you.

    Once these work ethics were implemented we could set a cap on player growth in certain areas. It could work as such:
    A - 9/10 points in specific area of focus, good improvement overall
    B - 6/7/8 points in specific area of focus, moderate improvement overall
    C - 3/4/5 points in specific area of focus, average improvement overall
    D - 1/2 points in specific area of focus, mild improvement overall
    F - 0 points points in specific area of focus, almost no improvement overall

    That leads into the next section...

    Specific Areas of Focus
    This is where users would truly be able to construct their team in their image. Do you want to be like Oregon? Focus all your players on getting as fast and agile as possible in the offseason by assigning them to sprinting drills. Want to build a mauling offensive line like Alabama? Get those players in the weight room for lifting drills.

    You could even make it a micro level by assigning specific drills to certain players. Run a 3-4 defense and want your NT to be a mammoth like Terrence Cody? Assign him the task of lifting weights and eating a lot to bulk up which would raise the player's weight and STR rating, but would decrease his stamina (Cody at 340 lbs only played about half the available snaps to him). If a user would want to do this they could make an absolutely dominant NT that eats up space in the middle of the offensive line but they would need to ensure they have a capable backup as the starter wouldn't be able to play as much.

    You could spend the time to assign drills to every player or you could do it based on position groups. For those that don't want to take the time to do this, the computer could be set to automatically assign drills based on the playbooks and tendencies of players and whether you want to focus on strengths or improve weakensses. So the user doesn't have to set it multiple times you can present multiple weeks at once so users can choose different drills each week for across the board improvement. Obviously the points would need to be split up (lets say you have 5 weeks to do and you choose a new drill each week, then it would be +2 per skill for an A work ethic player in each drill, for a C work ethic player it would be between 0 and 1 per skill for a new drill each week with the 0 or 1 outcome determined randomly). These skill improvement would be added on top of the generic player progression each offseason but that would need to be toned back some so we don't end up with 99s everywhere.

    Some ideas for drills would be,

    Throwing drills (improve THP, THA)
    Watch film (improve AWR, PRC)
    Sprints (improve SPD)
    Long distance running (improve STA)
    Agility drills (improve AGI, ACC)
    Catching drills (improve CTH, SPC, CIT)
    Running drills (improve CAR, BTK)
    Go on a diet (lose weight, improve STA, improve DUR, increase SPD, increase ACC)
    Eat more (gain weight, decrease STA, decrease DUR, decrease SPD, decrease ACC)
    Lift weights (improve STR)
    Run blocking drills (improve RBK, improve IBL)
    Pass blocking drills (improve PBK, improve IBL)
    CB drills (improve MCV, improve ZCV)
    Tackling dummy (improve TAK, improve POW)
    Gap recognition drills (improve PUR)

    And there could be something that covers every single stat or a combination of stats that make sense together to improve players (while in some areas would decrease some attributes).

    In Total

    Combining these two would truly give dynamic player progression. In recruiting would you shoot for the 3 star player with high work ethic and have the time to be able to let him develop so he is dominant as a senior or do you shoot for that 5 star who has no work ethic and will be a good player but not reach his potential? This would really establish gems and busts in recruiting. On that rare occasion there could be a 5 star with amazing work ethic that just blows everyone away (I would cap this at 1 or 2 players at the most every recruiting cycle because you don't want too many of these as they would lead to 99 rated players).

    Add in the ability to focus where your players improve would add even more depth to the system. Do you enhance your players' strengths? Do you cover up their weaknesses? It adds lots of customization for teams.

    This is something that wouldn't take too much work to implement beyond the UI and the CPU handling growth of its players. Player work ethic would only need 3 bits to put in (2 if you drop the F grade and just made it A/B/C/D) and you can just have a formula that the game runs through when adding on to the players, something like:

    [(Player work ethic boost modifier) * Random (1,2)] * num weeks = what is added to the attribute(s) specifically chosen

    So the modifier would be A - 1, B - .7, C - .4, D - .2, F - 0 which for an A player solely focusing in one area of improvement would net between 5 and 10 points in that area tacked on top of general progression. Or if you did a new skill each week it would be between 1 and 2 points for each skill. You can also tie general progression into this system if desired.

    I believe this would reflect how much players grow when they are in the same system for years and learn it and are able to be an impact when they finally hit the field when given their chance. It is one way Wisconsin is always able to have good offensive lines even though they usually end up with 3 star players. This system could also account for busts that get passed up on the depth chart because they aren't improving as much as their teammates.

    Let me know what you think of this, and any suggestions or improvements you might have. I was trying to think of this now because I know based on software life cycles that EA is probably thinking of new ideas for the next release soon and wanted to throw this out there in case they read these forums or something like this can be passed along to them to give them an idea of what might work. They introduced the coaching improvement trees in NCAA 14 (which I will love using) and I think this is a way to extend something similar to individual players without being too overcomplicated and grants users a ton of customization for their teams.

    TL;DR: implement custom player growth in the offseason.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    It would be nice to see significant weight gains for players like in real life. It would make position changes more realistic. If I want to move a bigger DE to DT I could have him bulk up and work on strength.

    If I have a speedster with no ball skills that I want to play DB I could have him specifically work on coverage drills.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36

    For defensive linemen you could even do the following:
    Let's say that your defensive line recruiting has slowed down a bit but you are consistently able to bring in awesome linebackers so you want to transition to a 3-4 base defense. Using the weight gain system you can bulk up your DEs to make the transition easier to being 3-4 DEs and get a really big NT to control the point of attack to allow the LBs to flow.

    However weight gain/loss doesn't have to be limited to the players in the trenches. I'll give two real world examples below of how this could be used:
    - Terry Richardson is a SO CB for Michigan. He currently is 5'9" and weighs only 162 lbs. He is tiny and while he is quick for coverage, his weight limits him in both run support and tackling because bigger players will just shrug him off. As such he needs to bulk up before he will probably see the field. In this scenario I can focus him on adding weight to improve those areas and get him onto the field.
    - Moe Ways is a WR recruit for the 2014 recruiting class that is committed to play his college ball for Michigan. He is currently 6'4" and weights 195 lbs according to 247Sports recruiting database. Michigan has told him they want him to bulk up to 215 lbs by the time he hits campus as the plan for him is to be an outside receiver so that with the added weight he can stand up to physical corners and not get pushed around (the coaches may view this as a reaction to this picture where Dee Milliner jostled with Roy Roundtree and Roundtree lost badly leading to an easy interception for Miller). [​IMG]

    Also for your position swap idea it could extend to players classified as athletes that fit one position better than others but you may have a logjam at that position and want to get them on the field somewhere else.
     
  4. maverickfp

    maverickfp Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,475
    Would love this. One of the last pieces missing from the NCAA puzzle.
     
  5. MartyWebb

    MartyWebb C.R.E.A.M.

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,320
  6. Stanimal032

    Stanimal032 EMAW

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    I like the idea, the only issue that I have is with the areas of focus.

    I like the idea in principle, but I feel that this would detract from recruiting. Alabama has a mauling offensive line because they RECRUIT and mauling offensive line, and then improve them once they get there. Oregon has an insanely fast offense because they RECRUIT speed.

    Look at Texas the last few years. Texas with Colt McCoy was a spread offense team. They recruited the spread offense players. Then, all of a sudden, Mack decides he wants to go to a more pro-style, SEC kind of offense. Well, he hasn't recruited for that kind of an offense, so the first year they implement it, they struggled and went 7-5. They had a better year last year, but that was more due to a stout defense with their rather anemic offense.

    Like I said, I like the idea in theory, but teams have their style and recruit accordingly. All I would hope is if something like this were implemented, it would be a 3-4 year process like it would be in real life.

    Other than that, welcome to the boards and great first post!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    Honestly the powerhouse teams are going to be good regardless. Any targeted development will just be highlights for them. This type of system would be better for those 3 star teams that need to focus more on specialization and recruiting/training to fit a style to compete with the big boys.

    Texas Tech under Leach didn't beat the big boys in the Big12 South by out recruiting Texas and OU, they recruited and developed players to fit the mad pirates style. In this game as a low prestige school it's hard to pick and choose what you get sometimes. It might help to be able to focus their development to fit your style.

    Also, being able to tailor development for position changes and athletes is a huge component for lower prestige teams to find their own success. If I can bring in a big SS, switch him to a hybrid LBer and really push a focus on block shedding and power moves I can mold a difference maker. These are the guys in real life from smaller schools who come out of nowhere and end up in the NFL, because they were developed specifically in college.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Stanimal032

    Stanimal032 EMAW

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    A valid point
     
  9. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    My main worry would be that adding specializations for every player on the roster would take forever. A lot of micromanagement. It might make more sense to do it by position group and maybe limit specific regimens to maybe 3 or 4 players per season. Then you could focus the development of your whole OL, DL, LBs... but also pick a few players who you want to position change or drastically change their attributes. It would take out most of the micromanagement, you could choose to just leave it up to the position groups, and you could still work on your special cases.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36

    Yea I was worried about the possible micro-management thats why I had the options of doing per player/per position group or just leaving it at a general level for the computer to handle. With various options it would allow different users to do different levels of managing (I would probably do a mix of per player and per position group myself) and not bog everyone down in the minor details if this is something they don't want to worry about.

    And Stan I do understand the worry, but this isn't something meant to detract from recruiting. It's only supposed to be a small focused area that grows over time (so it for sure would be 3-4 years to truly improve a player). It's not like as Oregon I could recruit an Alabama like offensive line and then have them be insanely fast year one. No they would still be slow and not in the style of play to be effective for probably 2-3 years as they would need to shed a lot of weight. This would be a way to add to progression on top of recruiting and add depth in terms of developing recruits once they hit campus. Right now it feels that beyond a position change once you get recruits in you have no input whatsoever as to how they progress and this was meant to improve that area.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36
    And as Cyhiphop said this is truly a way for those smaller schools to find a niche and focus it to be able to compete with the bigger schools.
     
  12. Stanimal032

    Stanimal032 EMAW

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    I understand what you mean. EA has a tendency to over-compensate on some things like this though, that's all I was worried about lol
     
  13. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36

    O yea I can see where if this isn't properly implemented it can get out of hand fast. I understand the worry and am right there with you.
     
  14. Wyrmreaver

    Wyrmreaver Ready for Madden 15 on Xbox One, lets get it on!

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    6,588
    I agree that managing every player would be tedious. A better way would be to set your tendencies for each position group. As in, I want HBs to be power, speed, or balanced and they develop accordingly and I want D-line to be pass rushers, run stoppers or balanced, and so on and so forth. Thats an easier implement because those tendencies are already in the game.
     
  15. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36
    I put this up on the Gamechanger website you mentioned in your other post Stan, maybe it can gain some traction there too. Sadly on OS no discussion really took off.
     
  16. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36

    Yea if they just did position groups similar to the preferences you can set if you want the CPU to recruit for you that would be great.
     
  17. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904

    That would make a ton of sense. Still it would be nice to micromanage a few select players if you wanted to. Maybe allow micromanagement for position changes only?
     
  18. MartyWebb

    MartyWebb C.R.E.A.M.

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,320
    I'd almost suggest the position group vs. player micromanagement, and maybe when you're creating your coach you choose what type of players you want, or prefer(like in the recruiting screen) and it conditions your players in that respect. But, I'd also like to be able to have a Thunder vs. Lightning back system sometimes, or someone running a 2-QB system, with a passer and a scrambler. That'd be the only way this thing would have to be micromanaged for me personally.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ECFIVESTER

    ECFIVESTER Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    242
    Where does Athletic facilities and coach prestige/awareness factor in? I mean yes players with high work ethic should develop, but players with high work ethic from FAU won't develop as fast as ones with the same from Florida. There is just too much of a gap in coach skills and facilities.

    Also Player development should factor in scheme, kind of like Madden. Coaches should recruit based on scheme and players should develop based on how they fit that scheme, as well as their own work ethic, facilities of the school, and coach's skills to teach them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    Agreed, the facilities in particular should have some effect on all progression. Schools with A+ facilities should progress a few points more than D+ facility schools.
     
  21. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36

    Excellent points. Athletic facilities/program prestige should play a factor into this. Not sure how exactly how to work that into the formula. I don't know if it would be that big of an impact though but it should be accounted for.

    I didn't account for coach prestige because during the offseason coaches are unable to contact the players beyond usually a S&C coach in the weight room to keep the players safe when lifting.

    Scheme would be interesting to apply, in that if you are trying to form someone into something they are not the progression would be slower. I like that.
     
  22. freernnur5

    freernnur5 Walk On

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    36

    Yea you are right as is ECFIVESTER. I would edit my previous post but I guess I can't. I was only thinking of facilities as weights but then it just hit me there are other things that would influence that from food options to medical services, etc. so facilities would be a big impact.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. ECFIVESTER

    ECFIVESTER Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    242
    Granted the HC is not in contact with the players but in the game you act as all the coaches, plus all plans the S&C coach gives to the players are under the approval of the HC anyways.
     
  24. ECFIVESTER

    ECFIVESTER Walk On

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    242
    And that's what I was getting at about the facilities. Overall I think this makes valid sense thoug, if you can find a way to mesh it all together.
     
  25. cyhiphopp

    cyhiphopp Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,904
    I think it's awesome that this year they are implementing the customizable point system for coaches that effect players and recruits. It would be nice if the schools grades effected them more as well.
     

Share This Page