NCAA 11 Impressions

[FirstTimer]

The most important attribute that is never used is "awareness"...

Agreed.

Literally means NOTHING in this game, when it should be the key attribute determining overall (it used to be years ago, and even then, it wasn't quite enough).

I think it determines qutoe a bit in this years game. Maybe not as much for offensive players, namely WR's, but on defense I think it plays a larger role. I'll notice lower awareness guys taking extra time to react to a play, biting more on play action etc. I think the gap should be bigger at times but it's there.

Players need to come in to the game (recruits) with better physical attributes (Speed, Agility, Acceleration, Spin Move, Juke Move, etc.) and Awareness along with position specific attributes (man coverage / zone coverage for a defensive back, play recognition for defensive players in general, power / finesse moves for linemen, pursuit for linebackers) should be the focus of growth every year and much of that should be determined by HOW WELL YOU FUCKIN PLAY...

I mean, if I have a 69 overall running back run for 1400 yards and 10 TDs, he should NOT be All-Conference First Team at a 74 overall. Dudes ratings should go through the roof and should be an 83+ (if I'm at a small school, higher if I'm at a bigger school).

The problem is balancing it out to a certain extend because you risk the game getting diluted with a bunch of 99's. It's a balancing act from a prgramming POV I would imagine as if the ratigns drive teh game it's tougher for players to have "down" year or plateau out as most do at some point. With it being a ratings driven game it would be impossible for a player to flatten out if he keeps putting up better and better stats and before long you have a lot of 99 rated players. Maybe a hidden potential rating of sorts can keep this in check but I would imagine it's difficult to balance out.

[FedEx227]

Any updates to those sliders FT or are you still using those?

I've about done all I can with the default difficulty, I have to do some sliders now.

[FirstTimer]

Any updates to those sliders FT or are you still using those?

I've about done all I can with the default difficulty, I have to do some sliders now.

Won't have updates to those(if any) until at least 10PM tonight. Those are the ones I will be using for 2 more test games I will be playing.
I'm at work all day and have shit to do when I get home before I play a couple more test games.

Those sliders I am using are accurate as of last night though.

[FedEx227]

Okay, I'll probably just wait until tomorrow before I use them

Thanks.

[FirstTimer]

Okay, I'll probably just wait until tomorrow before I use them

Thanks.

Honestly I would go ahead and try them today. The changes I make(if any) will be pretty minor so the set I posted here is pretty much true to what I will be posting tomorrow. Plus the more feedback I have on them the better. I will be the first to admit that a sample size of about 4-5 games isn't the greatest to judge off of.

[Maynard]

well, i see what people are saying about progression. my biggest rating jump was a 5 for a WR and OLB. most were around 2 or 3 increase overall.

But here is the thing about this. People always bitch about teams being loaded with 99 overall guys, so EA tones it down and people complain the progression isnt enough.

Then there is the incoming recruits. People are bitching that WR have elusive rating of 40ies. I havnt heard anyone say this about CB's. But it applies to them too and everyone else. You know who it doesnt apply too? HB's. Why? because elusiveness is a rushing rating so why would anyone other than running backs need a rushing rating to be high? They wouldnt, so they dont.

What people who complain may not know is that on the OD website you can view player ratings differently than u would offline. EA has all the same ratings, they are just grouped into categories. Elusiveness is in the rushing group

what is throwing people off is that current players have higher ratings in the rushing category. But these new recruits dont. I got two 3 star WR's and they did get some 70ies to the carry, break tackle and vision. But they are not running backs so thats why they dont get high ratings in the rushing category.

take a look for yourselves. sort by year (class) so u can see the freshmen i have. Click on the players name and then click the rating tab. There u can see how categories are grouped. Take a look at the HB and then the 2 WR (all Freshmen). i dont see this as a problem at all because if the rating doesnt apply to that position then it wont matter. In reality a WR should be elusive, but the way EA grouped these ratings seems to me that it is a non issue in this game.

http://www.easports.com/dynasty#module=moduleRoster&dynid=45259&sku=662A0001

The issue that i see is they toned down progression, but at the same time made fewer good players as recruits. So now instead of getting 10 great and 7 good recruits, your getting 2 great, 5 good and 7 avg to bad recruits.

Look at my class. not only did i not replace the 17 seniors that left, i got six 3 star players. That is unheard of for a team like OSU in a ncaa football game. I did get 7 5 stars though, but its clear i need to change my recruiting strategy and get more balance

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Agreed.

I think it determines qutoe a bit in this years game. Maybe not as much for offensive players, namely WR's, but on defense I think it plays a larger role. I'll notice lower awareness guys taking extra time to react to a play, biting more on play action etc. I think the gap should be bigger at times but it's there.

I think for defenders, it has more to do with "play recognition" than "awareness" (aren't they the same thing, essentially? lol).

The problem is balancing it out to a certain extend because you risk the game getting diluted with a bunch of 99's. It's a balancing act from a prgramming POV I would imagine as if the ratigns drive teh game it's tougher for players to have "down" year or plateau out as most do at some point. With it being a ratings driven game it would be impossible for a player to flatten out if he keeps putting up better and better stats and before long you have a lot of 99 rated players. Maybe a hidden potential rating of sorts can keep this in check but I would imagine it's difficult to balance out.

Instead of it being a "hidden" rating, it should be out there.

However, if you have a 60 OVR DE that records 16 sacks in a season and his "potential" rating is merely only a C-, sounds kind of ridiculous for him, after being a 16 sack guy and a first team AA the next year, for him to be rated a 71.

I mean, he doesn't have to be a 95 OVR, but he needs to be rated elite relative to where he plays. So, if he is playing in the MAC, and the MAC's "best" is at or around an 85 OVR, that guy needs to be up there after a monster season.

Didn't the College Hoops series get this right?

I mean, IIRC, your guys go up and down based on how they are playing and they have a "potential" attribute that fluctuates with their time in the league. The ratings are fluid throughout and were determined how you played and how you scheduled your practices with them.

Right now, as is, small schools basically do not develop talent, which is the opposite of what happens.

How would I fix this?

Attributes should be fluid. Constantly changing with how they are playing, regardless. I mean, if you have a WR getting a 140 and 2TD every week, he should be extremely high OVR, because he is just balling.

Backups and players that rarely play shouldn't have too much development outside of a token upgrade to AWR or position relation attributes like "play recognition"...however, you should have the option to develop these players during practice with the "spend X amount of time doing ___________"...or have points that you can divvy out to certain players to focus on certain things. So, your 5th string CB that needs to work on zone coverage, you have him work on it and there is your development.

At this point, the yearly progression is bunk and I'd say broken...it doesn't reflect anything real. Players get better daily-weekly-etc. Not yearly. And it isn't determined by a certain glass ceiling. You let it play out of the field, practice or otherwise for players to get better.

This needs a HUGE upgrade in the future. It would be something that completely changes the game and for the better. Incorporate this with the addition of coaches, coaching carousel, etc. Coaches have ratings that determine how good of a coach they are, and this reflects how progression is based.

If you have a defensive coordinator that has a specialty in coaching D-Line, your D-Line should improve really well throughout practice and those that play well, are better OVR and attributes. While the DBs may not progress as well unless they play better, therefore upping the coaches ability to coach...making future units better.

Other games have done this...it can not be that hard.

[Maynard]

oh, here is the other issue i read about....the kicker recuits having real low power and accuracy. People seem to forget that with a teams default kicker on the team that sliders have been turned way way down because these guys are kicking it thru the roof. So i welcome the addition of poorly rated kickers to stop all these 50+ yard attempts.

I will just move the sliders back to default to balance this out.

i think EA should leave the recruiting as it is and give a slight bump to progression. I dont want to see a team full of 99 all over the place.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

As for recruiting classes, EA needs to do what they did with Madden, make classes up and not allow the game to randomly generate recruits...its been proven that EA can't put together an engine to randomly create life-like classes. So, they need to dedicate somebody to making X number of classes that appear randomly in dynasty. If you want to randomly generate names, cool...but the attributes need to be pre-determined and there needs to be enough variation (more classes made) so you can't tell the differences down the road.

Therefore, attributes come out realistically, while you can have random name generator for them, and even a random H/W generator (within parameters).

[FirstTimer]

well, i see what people are saying about progression. my biggest rating jump was a 5 for a WR and OLB. most were around 2 or 3 increase overall.

But here is the thing about this. People always bitch about teams being loaded with 99 overall guys, so EA tones it down and people complain the progression isnt enough.

I would agree to a certain extent. My biggest issue with the dynasty is the low/non sensical ratigns for recruits down the road. I'm not too hacked off at progression as it relates to the ratings actually going up. The biggest problem IMO is the completely retarded ratings that recruits actually come in with.

I mean I see what you are saying below but when actually compared to what the base set of rossters had as ratings for certain players and positions the recruits ratings don't make any sense.

Then there is the incoming recruits. People are bitching that WR have elusive rating of 40ies. I havnt heard anyone say this about CB's. But it applies to them too and everyone else. You know who it doesnt apply too? HB's. Why? because elusiveness is a rushing rating so why would anyone other than running backs need a rushing rating to be high? They wouldnt, so they dont.

What people who complain may not know is that on the OD website you can view player ratings differently than u would offline. EA has all the same ratings, they are just grouped into categories. Elusiveness is in the rushing group

what is throwing people off is that current players have higher ratings in the rushing category. But these new recruits dont. I got two 3 star WR's and they did get some 70ies to the carry, break tackle and vision. But they are not running backs so thats why they dont get high ratings in the rushing category.

take a look for yourselves. sort by year (class) so u can see the freshmen i have. Click on the players name and then click the rating tab. There u can see how categories are grouped. Take a look at the HB and then the 2 WR (all Freshmen). i dont see this as a problem at all because if the rating doesnt apply to that position then it wont matter. In reality a WR should be elusive, but the way EA grouped these ratings seems to me that it is a non issue in this game.

http://www.easports.com/dynasty#modu...9&sku=662A0001

I see your point to a certain extent but at the same time I think over the life of a dynasty the player talent/rating pool should stay somewhat consistant with what they were when you cracked open the box. As it stands now teh ratings dive and don't match up with what the base rosters ratigns were. I'm not saying everything has to match perfectly from when the game was opened but it should at least be in the same neighborhood/block. After 5-10 years of play they aren't even in the same city. It's pretty drastic.

Look at my class. not only did i not replace the 17 seniors that left, i got six 3 star players. That is unheard of for a team like OSU in a ncaa football game. I did get 7 5 stars though, but its clear i need to change my recruiting strategy and get more balance

Alogn with this though I don't think the CPU is smart enough to change up strategies though so while you might change and pull mor 5 star guys the rest of the 119 teams end up staying put for the most part and over time the teams get much much worse.

I think for defenders, it has more to do with "play recognition" than "awareness" (aren't they the same thing, essentially? lol).

I suppose? But I have no idea the way those ratings are taken as far as programming/playing the game go.

Instead of it being a "hidden" rating, it should be out there.

However, if you have a 60 OVR DE that records 16 sacks in a season and his "potential" rating is merely only a C-, sounds kind of ridiculous for him, after being a 16 sack guy and a first team AA the next year, for him to be rated a 71.

Maybe...maybe not. But you have to have some way for the game to balance out a great season in relation to not having the game littered with 99's after 3 seasons. But in your above example I think bumping him to a 75-80 range seems fair. But again I have no clue how the game is prgrammed from a potential perspective.

Didn't the College Hoops series get this right?

I mean, IIRC, your guys go up and down based on how they are playing and they have a "potential" attribute that fluctuates with their time in the league. The ratings are fluid throughout and were determined how you played and how you scheduled your practices with them.

Right now, as is, small schools basically do not develop talent, which is the opposite of what happens.

How would I fix this?

Attributes should be fluid. Constantly changing with how they are playing, regardless. I mean, if you have a WR getting a 140 and 2TD every week, he should be extremely high OVR, because he is just balling.

Backups and players that rarely play shouldn't have too much development outside of a token upgrade to AWR or position relation attributes like "play recognition"...however, you should have the option to develop these players during practice with the "spend X amount of time doing ___________"...or have points that you can divvy out to certain players to focus on certain things. So, your 5th string CB that needs to work on zone coverage, you have him work on it and there is your development.

At this point, the yearly progression is bunk and I'd say broken...it doesn't reflect anything real. Players get better daily-weekly-etc. Not yearly. And it isn't determined by a certain glass ceiling. You let it play out of the field, practice or otherwise for players to get better.

This needs a HUGE upgrade in the future. It would be something that completely changes the game and for the better. Incorporate this with the addition of coaches, coaching carousel, etc. Coaches have ratings that determine how good of a coach they are, and this reflects how progression is based.

If you have a defensive coordinator that has a specialty in coaching D-Line, your D-Line should improve really well throughout practice and those that play well, are better OVR and attributes. While the DBs may not progress as well unless they play better, therefore upping the coaches ability to coach...making future units better.

Other games have done this...it can not be that hard.

Excellent ideas and points. Can't say I disagree with anything. If implemented correctly this could be very nice. But it's risky because it's EA trying to implement something correctly...

oh, here is the other issue i read about....the kicker recuits having real low power and accuracy. People seem to forget that with a teams default kicker on the team that sliders have been turned way way down because these guys are kicking it thru the roof. So i welcome the addition of poorly rated kickers to stop all these 50+ yard attempts.

I will just move the sliders back to default to balance this out.

i think EA should leave the recruiting as it is and give a slight bump to progression. I dont want to see a team full of 99 all over the place.

Yeah not sure what this tuner set will do. It will at least be interesting to see how they explain it and what it does.

As for recruiting classes, EA needs to do what they did with Madden, make classes up and not allow the game to randomly generate recruits...its been proven that EA can't put together an engine to randomly create life-like classes. So, they need to dedicate somebody to making X number of classes that appear randomly in dynasty. If you want to randomly generate names, cool...but the attributes need to be pre-determined and there needs to be enough variation (more classes made) so you can't tell the differences down the road.

Therefore, attributes come out realistically, while you can have random name generator for them, and even a random H/W generator (within parameters).

Agreed again. Even for a 30 year dynasty it could be as simple as (1) 15 year set that after 15 years kind of recycles with different names etc but the same ratings layout. At that point after you've played that long you won't notice in year 22 the guys are coming in with the same ratings they did in year 4.

[Bear Pand]

oh, here is the other issue i read about....the kicker recuits having real low power and accuracy. People seem to forget that with a teams default kicker on the team that sliders have been turned way way down because these guys are kicking it thru the roof. So i welcome the addition of poorly rated kickers to stop all these 50+ yard attempts.

I will just move the sliders back to default to balance this out.

i think EA should leave the recruiting as it is and give a slight bump to progression. I dont want to see a team full of 99 all over the place.

You have to realize the full extent of the problem. Teams start refusing to attempt field goals because they don't have any capable kickers on their team. That's when the low kickers start to become an issue.

[Maynard]

FT, i agree with everything u said about the in coming guys. And i think that is what is really messing people up is what they are seeing from in coming guys is very inconsistent from the current roster. I guess in year 4 or 5 u will start to see those effects and how they play out for teams.

Alogn with this though I don't think the CPU is smart enough to change up strategies though so while you might change and pull mor 5 star guys the rest of the 119 teams end up staying put for the most part and over time the teams get much much worse.

i dont have the exact numbers and i advanced to year 2 so i might not be able to see. But there was no team who got that many 5 star guys. the next highest was 2. And a team like Alabama had 0. Bama had 16 4 star players and 3 3 stars and that got them the #1 class. Most teams got 4 and 3 star guys.

And thats what worries me more than progression. The 3 star players i got ranged from 65-76 so if u get a bunch of these players and mix that with low progression then u get a bad team.

EA seemed to over balance this by toning down progress and recruits...they should have left one or the other alone

[Maynard]

You have to realize the full extent of the problem. Teams start refusing to attempt field goals because they don't have any capable kickers on their team. That's when the low kickers start to become an issue.

good point. its clear this tuner and patch stuff is needed.

[FirstTimer]

And thats what worries me more than progression. The 3 star players i got ranged from 65-76 so if u get a bunch of these players and mix that with low progression then u get a bad team.

EA seemed to over balance this by toning down progress and recruits...they should have left one or the other alone

Best way to sum up this issue.

[Twigg4075]

I guess I misinterpreted the way Glyde works. I slept on that price too long and when I was going to pull the trigger earlier tonight the price was over $60! WTF?!?