PDA

View Full Version : Recruiting in Dynasty mode



Lord Marshall X
05-24-2011, 07:31 PM
The recruiting is supposedly just being "tuned" for next years game? What does that mean?

I personally hated the russian roulette style of recruiting because it was 80% computer manipulated and dominated by certain teams more than any year before because of the complete lack of comparable talent at the 2 and 3 star range.

3 stars are the backbone of college football. In NCAA 2011 none of them could even be a starter for me. A 4 or 5 star player as a sophomore was better than 95% of the 3 stars during their redshirt senior year.

In a competitive online dynasty you had to have a counter for all the big boy teams or you would get someone dominating recruiting. Texas and Oklahoma had to balance each other out. Miami and FL State. Hopefully Oregon could slow down USC because no matter how many time you beat them with UCLA, UCLA can never out-recruit them. Michigan/Ohio State and hopefully Alabama/FL. If you don't get match ups like that, no matter how many times Nebraska wins the Big 12 title Oklahoma will still decimate them in recruiting while Nebraskas team starts to look more and more like a Jr. Varsity Squad.

Also being stuck -1 behind Akron for 3 weeks when you've negative recruited them for 300 points when you're Wisconsin is ridiculous yet it happens all the time.

Dr Death
05-24-2011, 07:43 PM
I will say this about recruiting in '11... I absolutely hated it. A kid has proximity to home as Low on his list and he's six States away from me... yet it would always pop up when I was recruiting him. In real life if I am recruiting a kid in Florida and I am coaching at say, :Missouri: or :Kansas_State: and I already know location or how close to home he is, is no big deal to him, I would NOT keep bringing it up.

"So Mr. 5-Star QB, I know you have repeatedly told me you don't care about staying near your home, but for the ninth time, let me ask you this just so I can be absolutely sure it isn't a priority for you..." :fp:

And yes, I know they have the Change Topic option, but come on man, bring back the Football Face that would :) or get :mad: or even :rolleyes: and let us have control of our recruiting again.

JBHuskers
05-24-2011, 07:50 PM
This Friday, there is a Dynasty Tuning Blog, so I am thinking that we can definitely get some things cleared up there with that blog.

souljahbill
05-24-2011, 07:53 PM
I will say this about recruiting in '11... I absolutely hated it. A kid has proximity to home as Low on his list and he's six States away from me... yet it would always pop up when I was recruiting him. In real life if I am recruiting a kid in Florida and I am coaching at say, :Missouri: or :Kansas_State: and I already know location or how close to home he is, is no big deal to him, I would NOT keep bringing it up.

"So Mr. 5-Star QB, I know you have repeatedly told me you don't care about staying near your home, but for the ninth time, let me ask you this just so I can be absolutely sure it isn't a priority for you..." :fp:

And yes, I know they have the Change Topic option, but come on man, bring back the Football Face that would :) or get :mad: or even :rolleyes: and let us have control of our recruiting again.

What should happen is that a recruit only brings up topics that he has "Above Average" interest in. The coach could/should bring up everything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lord Marshall X
05-24-2011, 08:07 PM
What should happen is that a recruit only brings up topics that he has "Above Average" interest in. The coach could/should bring up everything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great Idea. I know I am tired of spending 60 minutes and getting low, very low, low, least, very low, above average.

Prowler
05-24-2011, 10:54 PM
I will say this about recruiting in '11... I absolutely hated it. A kid has proximity to home as Low on his list and he's six States away from me... yet it would always pop up when I was recruiting him. In real life if I am recruiting a kid in Florida and I am coaching at say, :Missouri: or :Kansas_State: and I already know location or how close to home he is, is no big deal to him, I would NOT keep bringing it up.

"So Mr. 5-Star QB, I know you have repeatedly told me you don't care about staying near your home, but for the ninth time, let me ask you this just so I can be absolutely sure it isn't a priority for you..." :fp:

And yes, I know they have the Change Topic option, but come on man, bring back the Football Face that would :) or get :mad: or even :rolleyes: and let us have control of our recruiting again.

This annoyed me as well, to the point that I lowered the difficulty and just let the CPU do my recruiting.

But what annoyed me more was how players were practically married to their position before they ever step foot on campus. I really wish the players ratings weren't completely set at the start of recruiting; instead just the obvious ones like speed, agility, strength, etc. I should not know how well a kid pass blocks or returns kicks if he's never done either.

Lord Marshall X
05-27-2011, 08:23 AM
This annoyed me as well, to the point that I lowered the difficulty and just let the CPU do my recruiting.

But what annoyed me more was how players were practically married to their position before they ever step foot on campus. I really wish the players ratings weren't completely set at the start of recruiting; instead just the obvious ones like speed, agility, strength, etc. I should not know how well a kid pass blocks or returns kicks if he's never done either.

We did the same thing in our online dynasty. Having a big online dynasty is a nightmare with this new recruiting system. It literally dissolves 8 - 10 - 12 player dynasties because the recruiting pool is not deep enough and it creates a lot of haves and have nots based purely off of computer preference.

Few people want to admit that recruiting took a HUGE step back last year and now I just want some clarity on whats being done to remedy the awful recruits, recruiting system, and recruiting logic.

DariusLock
05-27-2011, 10:39 AM
Yes, recruiting ruined this game for me. I can only play about 3-4 seasons before I get tired of all the other teams being horrible around me.

Kwizzy
05-27-2011, 10:55 AM
While I agree that the new system isn't very good, I also do not want a return to the football face either. Just my opinion, I'd like to see some elements of both incorporated into a system. Make it more of a back and forth between coach and recruit. I select a topic, he brings up a topic, etc... Also, I'd like to see more involved aspects introduced like: Sending coaches to visit, offseason camps with next seasons recruits, etc...

Lord Marshall X
05-29-2011, 08:49 PM
While I agree that the new system isn't very good, I also do not want a return to the football face either. Just my opinion, I'd like to see some elements of both incorporated into a system. Make it more of a back and forth between coach and recruit. I select a topic, he brings up a topic, etc... Also, I'd like to see more involved aspects introduced like: Sending coaches to visit, offseason camps with next seasons recruits, etc...

Instead of the coaches choice there should be players choice.

JeffHCross
05-30-2011, 12:40 AM
Instead of the coaches choice there should be players choice.Most people have operated under the assumption that the entire call, minus the Coach's Choice option, is being led by the player, not the coach. If it was led by the coach, then the roulette system really doesn't make sense. Some people would argue it doesn't make sense then either, and I may agree, but at least looking at it as a phone call the recruit is in charge of makes more sense than the alternative.

Lord Marshall X
05-30-2011, 01:00 PM
Most people have operated under the assumption that the entire call, minus the Coach's Choice option, is being led by the player, not the coach. If it was led by the coach, then the roulette system really doesn't make sense. Some people would argue it doesn't make sense then either, and I may agree, but at least looking at it as a phone call the recruit is in charge of makes more sense than the alternative.

Regardless of who is in charge of the call, the russian roulette system makes no sense because who talks about things that the recruit doesn't care about? Why would proximity to home come up if he doesn't care about it at all? Why would a coach bring it up if he's nowhere near the prospects home? Stop. Think about it. The devs certainly did not.

JeffHCross
05-30-2011, 01:09 PM
Stop. Think about it.I already did :P

Some people would argue it doesn't make sense then either;)

Lord Marshall X
05-30-2011, 01:19 PM
I already did :P
;)

Lol! Yeah its ridiculous.

Rudy
05-30-2011, 09:47 PM
Most people have operated under the assumption that the entire call, minus the Coach's Choice option, is being led by the player, not the coach. If it was led by the coach, then the roulette system really doesn't make sense. Some people would argue it doesn't make sense then either, and I may agree, but at least looking at it as a phone call the recruit is in charge of makes more sense than the alternative.

This is how I viewed it and I thought recruiting in '11 was WAY better than '10. Waiting on the football face and watching an hour go by sometimes with no response was very annoying. I really liked how you could plan your recruiting better this way and I LOVED the difficulty options in recruiting. Having the ability to recruit on a harder setting allows you to play with a great school you love instead of always choosing a mediocre program and building it up.

steelerfan
05-30-2011, 10:29 PM
It's a video game. There has to be a mechanism in the recruiting system that allows for bad phone calls. I don't read too much into it.

Jayrah
05-31-2011, 08:58 AM
I really don't see a major problem. Like SF said, gotta be a way for bad calls to occur. I don't hate the system by any means, because the basic point is that you are talking to the recruit about all available aspects of your school (see below S-1 for a new idea of how this works without being just a stupid implementation).

That being said there are definitely distinct changes that would help the issue that you guys have and also allow for the recruiting of more players. This is where a solution must be presented for the current system to change though. In my experience, just complaining about it doesn't get us where we need to be. So here is a soluble idea. My system would call for more strategy and focused recruiting via some tweaked features, but wouldn't require a complete change of system, just a general overhaul of the current one:

GENERAL GUIDELINES:

G-1: I would like to see the recruiting time get cut down to a maximum of 4 available topics at a required 10 minutes apiece for (up to) the first 2 topics, and a required 20 minutes for the 3rd and 4th topics (should you choose to talk about the 3rd and/or 4th topics).

G-2: During the first 3 weeks of the season you can ONLY pick up to 2 topics (Which allows you really to recruit all of your available 35 recruiting board players without worrying about another team spending a lot more time than you on them). Starting week 4, you can choose a 3rd topic and a 4th topic if you wish (essentially thinning out your list and list of cpu's *premier* recruits, and also giving any coach a distinct advantage over another coach that does not choose to take advantage of a 3rd/4th topic because of the 20 minute bump).

G-3: The point value doesn't have to dramatically change for this new system, except that the used time would double the possible values of topics 3 and 4. Everything else could stay the same to be honest.

NOW FOR SPECIFICS:

S-1: During all weeks, choosing to talk about 1 or 2 topics leaves you with a random *NEW* topic, until recruit has all of the available topics filled out. After all topics are filled out, only these first 2 topics in any week become randomized as the current system calls for. For lack of a better idea, the first 2 topics in any week would now be referred to as "Parent's Choice" topics, seeing that parents want to know every available aspect of the school they are sending their kid to. (this idea of PC also works for current system).

S-2: As stated above, starting in Week 4 you are able to choose up to 3 and 4 topics. Any 3rd topic will be a "Player's Choice" topic, where the player chooses something that HE is interested in or anything "above average" or more (costing you 20 minutes). Note that this doesn't necessarily mean a topic that your school has a good rating in, this is the player's topic of choice.

S-3: Choosing all 4 topics for a recruit in a week additionally earns you a "Coaches Choice" topic, where you talk about your desired topic choice (also costing 20 minutes and filling out a full hour for that recruit). This would make the randomized coach choice null obviously and put it in the coach's hands.

S-4: Still in place would be a "Promise" opportunity, a "Visit" opportunity, and the "Offer Scholarship" opportunity. The main system will stay exactly the same as it is now, with only 3 available Promises to any single recruit per season, 1 visit and 1 Scholly offer (any of which can replace one of your topics for the week). Visit weeks will follow same guidelines as current system, choosing up to 3 available topics of your choice during the visit.

S-5: "Change topic" choice would be cut down to 1 opportunity per week and could only be used on "Parent's Choice" topics (IOW the first or second topic of any call).

Daywalker86
05-31-2011, 12:11 PM
Jay you might be onto something.
Especially giving you a chance to recruit your whole board the first few weeks as you narrow down serious targets.

I like this.

WolverineJay
05-31-2011, 02:10 PM
I don't like the idea of restricting even more time on a call. It's bad enough that we are limited to just 1 hour on our recruits, which is not realistic at all especially when I have only 5 kids left on my board. I've never put 35 players on my board in fact 25 is my max, but I mostly keep it around 15-20 to start.

Needless to say I was a bit disappointed to see in the Dynasty tuning blog that they didn't tweak the slot machine recruiting process. I don't think it needs a major overhaul just some tuning to get it to play out a bit more realistically. I have seen numerous tweaks on the phone call process from many different sites ever since the release of NCAA 11. The following is the tweak that I came up with last year, and I still think it can be tuned this way for NCAA 12 (either at release time or when the first tuning set comes out).

Slot machine recruiting tweaks (increase the likelihood of getting a coach's choice to 1/3 of the time so in a 60 minute phone call I will be guaranteed two topics that I am interested in pitching, add in a player's choice that shows up around 1/3 of the time that chooses only a prospects above avg, high, very high, and most interested pitches, and finally the last 1/3 can be completely random which will allow for the unplanned bad phone call(least, very low, low, avg, as well as your schools low c or d graded areas).

I think this is very much doable right now and it will result in a more realistic phone call.

steelerfan
05-31-2011, 07:11 PM
Until late in the season (when you lose a guy and no one else is interested enough to be worth adding), you should ALWAYS keep 35 on your board. You gain points just by having them on your board, even if you don't call them.

souljahbill
05-31-2011, 07:14 PM
Until late in the season (when you lose a guy and no one else is interested enough to be worth adding), you should ALWAYS keep 35 on your board. You gain points just by having them on your board, even if you don't call them.

Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gschwendt
05-31-2011, 07:15 PM
Slot machine recruiting tweaks (increase the likelihood of getting a coach's choice to 1/3 of the time so in a 60 minute phone call I will be guaranteed two topics that I am interested in pitching, add in a player's choice that shows up around 1/3 of the time that chooses only a prospects above avg, high, very high, and most interested pitches, and finally the last 1/3 can be completely random which will allow for the unplanned bad phone call(least, very low, low, avg, as well as your schools low c or d graded areas).

I think this is very much doable right now and it will result in a more realistic phone call.That is potentially something they could probably adjust via the live tuning pack... whether or not they will is another story. Closer to release (when they're less swamped with finishing the game), remind me and I'll pass that feedback onto them and see what they think.


Until late in the season (when you lose a guy and no one else is interested enough to be worth adding), you should ALWAYS keep 35 on your board. You gain points just by having them on your board, even if you don't call them.
The downside is that the random chance for X2 calls is lower since it has a 1 in 35 chance instead of 1 in 15 (or however many).

steelerfan
05-31-2011, 07:24 PM
Also, guaranteeing 2 topics that you can choose will only serve to make the rich richer, IMO. If USC has a couple of VERY HIGH/A+ and that's all they talk about, they will gain so much each week that, say, SDSU couldn't possibly win a player they wanted even if the recruit wanted early playing time and only SDSU could offer it.

JeffHCross
05-31-2011, 07:54 PM
That is potentially something they could probably adjust via the live tuning pack... whether or not they will is another story. Closer to release (when they're less swamped with finishing the game), remind me and I'll pass that feedback onto them and see what they think.I too would definitely like to see it tweaked so Average and above roll more often than 50%.

jaymo76
05-31-2011, 08:18 PM
Recruiting has just become so time consuming over the years. I'm glad there were no major changes. Im not a huge fan of the current system but I can live with it.

Pig Bomb
05-31-2011, 09:59 PM
Recruiting has just become so time consuming over the years. I'm glad there were no major changes. Im not a huge fan of the current system but I can live with it.

this is a good thing for some of us... i love recruiting and considerate a huge part of the game that I spend a ton of time on... organizing, analyzing, calculating, scheming.... its a total blast

Jayrah
06-01-2011, 03:04 PM
I don't like the idea of restricting even more time on a call. It's bad enough that we are limited to just 1 hour on our recruits, which is not realistic at all especially when I have only 5 kids left on my board. I've never put 35 players on my board in fact 25 is my max, but I mostly keep it around 15-20 to start.

So you would want more time to spend on recruits, even though you don't keep anywhere close to the maximum #? Because I don't want more hrs to have to recruit, so restricting time in any manner essentially "adds" time to everybody. But you're right that it shouldn't have to be restricted. And thinking about it, there's no need to be restricted actually in my idea because with a 20 minute bump on Coach Choice and Player's Choice topics you have to manage your time a little better anyway to talk to all the necessary recruits. Because of the way the cpu recruits, this also automatically gives them a bump as well and evens out the field a bit more.

I don't think talking about 6 different topics in any one phone call is realistic either, though I do understand that during an offseason week of multiple calls throughout the week (which is what our system cannot simulate correctly without being tedious) that this is entirely possible. Thus I would like to see it cut down to 4 topics max during any one phone call. And even with no restriction on available uses I would like to see the player's choice topic and Coaches choice topic get Prime billing as far as effectiveness, thus moving those to 20 minute uses for any single topic under those parameters would make more sense to me then giving more of a chance to get another topic of coach choice. Also as I said it gives the user all control over when he gets to use it.

Thinking about it though I think I might revise the idea of PC 3rd and CC 4th. Coaches Choice should be 3rd and Player's should be 4th if you want to get the extra bonus for talking with them for the full hour. My revision would look like this:

GENERAL GUIDELINES:

**G-1: Recruiting time cut to a maximum of 4 available topics at a required 10 minutes apiece for (up to) the first 2 topics, and a required 20 minutes for the 3rd and 4th topics (should you choose to talk about the 3rd and/or 4th topics). The 20 minute bump allows you to get the maximum out of these 2 topics and gives a realistic feel using more time for talking about a desired topic of choice. Time management becomes even more essential as well, because if you want to really get a bump for a solid topic on a recruit it will cost you a little more.

**G-2: (No more restriction than an hour as currently)

G-3: The point value doesn't have to dramatically change for this new system, except that the used time would double the possible values of topics 3 and 4.

SPECIFICS:

S-1: During all weeks, choosing to talk about 1 or 2 topics leaves you with a random *NEW* topic, until recruit has all of the available topics filled out. After all topics are filled out, these first 2 topics in any week become randomized as the current slot machine system calls for. Essentially these are "Parent's Choice" topics.

**S-2: Any 3rd topic would be a "Coaches Choice" topic, where you talk about your desired topic choice (costing you 20 minutes). This would make the randomized coach choice null obviously and put it in the coach's hands, as well as give you complete control of your time management.

**S-3: Any 4th topic will be a "Player's Choice" topic, where the player chooses something that HE is interested in or anything "above average" or more (costing you 20 minutes). Note that this doesn't necessarily mean a topic that your school has a good rating in, this is the player's topic of choice.

S-4: Still in place would be a "Promise" opportunity, a "Visit" opportunity, and the "Offer Scholarship" opportunity. The main system will stay exactly the same as it is now, with only 3 available Promises to any single recruit per season, 1 visit and 1 Scholly offer (any of which can replace one of your topics for the week). Visit weeks will follow same guidelines as current system, choosing up to 3 available topics of your choice during the visit.

S-5: "Change topic" choice would be cut down to 1 opportunity per week and could only be used on "Parent's Choice" topics (IOW the first or second topic of any call).

ryby6969
06-01-2011, 03:16 PM
Until late in the season (when you lose a guy and no one else is interested enough to be worth adding), you should ALWAYS keep 35 on your board. You gain points just by having them on your board, even if you don't call them.

Yeah, I completely disagree with this method. I do not add more than 15 on my board in the preseason for 2 reasons.

1. As G said, I do not want to miss out on some X2 calls because the computer chose the 34th player on my board.
2. I want to sign the "studs" on my board as soon as possible. If I can pour 1 hour a week into them and get a visit scheduled early, I hope to have them signed by week 6. I can then add more players who are 3 or 4*'s to fill in the rest of my needs. Of course it depends on the team you use, but in my 2 Miami OD's and an Ole Miss OD I am generally in the top 10 and usually in the top 5 at the end of the season. This is the method I have had the most success with but it depends on personal preference.

WolverineJay
06-01-2011, 04:50 PM
Yeah, I completely disagree with this method. I do not add more than 15 on my board in the preseason for 2 reasons.

1. As G said, I do not want to miss out on some X2 calls because the computer chose the 34th player on my board.
2. I want to sign the "studs" on my board as soon as possible. If I can pour 1 hour a week into them and get a visit scheduled early, I hope to have them signed by week 6. I can then add more players who are 3 or 4*'s to fill in the rest of my needs. Of course it depends on the team you use, but in my 2 Miami OD's and an Ole Miss OD I am generally in the top 10 and usually in the top 5 at the end of the season. This is the method I have had the most success with but it depends on personal preference.

Exactly ryby6969, plus the miniscule +20 bonus for being on the bottom part of your board can be easily made up for if when I add a new recruit and give him 30-60 minutes per week later in the season.

WolverineJay
06-01-2011, 05:10 PM
So you would want more time to spend on recruits, even though you don't keep anywhere close to the maximum #? Because I don't want more hrs to have to recruit, so restricting time in any manner essentially "adds" time to everybody. But you're right that it shouldn't have to be restricted. And thinking about it, there's no need to be restricted actually in my idea because with a 20 minute bump on Coach Choice and Player's Choice topics you have to manage your time a little better anyway to talk to all the necessary recruits. Because of the way the cpu recruits, this also automatically gives them a bump as well and evens out the field a bit more.

I don't think talking about 6 different topics in any one phone call is realistic either, though I do understand that during an offseason week of multiple calls throughout the week (which is what our system cannot simulate correctly without being tedious) that this is entirely possible. Thus I would like to see it cut down to 4 topics max during any one phone call. And even with no restriction on available uses I would like to see the player's choice topic and Coaches choice topic get Prime billing as far as effectiveness, thus moving those to 20 minute uses for any single topic under those parameters would make more sense to me then giving more of a chance to get another topic of coach choice. Also as I said it gives the user all control over when he gets to use it.

Thinking about it though I think I might revise the idea of PC 3rd and CC 4th. Coaches Choice should be 3rd and Player's should be 4th if you want to get the extra bonus for talking with them for the full hour. My revision would look like this:

GENERAL GUIDELINES:

**G-1: Recruiting time cut to a maximum of 4 available topics at a required 10 minutes apiece for (up to) the first 2 topics, and a required 20 minutes for the 3rd and 4th topics (should you choose to talk about the 3rd and/or 4th topics). The 20 minute bump allows you to get the maximum out of these 2 topics and gives a realistic feel using more time for talking about a desired topic of choice. Time management becomes even more essential as well, because if you want to really get a bump for a solid topic on a recruit it will cost you a little more.

**G-2: (No more restriction than an hour as currently)

G-3: The point value doesn't have to dramatically change for this new system, except that the used time would double the possible values of topics 3 and 4.

SPECIFICS:

S-1: During all weeks, choosing to talk about 1 or 2 topics leaves you with a random *NEW* topic, until recruit has all of the available topics filled out. After all topics are filled out, these first 2 topics in any week become randomized as the current slot machine system calls for. Essentially these are "Parent's Choice" topics.

**S-2: Any 3rd topic would be a "Coaches Choice" topic, where you talk about your desired topic choice (costing you 20 minutes). This would make the randomized coach choice null obviously and put it in the coach's hands, as well as give you complete control of your time management.

**S-3: Any 4th topic will be a "Player's Choice" topic, where the player chooses something that HE is interested in or anything "above average" or more (costing you 20 minutes). Note that this doesn't necessarily mean a topic that your school has a good rating in, this is the player's topic of choice.

S-4: Still in place would be a "Promise" opportunity, a "Visit" opportunity, and the "Offer Scholarship" opportunity. The main system will stay exactly the same as it is now, with only 3 available Promises to any single recruit per season, 1 visit and 1 Scholly offer (any of which can replace one of your topics for the week). Visit weeks will follow same guidelines as current system, choosing up to 3 available topics of your choice during the visit.

S-5: "Change topic" choice would be cut down to 1 opportunity per week and could only be used on "Parent's Choice" topics (IOW the first or second topic of any call).

My idea is more of a simple tuning and therefore it would be much easier to implement right now for NCAA 12, but your method which I do like now that you revised it will probably have to wait until NCAA 13.

I really think that limiting a phone call to 1 hour is a bit unrealistic, but I do agree with you that hammering 6 topics in 1 hour isn't true to life either. Therefore, I would like to see in your model a choice to call a prospect for 2 hours maximum in which you could each choose 1 more topic to talk about, let's say each additional topic is worth 30 minutes of time so in the end you get a 2 hour call which covers 6 topics. I would like to be able to talk that extra hour with my top 1 or 2 prospects early in the year or whenever my board allowed for it due to a low number of recruits on my board as often occurs late in the season.

Lord Marshall X
06-01-2011, 07:38 PM
For those who play their own offline dynasties or Online Dynasties with a handfull of friends the current system is okay. But for those who play in competitive, long term, dynasties the recruiting pool has to be 3 times deeper with the current system. Too much is left to chance when it comes to what recruits you get. Three star recruits for major programs are absolutely irrelevant. The current recruiting system decimated a dynasty that averaged 30 plus years with double digit players in the last two versions of NCAA.

The system does not have to be more complex but there has to be way more player strategy and way less computer manipulation. The easiest way to do that is by increasing the quality of the recruits. No one scouts anymore in NCAA 2011, you don't have to.

morsdraconis
06-01-2011, 07:52 PM
The amount of :4star: and :5star: players are perfectly fine. The issue is that :2star: and :3star: players aren't anywhere close to being as good as they should be able to be. You'll never find a :2star: or :3star: recruit that plays well above his initial abilities and becomes a vital part of a team's offense/defense/special teams like what happens in real life. You never find a Pat White or Steve Slaton among the :2star: and :3star: recruits, but they are there every year in real life, numerous times over.

The depth of the :2star: and :3star: players is bad and that's the part that they really need to fix, not the :4star: and :5star: players. There are plenty of those.

illwill10
06-01-2011, 08:02 PM
The amount of :4star: and :5star: players are perfectly fine. The issue is that :2star: and :3star: players aren't anywhere close to being as good as they should be able to be. You'll never find a :2star: or :3star: recruit that plays well above his initial abilities and becomes a vital part of a team's offense/defense/special teams like what happens in real life. You never find a Pat White or Steve Slaton among the :2star: and :3star: recruits, but they are there every year in real life, numerous times over.

The depth of the :2star: and :3star: players is bad and that's the part that they really need to fix, not the :4star: and :5star: players. There are plenty of those.
Yea the 4* and 5* are okay.
Unless you have a Juco 2*&3*, 2&3* come in way too low to get production unless you know how to work with him. They need to incorporate a type of gem&bust potential. Even though I did not like how Madden did itm but the Potential system would work well for this situation. Just keep it hidden. So you could have a 2* or 3* player with A potential and become a 90+ after 3 years or a 4* or 5* C POT who never progresses

PeteyKirch
06-01-2011, 08:03 PM
The amount of :4star: and :5star: players are perfectly fine. The issue is that :2star: and :3star: players aren't anywhere close to being as good as they should be able to be. You'll never find a :2star: or :3star: recruit that plays well above his initial abilities and becomes a vital part of a team's offense/defense/special teams like what happens in real life. You never find a Pat White or Steve Slaton among the :2star: and :3star: recruits, but they are there every year in real life, numerous times over.

The depth of the :2star: and :3star: players is bad and that's the part that they really need to fix, not the :4star: and :5star: players. There are plenty of those.

Also the issue is the awful discrepancy in certain attributes, nothing is worst than getting a monster sized DT only to find out he has 61 strength, and that 6'2/225 DE, has 94 strength.

Pig Bomb
06-01-2011, 09:00 PM
Hopefully EA making incoming freshman mirror the current freshman in the game will solve some of these issues. I was very happy to hear they addressed the issue of diminishing talent overall for incoming players for NCAA 12.

illwill10
06-01-2011, 09:12 PM
very Low ratings would make sense if they had NCAA Basketball ratings, but since they have high ratings it makes recruiting tough. After 5 years good teams will have great player and continue to be great and bad teams will stay bad

JeffHCross
06-01-2011, 10:38 PM
You never find a Pat White or Steve Slaton among the :2star: and :3star: recruits, but they are there every year in real life, numerous times over.Yep, absolutely. Or an AJ Hawk or Santonio Holmes (mind blowing that they were both :3star:). Plus James Laurinaitis and Malcolm Jenkins.

Hopefully EA making incoming freshman mirror the current freshman in the game will solve some of these issues.I actually looked at this as part of this thread (http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/showthread.php?1794-JeffHCross-Project-2-Progression-Examined). I never posted the results, but I did find that the recruits' OVR ratings matched the built-in freshmen a lot more than I expected. I agree with you that in some ways the recruits do not mirror the built-in freshmen very well, but it matched better than I expected.

Jayrah
06-02-2011, 04:51 AM
My idea is more of a simple tuning and therefore it would be much easier to implement right now for NCAA 12, but your method which I do like now that you revised it will probably have to wait until NCAA 13.

I really think that limiting a phone call to 1 hour is a bit unrealistic, but I do agree with you that hammering 6 topics in 1 hour isn't true to life either. Therefore, I would like to see in your model a choice to call a prospect for 2 hours maximum in which you could each choose 1 more topic to talk about, let's say each additional topic is worth 30 minutes of time so in the end you get a 2 hour call which covers 6 topics. I would like to be able to talk that extra hour with my top 1 or 2 prospects early in the year or whenever my board allowed for it due to a low number of recruits on my board as often occurs late in the season.

Oh yeah mine's definitely more for future.

I kinda like maybe an extra topic for another 1/2 hr as a bonus coaches choice. But if that happened I'd want there to be some sort of implementation by EA that made it both rewarding and somewhat difficult (according to strategy) to do. Something like any player that's been in your top 5 for 3+ weeks gets an opportunity for this bonus 1/2 hr call, and the bonus call can only be made a max of 3 times to any single player (just like a promise).

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Jayrah
06-02-2011, 04:52 AM
Yea the 4* and 5* are okay.
Unless you have a Juco 2*&3*, 2&3* come in way too low to get production unless you know how to work with him. They need to incorporate a type of gem&bust potential. Even though I did not like how Madden did itm but the Potential system would work well for this situation. Just keep it hidden. So you could have a 2* or 3* player with A potential and become a 90+ after 3 years or a 4* or 5* C POT who never progresses

There is a gem and bust system... its just not visible to us. But its in the code

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Lord Marshall X
06-02-2011, 07:16 PM
A 4 or 5 star player that is a sophomore will always be better than a senior 3 star player and thats stupid. It was a HUGE problem in my Online Dynasty. WHy recruit a 3 star and sit and nurture him when you can just wait for the computer to give you a 4 or 5 star.

Jayrah
06-03-2011, 07:51 PM
A 4 or 5 star player that is a sophomore will always be better than a senior 3 star player and thats stupid. It was a HUGE problem in my Online Dynasty. WHy recruit a 3 star and sit and nurture him when you can just wait for the computer to give you a 4 or 5 star.

A prime example for me is Sophomore Marquess Wilson, who was one of the top Wr's in the Pac 10 last season as a freshman, even though he was rated as a :3stars: player out of HS. He's top 3 Wr's in the conference this season imo easily. I also believe Jr qb Jeff Tuel was a :3stars: player, and he'll be one of the top qb's in the Pac 12 this season and next.

Lord Marshall X
06-04-2011, 11:39 PM
A prime example for me is Sophomore Marquess Wilson, who was one of the top Wr's in the Pac 10 last season as a freshman, even though he was rated as a :3stars: player out of HS. He's top 3 Wr's in the conference this season imo easily. I also believe Jr qb Jeff Tuel was a :3stars: player, and he'll be one of the top qb's in the Pac 12 this season and next.

Exactly. Colt McCoy was a 3 star recruit too. I believe he is the winningest player in College Football history. You will never him in NCAA 2011.

Jayrah
06-05-2011, 03:40 AM
Exactly. Colt McCoy was a 3 star recruit too. I believe he is the winningest player in College Football history. You will never him in NCAA 2011.

Really??? Didn't know that. Interesting.

morsdraconis
06-05-2011, 10:56 AM
Really??? Didn't know that. Interesting.

Dude, there are so many guys that are GREAT college football players that were :2star: or :3star: players. Like I said before, Pat White (most rushing yards for a QB in NCAA history, most rushing TDs for QB in NCAA history, holds every Big East QB record for rushing yards, only QB to play in and win 4 Bowl Games, winningest QB in WVU history, etc) will never be in this game as a :2star: football player (what he was rated at before they updated his ratings).

Jayrah
06-05-2011, 11:12 AM
Dude, there are so many guys that are GREAT college football players that were :2star: or :3star: players. Like I said before, Pat White (most rushing yards for a QB in NCAA history, most rushing TDs for QB in NCAA history, holds every Big East QB record for rushing yards, only QB to play in and win 4 Bowl Games, winningest QB in WVU history, etc) will never be in this game as a :2star: football player (what he was rated at before they updated his ratings).

Yeah I know that lol. I was speaking on Colt specifically.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Pig Bomb
06-05-2011, 12:10 PM
it really would be cool if there were "mo bigga" busts and true "diamonds in the rough" - especially for computer controlled teams

i emphasize CPU teams because i turn 3 star recruits into record breaking, all-american, national championship winning guys...but that is due to my stick skills and the fact that i'm controlling them.... i'd also love to recruit a 2 star guy and have his actual ratings go 5 star after a season or two - that would be finding a diamond in the rough!

gschwendt
06-05-2011, 12:28 PM
it really would be cool if there were "mo bigga" busts and true "diamonds in the rough" - especially for computer controlled teams
Yeah... I pitched it as an idea at one of the community events. Basically my suggestion would be that first, recruits training progress would vary from season to season so after their freshman year, they might jump 5 OVR but after their junior year, they might jump 12 OVR. Then as well, some recruits might jump very little total over their career.

So say a 5-star player comes in at 80 OVR... if he has really low potential, he might only make it up to a 85 or so. But a 3-star might come in with excellent potential and go from a 70 to a 95 over the course of his career.

The only thing about that is I'd want some way to scout potential. Not necessarily their exact potential but have player scouting make a comeback in recruiting, and add in a scouting rating for coaches. The better scouting rating they have, the more narrow the gap they see in terms of potential (or even in all ratings for that matter). So a great scouter would see a potential rating of 90-99 for a player and a poor scouter might see a rating of 70-99 for the same player.

baseballplyrmvp
06-05-2011, 12:50 PM
Yeah... I pitched it as an idea at one of the community events. Basically my suggestion would be that first, recruits training progress would vary from season to season so after their freshman year, they might jump 5 OVR but after their junior year, they might jump 12 OVR. Then as well, some recruits might jump very little total over their career.

So say a 5-star player comes in at 80 OVR... if he has really low potential, he might only make it up to a 85 or so. But a 3-star might come in with excellent potential and go from a 70 to a 95 over the course of his career.

The only thing about that is I'd want some way to scout potential. Not necessarily their exact potential but have player scouting make a comeback in recruiting, and add in a scouting rating for coaches. The better scouting rating they have, the more narrow the gap they see in terms of potential (or even in all ratings for that matter). So a great scouter would see a potential rating of 90-99 for a player and a poor scouter might see a rating of 70-99 for the same player.what did the devs think of it?

gschwendt
06-05-2011, 12:58 PM
what did the devs think of it?
I think the one I went into detail with liked the idea... obviously he couldn't give any kind of commitment if we'd ever see it but overall he liked the idea.

JeffHCross
06-05-2011, 01:01 PM
The only thing about that is I'd want some way to scout potential.I have an idea on that, but didn't have it fleshed out enough to chat with the team, unfortunately.

baseballplyrmvp
06-05-2011, 01:17 PM
I have an idea on that, but didn't have it fleshed out enough to chat with the team, unfortunately.

i'd like to see more discussions throughout the year on certain aspects of ncaa12 and how it could be changed for ncaa13....then when/if you guys go back for ncaa13, you're able to give them a fully thought out responce and all kinds of feedback for it. then you wont have to hold the idea back because you dont think its thought out enough.

JeffHCross
06-05-2011, 01:22 PM
then you wont have to hold the idea back because you dont think its thought out enough.Agreed. The problem in this case was that it was something I thought of literally a week or so before one of the latter trips. So it wasn't a 12 candidate no matter what.

We are planning (emphasis on plan) to have more theoretical discussions on TGT this year.

morsdraconis
06-05-2011, 02:14 PM
Agreed. The problem in this case was that it was something I thought of literally a week or so before one of the latter trips. So it wasn't a 12 candidate no matter what.

We are planning (emphasis on plan) to have more theoretical discussions on TGT this year.

Please do. I have much I'd like to contribute to it.

Lord Marshall X
06-05-2011, 03:17 PM
The thing is, NCAA 2010 had good 2 and 3 star players. The recruits took a step back but no one really has mentioned it.

JeffHCross
06-05-2011, 03:29 PM
The recruits took a step back but no one really has mentioned it.Maybe not here, but it has been mentioned. Repeatedly.

baseballplyrmvp
06-05-2011, 03:40 PM
The thing is, NCAA 2010 had good 2 and 3 star players. The recruits took a step back but no one really has mentioned it.

can you be more specific, like as their in-coming overall ratings were worse in 11, than what they were before, in 10?

JeffHCross
06-05-2011, 04:01 PM
can you be more specific, like as their in-coming overall ratings were worse in 11, than what they were before, in 10?I think their overall ratings were nearly or just below what they were in '10, but certain ratings in particular took a real hit, so even if they came in with decent OVR, they wouldn't progress at nearly the speed they used to. In past versions of NCAA, you could get a 3-star defensive player and expect they'd be a reasonable starter by their junior or senior seasons. Maybe even redshirt freshman year if you were lucky. On this year's game, 3-star players were a huge disadvantage compared to a 4-star or 5-star recruit.

morsdraconis
06-05-2011, 05:36 PM
I think their overall ratings were nearly or just below what they were in '10, but certain ratings in particular took a real hit, so even if they came in with decent OVR, they wouldn't progress at nearly the speed they used to. In past versions of NCAA, you could get a 3-star defensive player and expect they'd be a reasonable starter by their junior or senior seasons. Maybe even redshirt freshman year if you were lucky. On this year's game, 3-star players were a huge disadvantage compared to a 4-star or 5-star recruit.

What's worse is a :5star: recruit could be the worst :5star: recruit you can get and have the worst progression you can get, and he's still better than the best :3star: recruit you can get with the absolute best progression. :5star: recruits should not be the be all end all when it comes to recruiting because they most definitely are not in real life.

In fact, recruiting in college is almost like drafting in the NFL if they truly wanted to get recruiting more in line with real life. Occasionally, there's a great blue chip player that's going to blow everyone away, but, more than likely, you're going to get a Ryan Leaf type player out of the top recruits. Whereas, you're more likely to get a truly great player in the bottom of the 1st round (:4star: recruits) to the middle of the 3rd round (low :3star: to high :2star: recruits) that has the great mixture of work ethic and talent to be a great player for a long time.

Jayrah
06-06-2011, 02:30 AM
I think their overall ratings were nearly or just below what they were in '10, but certain ratings in particular took a real hit, so even if they came in with decent OVR, they wouldn't progress at nearly the speed they used to. In past versions of NCAA, you could get a 3-star defensive player and expect they'd be a reasonable starter by their junior or senior seasons. Maybe even redshirt freshman year if you were lucky. On this year's game, 3-star players were a huge disadvantage compared to a 4-star or 5-star recruit.

It seems to me like they pitched this exact issue to us as something they had worked on last season. See cuz I thought the idea with those "hidden potentials" was to give this ability. Yet now we're wondering if its even a viable option (even though they just said progression has been tweaked up)? This should be live pack tunable imo, if nothing else. Also to be honest I think the real issue was that the range of ratings increase to include weaker players was the biggest factor in progression last year. The want to separate great players from the pack was a great idea, but it left the pack lower overall because it didn't account for superstars emerging. And actually I think the cpu suffered the very most from it.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Lord Marshall X
06-06-2011, 08:30 AM
It seems to me like they pitched this exact issue to us as something they had worked on last season. See cuz I thought the idea with those "hidden potentials" was to give this ability. Yet now we're wondering if its even a viable option (even though they just said progression has been tweaked up)? This should be live pack tunable imo, if nothing else. Also to be honest I think the real issue was that the range of ratings increase to include weaker players was the biggest factor in progression last year. The want to separate great players from the pack was a great idea, but it left the pack lower overall because it didn't account for superstars emerging. And actually I think the cpu suffered the very most from it.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

In NCAA 2010 the 2 and 3 star was a viable option at any position. You used to look at the players attributes. In NCAA 2011 3 stars don't matter at big boy programs. They actually penalize you for trying to groom a 3 star. It actually behooves you to neglect your roster and not recruit well so that the computer will give you a 4 or 5 star player to fill your roster. Believe me I've tried it. The russian roulette style is based on 75% on where you start initially on the list. But thats another grievance in itself as well as is the constriction of the talent pool recruiting classes thus making the usual suspects, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Florida, etc, ridiculously overpowered.

Jayrah
06-06-2011, 05:50 PM
In NCAA 2010 the 2 and 3 star was a viable option at any position. You used to look at the players attributes. In NCAA 2011 3 stars don't matter at big boy programs. They actually penalize you for trying to groom a 3 star. It actually behooves you to neglect your roster and not recruit well so that the computer will give you a 4 or 5 star player to fill your roster. Believe me I've tried it. The russian roulette style is based on 75% on where you start initially on the list. But thats another grievance in itself as well as is the constriction of the talent pool recruiting classes thus making the usual suspects, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Florida, etc, ridiculously overpowered.

Well in 2010 you may have looked at them, and indeed players may have progressed at a much larger clip. But don't forget that those progressions for 95% of ratings did nothing for you because players didn't play to their ratings. The only real factor was spd, strength and brk tkl. I would much rather have 11s problems in this matter than 10s. Ill take players that play to more of their ratings any day over good progression but little reward in said progression.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

psusnoop
06-06-2011, 06:51 PM
In our PowerHouse Online Dynasty I had a few guys that actually played meaningful plays for me as 3* recruits, mostly they were on my special teams but I can remember a LG and 1 MLB that started for me. They didn't progress into the 90's or anything but I had them both around 87 OVR and they were ballers.

While I understand that there should be gems from the lower star rankings I can understand that everything may not be in place to make this possible. They've said last year that progression was a hidden factor and I believe that until that changes little will change in seeing a 2* or 3* recruit turns out to be a complete stud. When I think like this I remember Paul Posluszny from PSU, he was a 3* recruit that turned out to be a beast for PSU and is doing quite well in the NFL. Maybe just maybe we'll be able to see this some of this stuff in 2013.

PeteyKirch
06-06-2011, 07:32 PM
In our PowerHouse Online Dynasty I had a few guys that actually played meaningful plays for me as 3* recruits, mostly they were on my special teams but I can remember a LG and 1 MLB that started for me. They didn't progress into the 90's or anything but I had them both around 87 OVR and they were ballers.

While I understand that there should be gems from the lower star rankings I can understand that everything may not be in place to make this possible. They've said last year that progression was a hidden factor and I believe that until that changes little will change in seeing a 2* or 3* recruit turns out to be a complete stud. When I think like this I remember Paul Posluszny from PSU, he was a 3* recruit that turned out to be a beast for PSU and is doing quite well in the NFL. Maybe just maybe we'll be able to see this some of this stuff in 2013.

I know that with my school (Rutgers) outside of Anthony Davis (4*/Borderline 5*) none of our big name players were ranked anything decent by the Recruiting services

Ray Rice was a 3* DB
Brian Leonard 2* MLB
Eric Foster 2* MLB
Mo Sanu 2* DB
Devin McCourty 2* DB

JeffHCross
06-06-2011, 10:02 PM
It seems to me like they pitched this exact issue to us as something they had worked on last season. See cuz I thought the idea with those "hidden potentials" was to give this ability.The hidden potential has been there for years, it's nothing new. The only thing that changed (and I think it was with NCAA 10 rather than 11) was that the hidden "Potential" rating was factored in with the place on the Top Prospects board. So you might see a :5star: prospect that looks absolutely horrible, but because he has incredible progression he'll rise to the top of the heap by the end of his career. Or you might see a :3star: prospect that's already filled out and ready to play now ... but he's basically already plateaued.

Lord Marshall X
06-06-2011, 10:29 PM
Well in 2010 you may have looked at them, and indeed players may have progressed at a much larger clip. But don't forget that those progressions for 95% of ratings did nothing for you because players didn't play to their ratings. The only real factor was spd, strength and brk tkl. I would much rather have 11s problems in this matter than 10s. Ill take players that play to more of their ratings any day over good progression but little reward in said progression.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Get out of here! Only rating that matters in NCAA 2011 was acceleration . . . . and thats it. Super tight end blocking and the sprint to the outside, a player has 99 zone coverage lets see how well that works.

Jayrah
06-07-2011, 12:15 PM
Get out of here! Only rating that matters in NCAA 2011 was acceleration . . . . and thats it. Super tight end blocking and the sprint to the outside, a player has 99 zone coverage lets see how well that works.

I completely disagree. If cheese is how you play acc is the only rating. And Ill admit the suction takes away a lot of ratings sometimes, but players play FAR MORE to their ratings in 11, or you wouldn't be talking about this whole 3 star progression thing...

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Lord Marshall X
06-08-2011, 09:32 AM
I completely disagree. If cheese is how you play acc is the only rating. And Ill admit the suction takes away a lot of ratings sometimes, but players play FAR MORE to their ratings in 11, or you wouldn't be talking about this whole 3 star progression thing...

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

It is so easy to cheese though in this game. Offense is so cheesy in this game. Tight Ends are so overpowered. There is no contain at all defensively.

In NCAA 2010 is was very easy to tell a cheeser because they ran stuff that was pretty much cheating.

In NCAA 2011 the cheesiest play is the ACE counter which is a play in 3/4 of the play-books in the game. The counter is just that . . . a counter, but in 2011 it is a majority of peoples main running play. As the back-up TE destroys your all conference defensive end and the outside linebacker bites on the jab step for the 6th time in the row even though they have never ran any other play. When you finally get penetration the running back shrugs you off even though he has conservative ball carry on you wonder . . . . do stats really matter?

Go watch videos of people playing 2011. On almost every drive running the football the number one play will be a counter. You are going to see heavy crossing routes and 4 streaks up the seams.

In NCAA 2010 there is no play that I ever considered not running because I thought it was cheesy. In NCAA 2011 there are so many plays like that. When I pick a play I don't want to feel like i'm cheating the system. So in that regard stats do not matter.

On the other hand you are right . In this game the most talented team usually wins the game. But with the zones being so bad a 85 speed 3 star CB just doesn't cut it. A 79 Speed SS might as well switch places with my linebacker. My commentary on this game is very in depth but I will say this. This game is like "rainman", retarded genius.

Jayrah
06-09-2011, 12:21 AM
LOL. I wouldn't know counter was cheese because I don't run it enough to make it cheese. Also I run a lot of zone in the game (especially with it being what it is), and I hold my own in it. I agree it is frustrating and doesn't feel right to run plays that you simply KNOW will work to your advantage or disadvantage 75% of the time, but that's what calling a realistic football game encompasses. I guess I'm just saying if you call a realistic football game that ratings come into play more often than when you play to the disadvantages of the game.

Lord Marshall X
06-09-2011, 11:11 PM
LOL. I wouldn't know counter was cheese because I don't run it enough to make it cheese. Also I run a lot of zone in the game (especially with it being what it is), and I hold my own in it. I agree it is frustrating and doesn't feel right to run plays that you simply KNOW will work to your advantage or disadvantage 75% of the time, but that's what calling a realistic football game encompasses. I guess I'm just saying if you call a realistic football game that ratings come into play more often than when you play to the disadvantages of the game.

Get out of here man if you don't know about the counter. If you don't know that the counter reigns and rules supreme then you must not play much. NCAA has in some ways resorted to Tecmo Bowl. When I'm relegated to a half dozen defensive plays to try to stop you running the same 3 plays up and down the field it really gets my juices going.

psusnoop
06-10-2011, 08:23 AM
It is so easy to cheese though in this game. Offense is so cheesy in this game. Tight Ends are so overpowered. There is no contain at all defensively.

In NCAA 2010 is was very easy to tell a cheeser because they ran stuff that was pretty much cheating.

In NCAA 2011 the cheesiest play is the ACE counter which is a play in 3/4 of the play-books in the game. The counter is just that . . . a counter, but in 2011 it is a majority of peoples main running play. As the back-up TE destroys your all conference defensive end and the outside linebacker bites on the jab step for the 6th time in the row even though they have never ran any other play. When you finally get penetration the running back shrugs you off even though he has conservative ball carry on you wonder . . . . do stats really matter?

Go watch videos of people playing 2011. On almost every drive running the football the number one play will be a counter. You are going to see heavy crossing routes and 4 streaks up the seams.

In NCAA 2010 there is no play that I ever considered not running because I thought it was cheesy. In NCAA 2011 there are so many plays like that. When I pick a play I don't want to feel like i'm cheating the system. So in that regard stats do not matter.

On the other hand you are right . In this game the most talented team usually wins the game. But with the zones being so bad a 85 speed 3 star CB just doesn't cut it. A 79 Speed SS might as well switch places with my linebacker. My commentary on this game is very in depth but I will say this. This game is like "rainman", retarded genius.


So in 2010 you didn't know about the speed option out of the ACE Big formation? Tell me it's not so.

Jayrah
06-10-2011, 12:21 PM
Get out of here man if you don't know about the counter. If you don't know that the counter reigns and rules supreme then you must not play much. NCAA has in some ways resorted to Tecmo Bowl. When I'm relegated to a half dozen defensive plays to try to stop you running the same 3 plays up and down the field it really gets my juices going.

You may have used it or seen it used as cheese. It was overpowered, yes. But when used in realistic situations 3-5 times a game it is not cheese. I DO KNOW about the cheesy capabilities, IF it's used as such in back to back to back plays and it's the only running play called throughout the game or you call it 5 times a half because of it's effectiveness or something. IF, as you pointed out, you are relegated to certain plays in stopping player X because he's running the same 3 plays up and down the field, player X is a cheeser. End of story.

I was merely pointing out that I run the good AND the bad in the game, and rarely do I run the same play out of any one formation more than 3-5 times a game if I can help it. If you run it realistically nothing is cheese. Even 4 verts at the end of the half/game is not cheese. Just FYI I play the game every couple days STILL.

Lord Marshall X
06-12-2011, 11:01 AM
You may have used it or seen it used as cheese. It was overpowered, yes. But when used in realistic situations 3-5 times a game it is not cheese. I DO KNOW about the cheesy capabilities, IF it's used as such in back to back to back plays and it's the only running play called throughout the game or you call it 5 times a half because of it's effectiveness or something. IF, as you pointed out, you are relegated to certain plays in stopping player X because he's running the same 3 plays up and down the field, player X is a cheeser. End of story.

I was merely pointing out that I run the good AND the bad in the game, and rarely do I run the same play out of any one formation more than 3-5 times a game if I can help it. If you run it realistically nothing is cheese. Even 4 verts at the end of the half/game is not cheese. Just FYI I play the game every couple days STILL.

I'm not talking about you in particular. I am talking about the masses. You obviously play the game the way its supposed to be played. But when the rubber meets the road and people are competing against other people and want to win badly, they will run the thing that NCAA 2011 has an abundant variety of. Plays that are ridiculously difficult for the defense to stop. Every 3rd or 4th down you know you will be getting one of these plays to move the chains. They're not setting you up, they aren't reading the defense, they are running plays that they know you cannot stop unless like tecmo bowl you pick the perfect defense, and then they STILL might not be able to stop the play.

The only time that know the play and not being able to stop it is actually viable in football is really with a power running game. Yet I have had someone run the counter, which is not a standard down hill running play, all the way down the field on me. I have had someone run the same crossing/drag route play with a 2 read "if then" option because he knew I couldn't cover both people and the computer players never would, all the way doen the field.

All I am saying as much as the game improved it added new flaws. Shallow russian roulette recruiting, no good 2 & 3 star players, super man coverage plus horrible zone coverage, laggy play call screen, severe computer manipulation of games and recruiting, as well as awful defensive containment in the running and passing game.

Lord Marshall X
06-12-2011, 11:18 AM
So in 2010 you didn't know about the speed option out of the ACE Big formation? Tell me it's not so.

Oh yes I do my friend. Had to deal with it through 25 seasons of a 8-12 player online dynasty last year. Let me pick apart the ACE speed option for you.

1. The QB is running the football high fumble and injury risk.
2. The QB's recruits in NCAA 2010 were no where near all world as they are in 2011. In NCAA 2011 we had a guy with Michigan that had 3 99 overall QB's on his roster. (Yeah that was fair and realistic.)
3. Pitch is dangerous is looses games foe speed option players.
4. In NCAA 2010 eventually you have to pass, you could not beat a talented player in NCAA 2010 just running the football.

P.S. The guy who ran the speed option religiously last year switched to the I form Y trips formation out of the michigan playbook and ran the option out of that in 2011. Devastating. Because there is no containment at all and offensive blocking is supernatural. He came back from being down 24 at half time to beat me running this play pretty much all the way down the field for the rest of the game.

JeffHCross
06-12-2011, 09:52 PM
4. In NCAA 2010 eventually you have to pass, you could not beat a talented player in NCAA 2010 just running the football. No, but you could get practically any 3rd down conversion just by running Ace Big Speed Option unless your opponent committed so much to stopping it that he left himself wide open in other areas. Or if he was actually allowed to use Run Commit (which many ODs weren't). If you know you can move the chains at will on 3rd down, play calling on 1st and 2nd becomes tons easier.

Lord Marshall X
06-13-2011, 12:02 AM
No, but you could get practically any 3rd down conversion just by running Ace Big Speed Option unless your opponent committed so much to stopping it that he left himself wide open in other areas. Or if he was actually allowed to use Run Commit (which many ODs weren't). If you know you can move the chains at will on 3rd down, play calling on 1st and 2nd becomes tons easier.

I rarely lost to those guys because I practiced a lot, but you are right. The problem is I can name 5 plays in NCAA 2011 that equal the speed option from the run and pass game.

Jayrah
06-14-2011, 07:09 AM
I hear ya marshall, that's the reason I went over to tso. I can't stand playing ppl who don't play the game the way its supposed to be, merely on the fact that the game doesn't make them.

Lord Marshall X
06-15-2011, 03:43 PM
I hear ya marshall, that's the reason I went over to tso. I can't stand playing ppl who don't play the game the way its supposed to be, merely on the fact that the game doesn't make them.

Whenever we got a guy like that we just banned together and came up with a strategy to beat them.

hawkeyeguy
06-15-2011, 03:44 PM
I hear ya marshall, that's the reason I went over to tso. I can't stand playing ppl who don't play the game the way its supposed to be, merely on the fact that the game doesn't make them.

That's another big reason I set up different running backs for different formations so my #1 running-back doesn't have 35 carries a game.

Jayrah
06-15-2011, 10:11 PM
Whenever we got a guy like that we just banned together and came up with a strategy to beat them.

But then you play for a half and you're winning and they quit... HOW FUN!!!!

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Lord Marshall X
06-15-2011, 11:42 PM
But then you play for a half and you're winning and they quit... HOW FUN!!!!

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Pretty Much.

SmoothPancakes
06-16-2011, 12:29 AM
But then you play for a half and you're winning and they quit... HOW FUN!!!!

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Another reason why I have not even so much as wandered into the online portion of NCAA since probably NCAA 06. Unless you play your friends and people you know you can trust, odds are more than likely you're going to end up in a game with one of two people.

1: They're cheesier than aged cheddar.
2: You're winning at halftime, they then go on a slur and obscenity filled 13 year old noob-rage rant and promptly quit out.

Lord Marshall X
06-18-2011, 10:01 PM
Another reason why I have not even so much as wandered into the online portion of NCAA since probably NCAA 06. Unless you play your friends and people you know you can trust, odds are more than likely you're going to end up in a game with one of two people.

1: They're cheesier than aged cheddar.
2: You're winning at halftime, they then go on a slur and obscenity filled 13 year old noob-rage rant and promptly quit out.

Yeah thats why I like online dynasties with a good core group.