To add onto Tex's thoughts with the roles of the OC and DC. Not only limit their recruiting to either geographical territory or their side of the ball, but also only allow them to control the depth chart on their side of the ball as well and truly limit their role in the team. Things like if a player wants to leave early you could choose, "allow the Coordinator to talk to them or bring in the HC" and you wouldn't have control over the HC talking to them.
Minor frustartion... CPU coaches should have their records of service on display. It's great to see that coach X is 8-8 at Notre Dame but his overall record is 24-11. Where did he serve before??? This would add so, so much depth and immersion. Fingers crossed for next year.
this and maybe years at a particular school. Basically if they gave a timeline of the coach and record.Originally Posted by jaymo76
Just throwing this out there, Tex, but doesn't the current setup allow you to do whatever you want? That allows the people that want to set their own restrictions to do so, while allowing people that want to start with a specific school, top tier or otherwise, to do that as well.
Thinking back to College Hoops ... there were some years of the game that it had a couple schools that I was really interested in (I remember one year my hometown Appalachian State Mountaineers were one of the choices), other years there wasn't a single school that I had any interest in starting with.
Personally, I prefer any mechanic where the game developer does not force the player to play a mode a certain way. There are times where I'd welcome starting off with a 1* school. There are others where that has no interest for me.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Tex you could also create it as an online dynasty and then you can set some certain rules for the jobs you could take. If it is a need then you could maybe offer this in offline dynasty as well were individuals can choose if they want to set some stipulations.
I think that 5-10 attributes would be good to differentiate coaches from each other. The attributes I would have, off the top of my head:
Prestige: Could be given a 0-99 grade similar to player overall, or left as a D-A+ grade as it is now.
Leadership: Could provide a small awareness boost to players in game, and a small progression boost throughout the season.
Scouting: This would require some change to how recruiting is done. Instead of seeing that a recruit has a B+ speed rating for example, we would be given a range of what their rating would be as a freshman, and what it could be as a senior. This would help smaller schools that have coaches with good scouting grades to find the 2 or 3* that could turn into a stud.
Recruiting: A coach with a higher recruiting rating would get more points per recruiting call.
Offense: Would give small ratings boost to players on offense.
Defense: Would give small ratings boost to players on defense.
Special Teams: Would give small ratings boost to kickers, punters, and returners.
I agree with not wanting to revamp (I interpret that as basically starting over) the current recruiting format, at least not simply for the sake of coach ratings. The simplest modification would be a change on the point ranges for recruiting. Say Coach A has the best recruiting ability, Coach C has average recruiting ability, and Coach F has the worst recruiting ability. Coach C would continue to have the point ranges as they are in '12. Coach A would have smaller ranges, with the minimum in each range moving up. Coach F could either have smaller ranges as well, with the maximum moving down, or just have wider ranges. Over the course of the season, Coach A is going to have better recruiting results (at least in terms of point values for calls) then Coach C, who will be better than Coach F. That's probably the "simplest" modification that could be made.
Additionally, you could make it so the better coaches have a better chance of landing an instant commitment (commitment on scholarship offer) or a better chance of swaying a pitch. And vice versa for "worse" coaches. Modifiers on existing random variables wouldn't be too difficult to do.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I like that idea....Coach F on the recruiting map would show a small circle for recruiting (the state he is coaching in and a little bit outside of this area), Coach C would have a recruiting circle that covers about half the US map, and Coach A would have a recruiting circle that covers all the US and Hawai'i, Alaska, and Canada...maybe even a few European countries.
Coaching Ratings:
Motivation: Does he get the players fired up? Some coaches are really good at this.
Offense: How good he is at this side of the ball.
Defense: ""
Scheme: How good is he at running his scheme. Saban is better with his D than most others who run the same D.
*Discipline: How strict is the coach. Some coaches are loved and some are respected.
Recruiting: Does he beat down the doors?
**Loyalty: Bobby Petrino
HC Ratings: All ratings.
DC Ratings: Motivation, Defense, Scheme, Discipline, Recruiting, Loyalty
OC Ratings: Motivation, Offense, Scheme, Discipline, Recruiting, Loyalty
Discipline: Ties in with violations, bans, and probation system I'm fleshing out.
Loyalty: AD Mode, or if they allow the HC to make hires, or when schools are looking at you as a candidate. If you're the AD you want someone who wants to be with you for the long haul not just a 2 year stepping stone. As the HC, you want someone who will stay your OC/DC until they get a HC job or you fire them. Schools are going to want someone who is looking to stay in place, not a journeyman.
This is good. Along with this I want to see some in game ratings be affected.Coaching Ratings:
Motivation: Does he get the players fired up? Some coaches are really good at this.
Offense: How good he is at this side of the ball.
Defense: ""
Scheme: How good is he at running his scheme. Saban is better with his D than most others who run the same D.
*Discipline: How strict is the coach. Some coaches are loved and some are respected.
Recruiting: Does he beat down the doors?
**Loyalty: Bobby Petrino
HC Ratings: All ratings.
DC Ratings: Motivation, Defense, Scheme, Discipline, Recruiting, Loyalty
OC Ratings: Motivation, Offense, Scheme, Discipline, Recruiting, Loyalty
Discipline: Ties in with violations, bans, and probation system I'm fleshing out.
Loyalty: AD Mode, or if they allow the HC to make hires, or when schools are looking at you as a candidate. If you're the AD you want someone who wants to be with you for the long haul not just a 2 year stepping stone. As the HC, you want someone who will stay your OC/DC until they get a HC job or you fire them. Schools are going to want someone who is looking to stay in place, not a journeyman.
Seeing how money is a big part of the game at the coaching level, I would like to see contracts with $ attatched. Give another dynamic to choosing a position in the carousel.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk
So as I have played NCAA the last three weeks trying to figure out what is missing, i thought to myself that there isnt enough challenge and excitement in the dynasty mode. So i thought the best way to fix the dynasty mode would be to add a resource point system. This would act similar to the AD Mode which seems to be a popular idea, but with more long term fun. And could really be expansive if the devs at NCAA would let it. Also the I think they need to add more coaching posistions into the game like posistion coaches or GA's
Points System/Resources
With the idea that I have in my head, everything in the dynasty would run off of this point system. The way that this point system would work is that some schools obviously have more resources than others. The reason that Ohio State gets better recruits than say Bowling Green isn't just because they are more nationally recognized, but because they have the resources to recruit better players. OSU has the money to afford to take trips to Florida and California, while BGSU barely can afford to get out of the Tri-State area. So each program will be alloted with a certian amount of "points" or resources at their disposal. So if OSU had 1000 points at their disposal BGSU would have 150.
These points can be used not only in recruiting but in order to improve pitches and lure better coaches. This eliminates alot of the grueling process in recruiting, and can be used more like the NCAA and College Hoops brand used to have in their recruiting. Some points in recruiting should be constant. I never understood why in NCAA basketball it cost 1 point to call a player in my home state but 20 across the country. A phone call is a phone call. However if I wanted to go visit a recruit it would cost much less to visit a player in state than one out or across the country. By using this point system for recruiting it could help speed up recruiting while making it a little more challenging. I would also like to see the addition of recruiting underclassmen, at least high school juniors. This also adds to the dynamic because it makes the coach budget whether he wants to use his points for now or a year down the road.
Another thing thing that the points could be used for is to upgrade the program which you are at. These points can be used to get more prestigous coaches into the program, make the weightroom better, add to team facilities, or even donate to the academic programs. By getting a better coach, it may make a recruit more likely to come to your school for that coach. By upgrading workout facilities, it may make your teams athletic skills better. Even by donating back to the school, it makes the school nicer and recruits may come because the school cafe is nicer. All of these things should factor into recruiting and on field play.
Finally what makes this point system so great is that it adds to the dynamics of the whole dynasty world. As a small school it makes no sense for me to go play a top 5 program and get destroyed. However if they offer our program 50 points I may have to think twice. Whenever App. State upset Michigan several years ago, they were paid over 1 million dollars to come and play. As a small school I may have more incentive to schedule teams I know I cannot beat if it can add to my resources. It also adds to the coaching carousel as well. As it works right now, if I am a head coach at any non-BCS school, coming off a 11-1 season with a good recruiting class, the current dynasty gives me little reason to leave for a struggling big school. But if the bigger schools offer me more "resources" instead of a financial contract, I may think about leaving. By adding this point system, it gives dynasty a whole new look which would make players never want to put the game down.
Deeper Coach Mode
As it stands right now, when entering dynasty you can either take a coordinator posistion or become the head coach of any program you want. But coaches starting their careers are not immediately offered coordinator jobs. I would like to see a much deeper coach mode in the game which could be tied into the point system above. When starting your career, you could choose what type of coach you want to be with a few coaching types (smashmouth, schemer, CEO, recruiter). And with that there could be different characteristics or attributes on a slider of grading system. Some possibilities may be (offensive scheme, defensive scheme, enthusiasim, charisma, disipline/respect, teacher, etc.) A smashmouth coach may have higher defensive scheme and charisma ratings to start out with, while a recruiter may not have the schemes but the charisma and respect ratings.
After you have picked what type of coach you would aspire to be, you would then decide where you want to start your career. You would then enter the job search as a position coach. Instead of having a RB coach or a LB coach, each team should have a offensive coordinator, D coordinator, offensive position coach, and defensive position coach. This would save space and alot of time in coaching carousel. And instead of being able to pick your offensive and defensive playbooks right away, it should be based on where you start as a position coach. For example if I want to run Oregon's spread attack at USC, I should first learn it from Chip Kelley for a while. Or if I wanted to run Michigans new defense, I should coach under Greg Madison.
Under the current dynasty the user also has full control of who they recruit. In the real world however thats up to the head coach and recruiting coordinator. I would like to see the position coach only recruit either their side of the ball only or more specifically either Skill or Line recruiting. The head coach or coordinator should tell them who to look at, and the user can make their own judgements. Also if the user coach can land the recruits they are suppose to which would help their prestige. All of this should be tied into the coaching carousel aspect.
After the season is over, the coaching carousel then begins. As it stands right now there isnt much incentive to ever leave a position if your team is doing well. But with the new point system and less control as a non head coach, it will give users much more to think about. Lets say after my first year as a position coach for Oregon I do perfectly recruiting and the team wins a BCS bid. I am offered the offensive coordinator job at 1-11 Eastern Michigan. Why would I take that job? They have offered me more points to recruit than my smaller job at Oregon and i would be the recuiting coordinator. While that may not sway me, I would at least think about it. And lets say I go to EM and eventually become head coach and lead them to a BCS bowl birth, but 5-7 Michigan offers me their head coach job. While Michigan may take a while to turn around, they have offered me twice as many resources. All of this would make the users think about there job every year.
While I realize this is alot to implement and may even take a seperate "NCAA Head Coach" game, it would definately help the staleness which has plagued the dynasty mode on the current gen. Without revamping the dynasty mode the EA team is bound to lose more and more customers each year.
Coach ratings and traits and the point sytem. Rank them up like Call of Duty.
Last edited by Treadstone6700; 11-22-2011 at 10:23 PM. Reason: Saw previous post and it was basically the same idea
Maybe even be a position coach. Decide your positions depth and have them do drills etc.
I would love to be able to see during the season or if not at least during the coaching carousel who is all interested in me (or the others) at one time, not just the 2 that are the current option if I am on the clock. That way you can pick the job you really want out of what is before you. Then you would be able to see if there is something better than the extension you are being offered.
This is exactly what NCAA 13 needs.... I would never have time for another game if the dynasty worked like this.
i'd like to see a higher distribution of grades relating to the coach prestige rating.
in the current tgt360 od, we're in year 3, week 12, and as it currently stands, there are 63 coaches (including coordinators and HC's) that have an A+ coach prestige rating. there are an additional 29 coaches if you include the A coach prestige rating. those two grades alone (A+ and A), make up just over 25% of the total coaches.
there are 54 coaches currently ranked with a D coach prestige rating, with an additional 30 having a D+ coach prestige rating. in my mind, it shouldnt be an even distribution of coach ratings, where each grade group (base and +) amounts for 25% of the total amount of coaches. the A coach rating grade should only be given to the elite coaches, with the A+ being given to the elite of the elite. it shouldnt be just a linear progression that you can easily attain from one year to the next. having the best coach rating grade should a long time to get to. i got there in the tgt360 od, in just under a season and a half, having started at a D rating.
I noticed that there was no mention of additions to CC in the NCAA 13 overview. I really hope that we do see a lot of additions but right now I am concerned we will see no changes over than a tinkering of logic.
I'm fairly confident that the list was purposefully vague/light.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
having the ability to negotiate contrct goals would be nice. you could choose to keep the cpu generated goal or add/lower the difficulty of certain goals, which would increase or decrease the amount of red/green arrows.
i agree mostly but if you want to have people start out at a 1star program they should have the option. some people like coaching their favorite team and dont want to wait so they should get an option to start a the bootom or coach their favorite school. people who play should also be able to select their playing style and a list of teams who fit the. example: someone likes running with the quarterback. they would get a list of teams with a scrambler starting qb.
Bookmarks