Powerhouse OD - General Discussion Thread

[fsuprime]

seems fine to me, im more curious as to how you will fill out the depth chart with having to take into account EAs new progression model which we dont know much about yet.

btw nice thread on progression at os http://www.operationsports.com/forum...on-thread.html
one of the few times i go to that site is during this time and sometimes u can find a gem like this

progression looks very nice, if a little to much to the downside which is fine with me.

[fsuprime]

also i suppose we will have time to look them over, but we will at least have time to look over 2 sets of ps3 named rosters by the time august 1st rolls round, which will be a nice luxury.

[JeffHCross]

seems fine to me, im more curious as to how you will fill out the depth chart with having to take into account EAs new progression model which we dont know much about yet.

The vast majority of the players are using existing players' OVR ratings, so they should progress similarly, if in fact any differently, to any of the teams that come with the game. That's the reason for using the "Expected Performance" metric for OVR. For many of the younger players, which I presume are the ones you're mainly wondering about, I either used a future point (like a Preseason All-American the next year) and subtracted the current average progression (-4 OVR for each year in NCAA 10), or I used their Phil Steele # recruiting ranking, which I amazingly had available for 90% of the players I was creating.

Suffice to say, I'm confident that they won't progress any better or worse than an out-of-the-box team.

Based on a quick view of that thread you linked, it doesn't sound like progression is significantly different than it was post-patch last year. The big problem for progression last year was the recruits. The base-roster players progressed about as you'd expect.