Gameplay - NCAA Football 12 Wish List & Feedback

[Rudy]

That's why I would love to see a talent threshold slider in the game, not just speed. Let's create a bigger gap between good and bad players.

As far as the cpu running game is concerned, I think we are doomed with this development team. I have never found the cpu running game to be even remotely competent on AA default. They just flat out suck at running the ball for the hardcore NCAA fan. You have to do massive changes to cpu run blocking and cpu RBA and sometimes it's very hard to get the cpu to have a consistently good running game without turning every mediocre back into a great one. I really wish the cpu running game on AA (that's supposed to be for good players, casuals should be using default Varsity) was tuned better. And yet the NCAA dev team states they play on AA default and don't see a problem. Many of us here couldn't believe how the second patch ruined the cpu running game on AA and this went unnoticed by them. There is a real disconnect between these devs skills and ours in some areas I believe.

Most casual fans hate the cpu running on them. They curse up a storm if the cpu rushes for 100 yards while getting pissed if they don't run for 100 yards in a game. But AA is supposed to be a better difficulty level. Many people avoid Heisman because it's significantly harder. It would be awful nice to have another difficulty in between these two. I would say a majority of slider sets on major gaming sites are on AA but are designed to make the game harder. Why not create an extra difficulty level that would be a more natural fit between AA and Heisman? I know I live somewhere in that range myself.

[baseballplyrmvp]

That's why I would love to see a talent threshold slider in the game, not just speed. Let's create a bigger gap between good and bad players.

wouldnt this be accomplished by making the ratings more spread out? i think that once you get into the elite players in ncaa, everyone sort of turns into a god, where every rating they need to have is at least 80+. if the ratings scale were changed to 0-100 instead of 40 or 50-100, i think you'd see more situational players, and automatically see the gap between the bad, average, good, and elite players.

[JeffHCross]

wouldnt this be accomplished by making the ratings more spread out? i think that once you get into the elite players in ncaa, everyone sort of turns into a god, where every rating they need to have is at least 80+. if the ratings scale were changed to 0-100 instead of 40 or 50-100, i think you'd see more situational players, and automatically see the gap between the bad, average, good, and elite players.

Two things work against you there. First, it's clear they don't really want a spread out roster, because even though we have 40-100, how many players are in the 50s and 60s? Not too many, even on the lowest level teams. Every few years the spread gets tighter and tighter.

Second, being realistic, how likely would we be to see a 7 OVR player, or a 15 OVR? I don't think anyone would actually be willing to rate someone that low, so the artificial floor is probably semi-realistic.

I believe actual ratings can go from 0-100 now, I know I see recruits come in with 15 in TAK or whatever from time to time. OVR is just a number anyway.

[baseballplyrmvp]

Two things work against you there. First, it's clear they don't really want a spread out roster, because even though we have 40-100, how many players are in the 50s and 60s? Not too many, even on the lowest level teams. Every few years the spread gets tighter and tighter.

Second, being realistic, how likely would we be to see a 7 OVR player, or a 15 OVR? I don't think anyone would actually be willing to rate someone that low, so the artificial floor is probably semi-realistic.

I believe actual ratings can go from 0-100 now, I know I see recruits come in with 15 in TAK or whatever from time to time. OVR is just a number anyway.

you're never gonna get a player rated 7 overall. the absolute lowest you can go is 40 overall. as far as seeing tackling ratings of 15, those are probably for offensive players, kickers and punters.

as far as spreading out the ratings, here is what i meant. on ncaa 10 (default rosters), terrance cody had a power move rating of 89 and a finesse move rating of 79! on madden 11, his power move rating jumped to 98 while his finesse move rating dropped to 30. this sort of thing happens all the time- where players are too well rounded in all ratings they need to have (defensive players need defensive ratings and vice versa). when i say spreading out the ratings, this is the kind of example that i refer to. there's really no separation between elite and average.

i look at madden and the game plays a lot better- as far as seeing the difference between the elite, good, average, and players who suck. this isnt reflected very well at all in ncaa....and i guess, that this is something that i'd like ncaa to adopt.

[JeffHCross]

you're never gonna get a player rated 7 overall. the absolute lowest you can go is 40 overall.

... Yes, I know that. I was saying that if you expand the ratings to 0-100, you're still not going to see horribly low rated players; in fact, it probably won't change much from the current range, since they've been shortening it every year.

this isnt reflected very well at all in ncaa....and i guess, that this is something that i'd like ncaa to adopt.

I can agree with this.

[Rudy]

wouldnt this be accomplished by making the ratings more spread out? i think that once you get into the elite players in ncaa, everyone sort of turns into a god, where every rating they need to have is at least 80+. if the ratings scale were changed to 0-100 instead of 40 or 50-100, i think you'd see more situational players, and automatically see the gap between the bad, average, good, and elite players.

I agree that spreading out the ratings a little more would accomplish it but if they choose not to this tool would allow us to tweak the game as we see fit.

[MCdonnieG]

Gameplay Improvements....

1) More running styles would be nice...it would definitely add more depth to an already great mo-cap system

2) I would love to see the "helmets pop off" feature make it into next-gen gaming...I know it doesn't happen often but man would it be nice to see in the game!

3) Unsportsmanlike conduct...such as excessive celebration(spiking the ball), taunting(high stepping) these thing are subtle but add depth to gameplay as well.

That's all I could think of off the top of my dome right now...I'l post more when it comes to mind!

[JeffHCross]

2) I would love to see the "helmets pop off" feature make it into next-gen gaming...I know it doesn't happen often but man would it be nice to see in the game!

Since the NCAA has some level of content approval for the series, I'd be very, very surprised to see something like this, since that's not something they would encourage players trying to do on the field.

[gschwendt]

Since the NCAA has some level of content approval for the series, I'd be very, very surprised to see something like this, since that's not something they would encourage players trying to do on the field.

True... though it was on the Xbox version of last gen.

[JeffHCross]

True... though it was on the Xbox version of last gen.

Yeah, but there are several things in previous versions that I can't see getting added again. Plus, there's been a significantly higher crack down on helmets flying off and big hits in recent years than there was before.

[baseballplyrmvp]

arent the helmets joined to the heads? so if you tried removing the helmet, you'd just see the guy's face and not the rest of his head. same kinda thing with the jersey and pants- if you tried taking them off, you'd see a blank area instead of seeing all of the pads. (i didnt intend for that to sound ***)

[steelerfan]

(i didnt intend for that to sound ***)

But it did.

[JeffHCross]

arent the helmets joined to the heads? so if you tried removing the helmet, you'd just see the guy's face and not the rest of his head.

Perhaps, as the models stand now. Obviously that would have to change if they were to add in flying helmets.

[Rudy]

Jeff and Tommy's avatars are too similar. Anyone else get confused as to who is talking when taking a quick glance at the thread or is it just me?

[steelerfan]

Jeff and Tommy's avatars are too similar. Anyone else get confused as to who is talking when taking a quick glance at the thread or is it just me?

I think it's just you. I've yet to be bamboozled.

[JeffHCross]

Jeff and Tommy's avatars are too similar. Anyone else get confused as to who is talking when taking a quick glance at the thread or is it just me?

One's real ... one's from the game. I don't see this as a problem, lol EA would love for the two to get more often confused!

[psuexv]

It would be nice if when you are on the goaline the camera zoomed back as it normally does on any other play after the snap instead of basically going straight up.

[JeffHCross]

You mean when you're at your own goalline, Eric? Or deep in an opponent's territory? Haven't noticed anything on the latter.

On the former, there's a reason, and it's the restriction of the model of the stadium you're playing in. You'll see different behavior depending on the stadium. I know on NCAA 10 that you could use Coach Cam inside Tulsa's stadium and you might find yourself inside the Field House.

[psuexv]

Yeah sorry, when either I'm backed up or I have an opponent backed up. I understand the rationale but you would think there would be a way to draw back in that particular situation. Yes it has been an issue for as long as I've been playing.

[zacattak]

Freshman Quarterbacks/Inexperienced Back-up QB's
These two groups should occasionally mishandle the snap from under center. They should also call out wrong audibles and incorrect hot routes early on. They should get better at this with more game experience. It should not be over done either. Just occasionally. All back-ups and inexperienced guys should play with inexperience. They should also get rattled at Tiger Stadium on a Saturday Night.

Well said sir. well said.