NCAA Football 13 Dynasty Mode Recruiting Discussion Thread

[baseballplyrmvp]

edit....meh...forget it.

[psusnoop]

Have you guys noticed that when recruiting from the console and you make a promise you get the integrity points included in your overall call total but when recruiting from web you do not get those points?

Someone else try this please and tell me I'm not crazy lolol.

[gschwendt]

Have you guys noticed that when recruiting from the console and you make a promise you get the integrity points included in your overall call total but when recruiting from web you do not get those points?

Someone else try this please and tell me I'm not crazy lolol.

I'm fairly certain you still get the integrity points from the web. I've only recruited from the web this year and I'm fairly sure I'm still getting all of the same points.

[JeffHCross]

Sways are working for me, on par or at least not much less than previous versions.

Glad to hear it. I just be hitting a cold streak then (or there's some other factor at play, like low integrity or something like that.) I haven't seen a single Sway succeed this year.

Explain what you mean a different way please.

Well, without knowing exactly how many points the CPU is getting in a week, it would be utterly impossible to prove (and since we're playing Heisman recruiting, it's possible that the CPU is getting more points per call than usual, I don't have a clue how that works). But if I get 800 points in a call, plus -200 on the #2 team, I should have a net gain of 1000 points over the #2 team, minus whatever they gained on their own in the week. I don't think I'm getting credit for all 1000, regardless of how much the #2 is earning in that week.

There are obviously other factors, like the bonus points you may (or may not, it could have changed) get for a player being on your board. Points for a successful visit. Etc, etc.

Suffice to say, I think I'm hitting some maximum-per-week and getting short changed.

[jaymo76]

Overall I am pleased to say that the recuiting, perhaps a little easier this year, has for the most part been enjoyable. I was worried that scouting built into recruiting would make things too LONG but overall I have been pleased with the balance. I am also very happy that I purchased (though I still hate myself for it ) the recruiting advisor as he has helped provide insight into a few things I may have missed.

[JeffHCross]

Has anyone figured out where to view your Coach Integrity, other than the point value given when you make a promise? In previous years you could tell by how many promises you had available, and I think on the Promises screen itself.

[baseballplyrmvp]

its way too easy to break into a top recruit's top 10. i know they focused on making it easier this year, but c'mon, it shouldnt take only 2 weeks before i'm one of the top schools for a 5* wr, especially if i'm playing as 2* :hawaii:. the top recruits in the country also need to be sought after way harder by the best programs. it makes ZERO sense for the top recruits, year in and year out, to only be getting 0-4 scholarship offers. the top recruits need to be getting at least 5-10 scholarship offers right off the bat, within the first 3 weeks of the season. this would make it harder to hoard the top talent year in and year out in dynasties, and would help the cpu remain a competitor.

this might just be me, but staying with the idea of getting the cpu to be more competitive, they should lower the number of recruits that are shown in the recruiting database to around 2000 instead of near 2600. this would make the cpu fight for recruits more amongst themselves, but it'd also make better use of the entire recruiting database. the game generates walk-on players anyways, so there are ways to get cpu teams to continually stay at a 60-70 man roster. they just wont always get a full class of players with a star rating. an additional benefit of lowering the number of recruits available, would be that it would severely lower the ability for human players to oversign and signing a full 25 man class every year- even when they dont need to.

i love the scouting feature, but it wasnt done right. instead of having a completely random listing of grades, and then scouting them to find out their actual ratings, the non measurable ratings should have been hidden from you and then have to be scouted to find out what they were. i'd like to be able to pick which individual ratings i'd like to scout on ncaa14, maybe even making it so you had to scout a rating several times before you got to his actual number at that rating.

gems and busts also are not slapped on a player during his recruiting process. gems and busts only refer to how well/bad the recruit has progressed in his career while at your school. you dont find out if he's a gem or bust when he hasnt even completed his senior year of high school yet.

[ctk989]

I like the improvements over last year, however I would like to see teams not always given 25 scholarships every year. I think the rosters should expand to the real life # of 85 and teams have to manage that rolling # instead of being given 25 scholarships and having to cut people. Thoughts?

[gigemaggs99]

I like the improvements over last year, however I would like to see teams not always given 25 scholarships every year. I think the rosters should expand to the real life # of 85 and teams have to manage that rolling # instead of being given 25 scholarships and having to cut people. Thoughts?

I've never understood how the AI does recruiting it will fill up the board with 35/35. I usually only have around 18-20, I give them all a scholarship and within a year or 2 of being at the program I don't need to cut players anymore. I really don't see the point of spending hours and weeks recruiting a 40ish rated player only to cut him in the off-season b/c I have 3 other players at that position with MUCH higher ratings.

[jaymo76]

I've never understood how the AI does recruiting it will fill up the board with 35/35. I usually only have around 18-20, I give them all a scholarship and within a year or 2 of being at the program I don't need to cut players anymore. I really don't see the point of spending hours and weeks recruiting a 40ish rated player only to cut him in the off-season b/c I have 3 other players at that position with MUCH higher ratings.

With only having 70 roster spots recruiting up to 25 players a few years in is just a waste. All you end up doing is cutting decent players and having a stacked team. Plus the players you cut are then erased from existence. They should appear on other teams. Recruiting has made some huge strides but do to roster limitations, after about five seasons with a programme I just let the cpu take over.

[baseballplyrmvp]

part of the problem with cpu recruiting, is that it doesnt effectively manage their team needs. if they need a fullback, for example, they'll target 3 fullbacks, which isnt bad, but after one of those fullbacks sign, the cpu either wont remove them from their board or will continue to recruit the other 2 fullbacks. this is why we get stories every year of seeing teams with 9 quarterbacks on their team, or 7 total offensive linemen, 4 kickers, etc.

they also wont remove players that have committed to other teams from their recruiting baord; and since they fill up their recruiting board with 35 players in the preseason/week 1, its impossible for them to go after new targets. the cpu teams also dont give out scholarships early enough or fast enough, based on all american recruiting. i continue to see the top recruits in the country not getting scholarship offers from top programs 10 or more weeks into the season. there's no "philosophy" or "mentality" with the cpu to get as many points as possible; it doesnt treat recruiting like the point race that it is. its just a combination of poor recruit management and poor recognition to get points by the cpu.

[JeffHCross]

part of the problem with cpu recruiting, is that it doesnt effectively manage their team needs. if they need a fullback, for example, they'll target 3 fullbacks, which isnt bad, but after one of those fullbacks sign, the cpu either wont remove them from their board or will continue to recruit the other 2 fullbacks. this is why we get stories every year of seeing teams with 9 quarterbacks on their team, or 7 total offensive linemen, 4 kickers, etc.

+1.

I will disagree about removing signed players from the board. They do that (but they may not do it efficiently). They definitely remove signed players at some point though.

(Disclaimer: Based on NCAA 11. Haven't had enough time with NCAA 13 to confirm/deny)

I will also disagree, slightly, about the scholarship offers not resembling real life. I agree that they do not. But, as far as I'm aware, in real life there is no harm in Central Missouri State sending a scholarship offer to DGB. (They didn't, but, y'know). Beckham could get 20 offers, and probably the majority of those coaches thought there was at least a chance, maybe a snowball's chance, but a chance nevertheless, that they could sign him. In real-life, it only takes one good phone call, one good visit, or whatever, to convince someone to take a job offer. I imagine it's largely the same with recruiting. Obviously that type of circumstance is rare ... but I think if 20 CPU teams offered the #1 WR in NCAA 13, then at least 10, probably 15 or more of those teams would be wasting a scholarship offer.

I've never understood how the AI does recruiting it will fill up the board with 35/35. I usually only have around 18-20

The AI might have 35 on their board, but they're not actively recruiting all of them. A decent amount are just extra guys on the board.

[baseballplyrmvp]

I will disagree about removing signed players from the board. They do that (but they may not do it efficiently). They definitely remove signed players at some point though.

if they do remove them, its definitely not immediately after they commit to a school. i'll have to test it again, but i thought i checked this at one point on '12, and i saw a committed player to another school stay on my board for 4 weeks after he committed.

I will also disagree, slightly, about the scholarship offers not resembling real life. I agree that they do not. But, as far as I'm aware, in real life there is no harm in Central Missouri State sending a scholarship offer to DGB. (They didn't, but, y'know). Beckham could get 20 offers, and probably the majority of those coaches thought there was at least a chance, maybe a snowball's chance, but a chance nevertheless, that they could sign him. In real-life, it only takes one good phone call, one good visit, or whatever, to convince someone to take a job offer. I imagine it's largely the same with recruiting. Obviously that type of circumstance is rare ... but I think if 20 CPU teams offered the #1 WR in NCAA 13, then at least 10, probably 15 or more of those teams would be wasting a scholarship offer.

i understand, but its just absolutely retarded to be seeing so many 4 and 5* players not getting scholarships at all. when was the last time you heard of a 5* wr getting ZERO schollie offers going into week 14 of the season? i'm not saying that the recruit should have 50 offers, but i think every 5* player should be getting at least 5 schollie offers (whether they're from the little sisters of the poor or from the top schools in the country.)

i know i made a big deal about it last year, but i still think that a recruit's hidden potential is given too much weight in how he's ranked. i shouldn't be seeing 5* wr's with C+ speed, even if he has jerry rice's hands. there needs to be a way bigger emphasis on the talent of each player (especially speed, acceleration, agility), when it comes to how they're ranked. potential should barely account for anything in the player's star caliber.

The AI might have 35 on their board, but they're not actively recruiting all of them. A decent amount are just extra guys on the board.

iirc, from the recruiting advisor reports, the top schools only talk to about 12-15 players per week (based on ncaa11). i thought that they spent an hour on their top 5, and then 40-50 minutes for the remainder of the time.

[IBI]

Can anyone explain the differences in recruiting difficulties? Are there fewer promises available? Fewer points per pitch? or does the cpu just smarter at higher levels? Ideas.

[JeffHCross]

i understand, but its just absolutely retarded to be seeing so many 4 and 5* players not getting scholarships at all.

Agreed. This problem was exacerbated in NCAA 13, because of the GEM/BUST feature, because now the CPU basically ignores any bust, regardless of OVR. At least that's what it seemed like. I think the simplest answer there is that the CPU is privy to information we're not, and they're basing their assessment of the player on that information. That's my read of it at least.

there needs to be a way bigger emphasis on the talent of each player (especially speed, acceleration, agility), when it comes to how they're ranked. potential should barely account for anything in the player's star caliber.

Agreed.

iirc, from the recruiting advisor reports, the top schools only talk to about 12-15 players per week (based on ncaa11). i thought that they spent an hour on their top 5, and then 40-50 minutes for the remainder of the time.

Sounds about right to me, based on what I've seen (including one or two Advisor Reports).

Can anyone explain the differences in recruiting difficulties? Are there fewer promises available? Fewer points per pitch? or does the cpu just smarter at higher levels? Ideas.

On NCAA 11 / NCAA 12: There were more "Change Topic" choices available per call, and this number decreased as the difficulty went up. The point value ranges for a given topic / My School rating may have fluctuated a little as well. I think, in general, it was harder to gain points as the difficulty level went up, and the CPU seemed to gain points faster as the difficulty level went up.

For NCAA 13? Dunno. We started at Heisman, and I didn't play a single week at anything else. I can tell you that the CPU is very competitive on Heisman, and if they go after a player with all 60 minutes, you're likely to lose, even if you go after him with 60 as well. I'd guess that the primary difference on NCAA 13 is that the CPU point totals go up as the difficulty increases. Not much else that I can think of that would modify.

[Escobar]

iirc, from the recruiting advisor reports, the top schools only talk to about 12-15 players per week (based on ncaa11). i thought that they spent an hour on their top 5, and then 40-50 minutes for the remainder of the time.

Sounds about right to me, based on what I've seen (including one or two Advisor Reports).

I'm not sure about this judging from how my recruits look when I let the CPU recruit them. My top recruits were getting almost no time, while lower level recruits who were also farther down my board were getting alot of time. It seems the CPU tries to stay away from recruits it doesn't think it has a chance of getting, and also stays away from some players who are labeled as busts.

[psusnoop]

part of the problem with cpu recruiting, is that it doesnt effectively manage their team needs. if they need a fullback, for example, they'll target 3 fullbacks, which isnt bad, but after one of those fullbacks sign, the cpu either wont remove them from their board or will continue to recruit the other 2 fullbacks. this is why we get stories every year of seeing teams with 9 quarterbacks on their team, or 7 total offensive linemen, 4 kickers, etc.

MVP, I think if you look through your rosters for dynasties that are over a year long you'll see what I have in regards to the teams signing more then they should at any one position.

I've gone through 50% of the teams roughly in the one dynasty I'm in and I'm clearly not seeing the issues with oversigning that your implying here. I have seen 2 Freshman Kickers signed on 1 team, I did see 1 team with 5 QB's (2 were SR's, 1 SO, 1 RS FR, 2 FR) but nothing as bad as your saying here.

I think this has been discussed with the DEV team at EA quite a bit, but maybe someone else can chime in on that a little better then I could.

[IBI]

On NCAA 11 / NCAA 12: There were more "Change Topic" choices available per call, and this number decreased as the difficulty went up. The point value ranges for a given topic / My School rating may have fluctuated a little as well. I think, in general, it was harder to gain points as the difficulty level went up, and the CPU seemed to gain points faster as the difficulty level went up.

For NCAA 13? Dunno. We started at Heisman, and I didn't play a single week at anything else. I can tell you that the CPU is very competitive on Heisman, and if they go after a player with all 60 minutes, you're likely to lose, even if you go after him with 60 as well. I'd guess that the primary difference on NCAA 13 is that the CPU point totals go up as the difficulty increases. Not much else that I can think of that would modify.

Thanks for the reply. I haven't played on Heisman at all. I'm running a build your team from nothing dynasty that we carried over from NCAA12. We're all 3* programs with 1 or 2*talent. Recruiting is currently set to varsity, and I'm getting a little bit of push back about increasing the difficulty. It's week 15 and I have one scholarship remaining, and most of my commits weren't offered by the CPU at all, or, at least not until I had a commanding lead. I was hoping that the increase in difficulty would make the CPU a little smarter about who they offer, and not just more competitive when going head to head. I don't have any busts, and I probably have 15+ gems, and the #3 recruiting class in the country. That's too easy, IMO, but if the CPU isn't any smarter with who they offer, then there's no reason for me to upset the Nancy's that want to keep the difficulty level at varsity.

[JeffHCross]

As far as I know, IBI, it doesn't change how smart the CPU is ... but I could be wrong. That would be almost impossible for me to judge without having access to the code or comparing two dynasties with the same set of recruits, one on Varsity and one on Heisman.

I think this has been discussed with the DEV team at EA quite a bit, but maybe someone else can chime in on that a little better then I could.

It's been discussed for years, and AFAIK, it has improved. There are still issues, like what MVP is talking about, but I don't (personally) think they were as prevalent in NCAA 12 or NCAA 13 as they were in the past.

[baseballplyrmvp]

The Gem/Busts system is what makes recruiting kinda easy this year. The CPU stays away from high busts, making it easy for a small school to swoop in and grab 'em.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i'm not sure this is always true. i'm going after the #1 ranked tackle right now in an od, and the guy is a projected 75 ovr (-8), yet 6 cpu schools have offered him a scholarship.