NCAA Football 11 - First Live Tuning Package Available

Published on 08-05-2010 10:05 AM

67 Comments

Russ Kiniry has announced on the EA Forums that the very first live tuning package has been deployed from this blog.

Hi NCAA Fans,

It's Russ Kiniry here again to add some more details about our first Live Tuning Package (LTP) from Roy's "Thank You" blog on last Thursday. We continue to work hard on all the feedback we've received from the community, but I wanted to provide an update on our progress and offer some insight on the questions we've seen surrounding the LTP's.

THE FIRST LIVE TUNING PACKAGE FOR NCAA FOOTBALL 11 WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING UPDATES:

• Increased the default starting values for all Recruits.
• Slightly increased progression for low and mid tier teams.
• Tuned CPU recruiting to prevent teams from signing too many players at any one particular position.
• Increased CPU's focus upon needed positions in recruiting.
• Top schools will sign 5 star prospects earlier in the season.
• After a recruit Soft Commits, any CPU team that is not ranked in the top three will spend significantly less time calling the recruit.
• Addressed an issue with big lineman jumping too high and deflecting passes.
• Tuned ESPN U Top 150 Players to be more in line with actual top 150 recruits by decreasing the number of Fullbacks and Kickers.
• Tuned Field Goal, Kick Offs, and Punting in Super Sim.

WHAT DOES THAT ALL MEAN?

For gameplay you should notice that larger players cannot jump as high to swat down passes making things look and feel more authentic. In Dynasty mode, it means two things. First, the majority of the teams in Dynasty will be slightly better than before due to having access to higher rated Prospects and slightly better progression. Second, CPU teams will do a much better job of accurately filling their rosters.

Let's take a closer look at the details behind the Dynasty changes and what they actually do. *Caution* Lots of charts and numbers inbound. Skip ahead to ‘Going Forward' if you don't like math.

This first charts shows the players in Dynasty Mode (by Overall rating) and compares the before and after of LTP 1. In the first Line Graph you can see a sample of one sim of Dynasty (each year is a line) where Players would end up being rated significantly lower than the default roster, which is shown as the Red Line.

On the second Line Graph, in future years the Players are now shifted forward to be more in line with the shipped Rosters. These are all averages of a number of Sims we ran over the last couple weeks. Again, the Red Line is default and the rest of the lines are averages of future years (since one Dynasty can always have some different highs and lows depending on the recruiting classes). The biggest reason why the above charts are important is they show how much the Overall ratings of players change in a Dynasty as it advances. The closer the future year's lines are to the red line (default year 1) the less deviation you'll see from years 1-3 and 4+.

Next let's take a look at what the actual numbers look like for different Prestige Teams.

You can see these changes, on average, had an increase on the top end teams (6 and 5 star) and a much larger impact on the lower teams. A big reason why you'll see the top teams increase in Average Overall is that they are getting slightly better Prospects AND, more importantly, they are doing a more efficient job at recruiting in general. Remember the CPU teams are not wasting as much time on players they can't get and are filling their needs better. The lower teams get the benefit of better recruiting logic and better Prospects like the higher teams, but also slightly higher Progression than they had before LTP 1.

What that means is on average lower prestige teams will end up being rated higher in future years of Dynasties before LTP 1. Basically, less D rated teams, which you can see in the next chart:

The left side is a sample of data before LTP 1, and the right is using LTP1. You'll notice a big shift in the lowest teams (previously 46% down to only 24%). And we moved a few teams that were close to being A Rated before into that elite range. There is only so far we really want to go with these numbers as it will soon start to impact the top end Players too much. These LTP are a little limited in what they can control, but just being able to make the changes above without a patch is a huge step forward for the NCAA Football franchise.

GOING FORWARD

The goal of these Live Tuning Packs is to fine tune the game using both your (community feedback) and our own internal testing. We want to continue to make adjustments to the game where they make sense, and not use this to make large sweeping changes, given how much of the game is "just right". Continue to tell us how you feel and what you'd like to see on our forums.

Some additional LTP changes will not be put into place until after Title Update 2 (currently estimate is in Mid-August). More details to follow, but we expect to address items such as Kicker and Awareness Progression.

Let me also clear up a couple of common misconceptions about NCAA 11 and the way progression and awareness work "under the hood":

• Teams do not get progressively worse in extremely late years, for the most part what you see in years 6+ will be consistent over the long run due to the fact that the entire NCAA is taken over by our generated Prospects at that time. To put it simply you won't look at year 10 and everyone in the NCAA is rated 60 Overall or lower.
• The Awareness of a player does NOT affect his ability to Run Routes, Play Defense, or Block. Each of those have their own ratings that drive how good the player is:
- Route Running (RTE)
-Defense: Zone Coverage (ZCV), Man Coverage (MCV), Play Recognition (PRC) and Pursuit (PUR)
-Blocking: Run/Pass Block Footwork (RBF, PBF), Run/Pass Block Strength (RBS, PBS). And the assignment each player gets is based on the offensive play vs. the defensive play.
• Every Kicker (no matter his ratings) CAN kick a 30 and under yard field goal. Granted accuracy can causes misses as well, but they do have the distance.

We hope that you will enjoy these changes to NCAA Football 11. Your continued feedback and enthusiasm for the game is greatly appreciated. Keep visiting our Forums for the most up to date information.
Thanks,
-Russ Kiniry
Designer NCAA Football

Categories:
NCAA Football 11

67 Comments

JeffHCross - 08-06-2010, 09:43 PM
- Reply
Based on what I've seen this year, and previous years, I cannot believe that was an all-inclusive list of what AWR affects. There's simply no way.

ebin - 08-06-2010, 10:48 PM
- Reply
Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Based on what I've seen this year, and previous years, I cannot believe that was an all-inclusive list of what AWR affects. There's simply no way.

I tend to agree with you, but that doesn't explain why Russ wouldn't: (a) know, or (b) want us to know, everything that AWR affects.

rhombic21 - 08-06-2010, 11:40 PM
- Reply
I can definitively say that that isn't all that AWR affects.

I've been unhappy with the coverage schemes and blitz packages that are in the Dime Normal formation, and was essentially trying to find a way to use some of my favorite 4-3 plays, only with 6 DBs in the game. So my bright idea was to set up a system where on third and long or in obvious passing situations, I would sometimes call a Dime Normal play in the huddle, and then audible down into some of my favorite 4-3 plays before the play. Essentially this causes the two slot CBs to line up as linebackers, but most of the time the differences between where linebackers in a 4-3 align versus where slot DBs in dime normal align is negligible, so it generally works out well enough. And obviously I'm not expecting these guys to stop the run like linebackers or anything, and generally going to be using them in coverage or as blitzers off the edge, so this isn't the kind of thing I'd throw out against a 2 TE set and expect to be successful with on an every-down basis.

The problem is that if you audible down, the game now treats your slot CBs as though they are playing linebacker, and so their AWR takes a huge hit. What then happens is that these players are much worse in coverage (particularly man to man) and that they will also miss a lot of tackles -- even if they have a free shot at the QB they will often times miss the tackle. Theoretically, if AWR didn't matter for anything other than the small number of things that the DEVs mention, then a DB in man to man coverage should play exactly the same whether the game thinks he's subbed in at LB or playing his natural CB position. And the same is true for zone coverage or blitzing. But since that's not the case, and since AWR is the only attribute that changes based on the position shift, then it has to be the drop in AWR that causes the problem.

JeffHCross - 08-07-2010, 12:01 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by ebin

I tend to agree with you, but that doesn't explain why Russ wouldn't: (a) know

That doesn't explain it, but simply logic does. Russ isn't a developer, so he (most likely) doesn't have hands-on access to the code. So he'd be relying on either design documents or second-hand knowledge to tell us what AWR actually controls. The first of those is easily incorrect, or just not all-encompassing. The second of those is just as easily wrong, because unless they have someone around who actually wrote the original code (unlikely), they'd be relying on either their memory or a quick search.

It also could be a matter of interpretation. AWR may not affect my DB's ability to play coverage directly. That may be handled by MCV and ZCV. But AWR may deal with getting him conscious enough to be in the right position, and that would have a huge influence on his ability to play defense.

rhombic21 - 08-07-2010, 12:05 AM
- Reply
My sense is that there's some kind of threshold effect where AWR really doesn't matter very much if a player is above some reasonable level of AWR, so in terms of differentiating between two players at the same position then it probably doesn't come into play that much. I don't know that there's a meaningful difference between a 75 and a 90, or at least that this difference would be worth any kind of significant tradeoff in other ratings categories. But when you start playing guys out of position and thus seeing some really low AWR's (in the 30s and 40s), then it matters.

JeffHCross - 08-07-2010, 12:10 AM
- Reply
Agreed. The DBs I've seen make bad plays are always my two freshmen, who are both 40 AWR. They do have lower MCV/ZCV than anyone else, but not significantly lower.

JBHuskers - 08-07-2010, 12:25 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Agreed. The DBs I've seen make bad plays are always my two freshmen, who are both 40 AWR. They do have lower MCV/ZCV than anyone else, but not significantly lower.

It's even worse in Madden with DB's making bad plays.

jaymo76 - 08-07-2010, 12:31 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by JBHuskers

It's even worse in Madden with DB's making bad plays.

Really? I thought I had read that WR/DB interaction was greatly improved in Madden this year??? That sucks!

JBHuskers - 08-07-2010, 12:34 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by jaymo76

Really? I thought I had read that WR/DB interaction was greatly improved in Madden this year??? That sucks!

They are pretty good, but there can be times where the CPU will beat you deep if you have an average corner. Seems to happen a decent amount. It's not overkill, and for a change it's the CPU burning you, not the other way around.

AustinWolv - 08-07-2010, 09:54 AM
- Reply
Interesting, so the positional assignment is directing the individual's AWR perhaps. I can see how that would be organized by a gamer devs logic, but that is very strange compared to what would happen in real world. I can also see how they did that to keep people from putting DBs and such as DEs for speed rush tactics.

rhombic21 - 08-07-2010, 10:36 AM
- Reply
Yeah, that's my best guess, that it was some kind of way to prevent people from playing people WAY out of position. But theoretically, if they made it so that things like pass rush moves, block shedding, strength, etc.... mattered (and it seems to me like they do already), then there wouldn't really be a need for the extra penalty. Because if you played LBs on the DL or DBs at LBs then you should theoretically get run all over (especially given the revamped run blocking AI).

JeffHCross - 08-07-2010, 10:38 AM
- Reply
Agreed. A CB playing OLB shouldn't be any worse at tackling than he already is ... and they already are pretty bad.

morsdraconis - 08-07-2010, 11:02 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Agreed. A CB playing OLB shouldn't be any worse at tackling than he already is ... and they already are pretty bad.

Well, maybe they are going by the logic of a CB making a tackle on the outside is usually tackling WRs (who normally have less break tackle skills and more evasive skills) but inside at the LB spot, you're tackling HBs and FBs more often (who normally have higher break tackle chances) so it's their way of not only trying to shy you away from moving people to different positions to prevent cheesy stuff (the online community getting their wish) but also trying to two fold the fact that most CBs would get annihilated trying to play LB because they lack fundamental tackling skills and the body weight to play the position effectively (their way of compensating for the fact that body weight still doesn't play the role that it should in the game).

Or it could be something as simple as a previous workaround to having their be some type of body weight taken into account before their jump to Locomotion now.

JeffHCross - 08-07-2010, 11:08 AM
- Reply
Right ... but if you run the ball outside, CBs aren't very good at tackling FBs and HBs at their regular position. No reason to hamper that even more.

steelerfan - 08-07-2010, 03:26 PM
- Reply
I'm not following what you guys are saying. When you do a position change, the player's AWR drops (as I think it should). What are you guys saying that I'm not grasping?

JeffHCross - 08-07-2010, 03:34 PM
- Reply
That other stuff happens because of the AWR drop. Like more missed tackles, inability to stay with a man in coverage, etc.

But, according to Russ's blog, AWR does not affect a player's ability to "Play Defense".

rhombic21 - 08-07-2010, 03:37 PM
- Reply
Originally Posted by morsdraconis

Well, maybe they are going by the logic of a CB making a tackle on the outside is usually tackling WRs (who normally have less break tackle skills and more evasive skills) but inside at the LB spot, you're tackling HBs and FBs more often (who normally have higher break tackle chances) so it's their way of not only trying to shy you away from moving people to different positions to prevent cheesy stuff (the online community getting their wish) but also trying to two fold the fact that most CBs would get annihilated trying to play LB because they lack fundamental tackling skills and the body weight to play the position effectively (their way of compensating for the fact that body weight still doesn't play the role that it should in the game).

Or it could be something as simple as a previous workaround to having their be some type of body weight taken into account before their jump to Locomotion now.

To be clear, I noticed them missing tackles on the QB. Like they'd have a free shot at him on a blitz and would miss the tackle almost every time.

JeffHCross - 08-07-2010, 03:39 PM
- Reply
Whereas, speaking from experience, if you run a nickel blitz and he has a free shot, he hits it.

steelerfan - 08-07-2010, 03:48 PM
- Reply
Originally Posted by JeffHCross

That other stuff happens because of the AWR drop. Like more missed tackles, inability to stay with a man in coverage, etc.

But, according to Russ's blog, AWR does not affect a player's ability to "Play Defense".

OK, thanks.

I seem to remember them saying (I believe before '10) that AWR would have a greater impact than in the past. I know last year I started (and still do) letting AWR carry alot of weight in terms of my depth chart. If 2 guys are close in OVR, AWR wins every time.

I agree that this must be some sort of mistake by Russ. If AWR doesn't matter for the things he mentions, what else is there? I've always looked at AWR as "Football IQ" - the instinctive ability to be in the right place at the right time.

morsdraconis - 08-07-2010, 04:34 PM
- Reply
Originally Posted by rhombic21

To be clear, I noticed them missing tackles on the QB. Like they'd have a free shot at him on a blitz and would miss the tackle almost every time.

Well then, I think it speaks to the point (either in this thread or in another) the conversation about awareness having a much larger impact than just sim stats and such as they have been quoted as saying.