Gameplay - NCAA Football 14 Wish List & Feedback

Playing Heisman Challenge (relevant to gameplay because it's CPU clock logic), tie game, we're on offense with less than 70 seconds in the game. We've driven down to inside the opponents 20. Not only does my CPU coach call a timeout with 1:00 to go (as the CPU always does), but he then calls timeout immediately after a 3rd down play, with 56 seconds to go. The opposing defense is left with all three timeouts, in a situation where we should have at least been able to get them to call one, if not two, timeouts to save time for their offense. No real coach would call timeout, in that situation, with a 4th down coming and a full playclock left to run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Playing Heisman Challenge (relevant to gameplay because it's CPU clock logic), tie game, we're on offense with less than 70 seconds in the game. We've driven down to inside the opponents 20. Not only does my CPU coach call a timeout with 1:00 to go (as the CPU always does), but he then calls timeout immediately after a 3rd down play, with 56 seconds to go. The opposing defense is left with all three timeouts, in a situation where we should have at least been able to get them to call one, if not two, timeouts to save time for their offense. No real coach would call timeout, in that situation, with a 4th down coming and a full playclock left to run.

---

If it makes you feel any better, late game clock management and AI in Madden 13 is the worst I have seen in a long time and they never patched it. The logic is AWFUL this year and inexcusable imo. Nobody can justify the cpu bringing in 3 TEs to run a power run up the middle with two seconds left on the clock and 20 yards out (needing a TD).

Yeah, NCAA isn't much better. I assume it's shared code.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Yeah, NCAA isn't much better. I assume it's shared code.

---

Somehow it got a lot worse in Madden 13. Made late game management in Madden 12 look like geniuses. Does the cpu actually try to score a TD at the end of a game in NCAA? If so, they didn't share the code. In Madden 13 with no time outs, the cpu will run draws and running plays instead of throwing the ball down the field in order to score.

Do LEs still dominate the sack department in NCAA? This is a problem still in Madden 13. LEs get sacks way too much compared to REs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

Somehow it got a lot worse in Madden 13. Made late game management in Madden 12 look like geniuses. Does the cpu actually try to score a TD at the end of a game in NCAA? If so, they didn't share the code. In Madden 13 with no time outs, the cpu will run draws and running plays instead of throwing the ball down the field in order to score.

---

I see plenty of draws from NCAA teams too, even with timeouts. Even in RTG/Heisman challenge, I see plenty of running calls late while driving to win. While Madden may be worse (I'll take your word for it), it's not by much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

Do LEs still dominate the sack department in NCAA? This is a problem still in Madden 13. LEs get sacks way too much compared to REs.

---

I had two very similar DEs on my Florida State team this year, and they were about even for the year, though there would be certain games where one of them would dominate or the other would.

Odrick destroyed Cam Wake on my team in sacks. Cam maybe had 6 sacks in my first year. Odrick was injured for 3-4 weeks and still ended up with around 14. He got 4 sacks in one game once. The LE just seems to get by the RT too easily. Maybe it's a ratings thing but it's lousy.

I will say when controlling my DEs I have a harder time getting past the LT no matter how much worse he is than my DE or the RT. I get past the RT just fine.

DPP is a must have next year. i'd love to see a way for your on-the-field performances impact the ratings of your players. the way the game is right now, its impossible to feel the difference between a player on a major hotstreak and a player who's really struggling.

also, line interactions need to get a major focus sometime soon. line battles are not static engagements and are not a situation that always offer a clear winner/loser. this is one of the primary reasons as to why qb rollouts, bootlegs, outside runs from the gun, etc are all busted plays....there's zero line movement. this affects both the passing game and the running game.

MVP, this is going to sound awfully strange ... but try a game or two at default sliders on Varsity. See if you think there's more line play then. I may have been seeing things, but I sure thought so ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

MVP, this is going to sound awfully strange ... but try a game or two at default sliders on Varsity. See if you think there's more line play then. I may have been seeing things, but I sure thought so ...

---

i'm seeing it a little bit, but its no where near where it should be. i see o-linemen pushing d-linemen back maybe 1-2 steps and thats it. other than that, linemen just engage each other and do nothing until the ball carrier has passed them by.

even if the change is purely cosmetic, i want to be seeing d-linemen trying to get off the blocks of the o-linemen; not just standing there with their arms on each others' shoulders. additionally, not every engagement is straight up either. IRL, speed rushers never try to match an o-tackle in a strength for strength shoving match; they try to beat the tackle by getting around them, not through them. this happens all of the time in the game. its frustrating beyond all belief. i'm not even through the first quarter yet, and after going into instant replay after every play to analyze it, i have to quit this game (even with a 21-0 lead as USC over georgia), as its making me mad.

whats the best way to go about having certain issues fixed, regarding blocking logic and defensive ai logic (in terms of who's covering who)? post pictures and then give an analysis of who should do what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

whats the best way to go about having certain issues fixed, regarding blocking logic and defensive ai logic (in terms of who's covering who)? post pictures and then give an analysis of who should do what?

---

It's been done before. I'm not sure how to go about it now. I don't think it's a knowledge hurdle, but a technical one.

Now, one thing you mentioned is that you're talking about the ball carrier. There's more line play, than I expected, in the pass game. But I agree it's not there, pretty much at all, in the run game.

Hopefully they can fix how DB's react to the read option. It has been terrible for two years now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryby6969

Hopefully they can fix how DB's react to the read option. It has been terrible for two years now.

---

This must get fixed. Seeing it more and more lately. It's really frustrating to see a DB back peddling faster then the HB is running :smh:

Either that or running away from the ball carrier to the sideline. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

This must get fixed. Seeing it more and more lately. It's really frustrating to see a DB back peddling faster then the HB is running :smh:

---

db's also dont react until the ball carrier has passed the line of scrimmage.

while the aggressive zone coverage bug bit me on this play, the even bigger facepalm is the playcall by my cpu controlled DC.

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/n...uscgame1-1.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/n...p/uscgame2.jpg
http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/n...p/uscgame3.jpg

imo, an easy situation to set up that would solve a lot of problems would be: if there are 10 seconds left in the game, and if the losing team is more than 25 yards from the endzone, the winning team's defensive playcall is ALWAYS a prevent from the quarters defense. no more underneath zones or corners blitzing....just put 8 damn guys in the endzone. :smh: this just pisses me off

Since we don't have the ability to use Mass Subs in an Online game, I'd like to see a "Backups" package added to every formation. That would allow us to do Mass Subs without pausing (in a CPU game), or do it at all in an Online game.

How about on field goal attempts & extra point kicks, the camera view switches from behind the kicker to elevated behind the goal posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longhornfan

How about on field goal attempts & extra point kicks, the camera view switches from behind the kicker to elevated behind the goal posts.

---

Interesting idea. Would make the angles more difficult on longer field goals, as long as the arrow stayed over the center and got smaller with the players. Basically, the longer the field goal, the more difficult it would become to see the arrow. In fact, they could use the fading numbers incorporation with the field goal arrow. Another idea would be to incorporate a short range/long range kick accuracy rating.

Might make kicking a field goal fun again.

I really wish EA would add the position of Slot Receiver and place bigger emphasis on certain attributes like agility and catch in traffic for these players. It would make the entire game a little more dynamic, from recruiting to actual gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayrah

I really wish EA would add the position of Slot Receiver and place bigger emphasis on certain attributes like agility and catch in traffic for these players. It would make the entire game a little more dynamic, from recruiting to actual gameplay.

---

Slot WR, 3rd Down Back (been in Madden for awhile), Short yardage back (3rd or 4th down and 1 or inches to go), 3rd Down DL (3rd and long passing situations) that would make many formation subs unnecessary as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayrah

I really wish EA would add the position of Slot Receiver and place bigger emphasis on certain attributes like agility and catch in traffic for these players. It would make the entire game a little more dynamic, from recruiting to actual gameplay.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

Slot WR, 3rd Down Back (been in Madden for awhile), Short yardage back (3rd or 4th down and 1 or inches to go), 3rd Down DL (3rd and long passing situations) that would make many formation subs unnecessary as well.

---

I can't remember if this was only in Head Coach 09 or also made its way to Madden, but at least one of them had a feature where, for every major position (i.e. WR, DE, DT), you identified what was important to you (e.g. Possession receiver, 3-4 rush end, 3-4 rush OLB), and the game would dynamically change the OVR rating of the players on your team to match those philosophies.

I think Madden must have had it too, because I can remember seeing more than just WR ... I swear I did it for WR #1, WR #2, and Slot Receiver as well. But I may be wrong about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

I can't remember if this was only in Head Coach 09 or also made its way to Madden, but at least one of them had a feature where, for every major position (i.e. WR, DE, DT), you identified what was important to you (e.g. Possession receiver, 3-4 rush end, 3-4 rush OLB), and the game would dynamically change the OVR rating of the players on your team to match those philosophies.

I think Madden must have had it too, because I can remember seeing more than just WR ... I swear I did it for WR #1, WR #2, and Slot Receiver as well. But I may be wrong about that.

---

Madden has that right now in CCM. When I signed Plaxico Burress in my first year his overall jumped a lot if I set the WR1 philosophy to Spectacular catch/red zone. If I set it to speed he would take a hit. It does have #3 WR. My only beef with that is I don't see a player scheme for second TE. Some offenses that is really important - like SF which use a ton. Both times when I did a CCM they dumped Delanie Walker for a 3rd or 4th rounder and left the cupboard bare at that spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

Better blocking logic

---

I've been playing the game recently after a long hiatus. I don't know if it's a universal problem when the running the option from under center (I don't think it is), but trying to run the Flexbone specifically is a huge problem. Aside from the QB-Pitchman relationship being out of sync more often than not, there are too many whiffed blocks to the playside. I'm playing on Heisman, so that may be it, but I can run the read/option out of the shotgun without any blocking logic problems.

Concur. While it's not just under center option that has problems, there is inconsistency between Read Option and other styles of offense, specifically in regard to whiffed and missed blocks. Heisman is a factor, but not the sole cause of poor blocking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Concur. While it's not just under center option that has problems, there is inconsistency between Read Option and other styles of offense, specifically in regard to whiffed and missed blocks. Heisman is a factor, but not the sole cause of poor blocking.

---

I ran this offense back in high school. The beauty is in how it's blocked. The playside DE and OLB are duped into believing they can stop it. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q27Vb05cJ8U

Same here. Triple and veer. Though we weren't all that good at it.

I've only noticed this problem on Heisman. The DE/OLB shoot up field well before there is any time to diagnose whether to pitch or not before being tackled for a loss. Less likely on AA and Varsity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Same here. Triple and veer. Though we weren't all that good at it.

---

Our first year of installing the offense we took our lumps with a soph QB and the OL trying to understand the concept of "Base, Backer, Safety" blocking progression. Two years later, that QB and one of our RBs ended up getting full rides to Air Force, while our FB (didn't make the grades) went to JUCO on scholarship as well. Highly productive offense, however the defense couldn't stop anybody.

Can we get some more advanced DL moves? My goodness EA's football games are basic in this area. 2K5 had more control. When you look at how NBA 2K13 has a dizzying amount of dribble, post and shot moves due to r-sticks, modifiers and things why are we stuck with only two moves on the r-stick which don't even work well? Heck in Madden the best move is to just run into the player, engage and then try to run around him. There is nothing to this area and it is beyond stale. If I choose an outside rush every time you would think the AI would pick up on that and force me inside. There is no strategy or counter moves. A huge area of improvement is necessary here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

Can we get some more advanced DL moves? My goodness EA's football games are basic in this area. 2K5 had more control. When you look at how NBA 2K13 has a dizzying amount of dribble, post and shot moves due to r-sticks, modifiers and things why are we stuck with only two moves on the r-stick which don't even work well? Heck in Madden the best move is to just run into the player, engage and then try to run around him. There is nothing to this area and it is beyond stale. If I choose an outside rush every time you would think the AI would pick up on that and force me inside. There is no strategy or counter moves. A huge area of improvement is necessary here.

---

:+1:X:infinity:

visually, it'd be nice to see d-linemen pulling moves and seeing them not be effective. i really hope that the infinity engine lives up to its potential, because after watching the alamo bowl game last night and seeing texas d-end alex okafor just completely manhandle the oregon state linemen, it'd be an awesome touch to finally be able to see one linemen's power and quickness pay off by pushing other guys around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

:+1:X:infinity:

visually, it'd be nice to see d-linemen pulling moves and seeing them not be effective. i really hope that the infinity engine lives up to its potential, because after watching the alamo bowl game last night and seeing texas d-end alex okafor just completely manhandle the oregon state linemen, it'd be an awesome touch to finally be able to see one linemen's power and quickness pay off by pushing other guys around.

---

Okafor is a great example. Which also reminds me of how the bullrush in the game needs to be redone, and this goes with the OL as well. EA could make use of the :360rt:/:ps3R2: buttons which are used for "sprint." They should have it function specifically as a bullrush button on defense and vice versa a run blocking button on offense after engaging with an opponent.

I should add as a ballcarrier, it should help break tackles i.e. leg drive through a defender's grasp.

Ratings should be universal in this sense. Okafor's bullrush, for example, means he'd be a fundamentally solid run blocker on the OL.


UNIVERSAL ATTRIBUTES

MEASURABLES	ATTRIBUTES	BALLCARRYING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	DEFENSE
40 Yard Dash	Speed w/ Acceleration
20 Yard Shuttle	Acceleration
3 Cone Drill	Agility	Dropback, Spin, Juke	Route Running	Blocking Footwork	Strafe, Backpedal, Finesse Move
Vertical	Jumping	Hurdle	Leaping Catch Range		Leaping Swat Range
Broad Jump	Explosiveness	Trucking, Diving	Diving Catch Range	Impact Block	Hit Power, Diving Tackle Range
Bench Press	Upper Body Strength	Stiff Arm	Release	Pass Blocking	Block Shedding, Power Move
Squat	Lower Body Strength	Break Tackle		Run Blocking	Bullrush, Press Cover
60 Yard Shuttle	Stamina
GPA	Discipline (Penalty Propensity)
Aptitude Test	Playbook Knowledge

TIM, there's a reason they went away from universals though. An agile player does not automatically mean solid routes or spin moves, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

TIM, there's a reason they went away from universals though. An agile player does not automatically mean solid routes or spin moves, for example.

---

Yeah, but you'd still have other factors such as awareness, height, and weight that determine effective route running and spin moves where agility is the main component. A guy with good agility can go in and out of route breaks (change of direction skills) more fluidly than someone not as agile; we know that. Agility + lower center of gravity + lower weight = optimum route running and spin move ability. That is not to say a 5'5 160lbs guy by default is a 99 agility. It just means he has that potential because of his size.

An OL/DL is not going to be as agile as a skill position player because of their weight, so their rating will naturally be much lower. However, it doesn't mean they won't have good blocking footwork. A 99 agility to a lineman would be around 70. Anything higher and their weight needs to be much lighter than the average lineman.

My biggest reason for wanting universal attributes is because the majority of all recruits played both ways in high school. Everyone is essentially able to play either side of the ball, and you see it happen in college where prospects were recruited for a specific position (i.e. they were NOT recruited as athletes), but end up moving positions: DL to OL, RB to DB, LB to FB, QB to TE, etc. and vice versa. This is because, fundamentally, they have universal skills.

Okay, are we solely talking recruits here, or are we extending that to all players and positions? The discussion here is unclear on that to me.

The primary problem I have with what you saying is that you said "potential" in one place and "universal skills" in another. The two are not the same. An agile running back is not inherently a top-tier route runner as a wide receiver. Barry Sanders wouldn't have been as adept at running routes as Jerry Rice was. Because while, for example, juke moves and route breaks are both agility-based skills, and they share the same fundamentals, they are still different skills. Skills that take practice, both in practice and at game-speed, to become experts at. There's nothing universal about things that are truly a skill.

I agree with you that a 6-8, 280 lb tight end with blocking skills can transition pretty easily to be a 6-8, 310 lb right tackle. I say this because Reid Fragel did that this year for Ohio State. And I agree that the game, as currently coded, doesn't allow for such a thing to happen. A tight end will not suddenly bulk up and display the blocking skills necessary to be a right tackle. But that type of transition can't happen overnight either.

I do agree that recruits need to be more universal. ATHs should be the norm, not the rarity. But while potential is universal (i.e. a defensive lineman that can explode off the ball would probably be a great run blocker), skills are not 1:1.

Really, the changes you're suggesting would be best if there was some kind of "potential" aspect to a players ratings, not just a rating set in stone. That would mean a player with a high squat (which, in the game, means break tackle, run block or tackling, depending on your position) would have a high potential in those three ratings, but would not guarantee he'll have an 80 in all three coming out of high school.

Make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Okay, are we solely talking recruits here, or are we extending that to all players and positions? The discussion here is unclear on that to me.

The primary problem I have with what you saying is that you said "potential" in one place and "universal skills" in another. The two are not the same. An agile running back is not inherently a top-tier route runner as a wide receiver. Barry Sanders wouldn't have been as adept at running routes as Jerry Rice was. Because while, for example, juke moves and route breaks are both agility-based skills, and they share the same fundamentals, they are still different skills. Skills that take practice, both in practice and at game-speed, to become experts at. There's nothing universal about things that are truly a skill.

I agree with you that a 6-8, 280 lb tight end with blocking skills can transition pretty easily to be a 6-8, 310 lb right tackle. I say this because Reid Fragel did that this year for Ohio State. And I agree that the game, as currently coded, doesn't allow for such a thing to happen. A tight end will not suddenly bulk up and display the blocking skills necessary to be a right tackle. But that type of transition can't happen overnight either.

I do agree that recruits need to be more universal. ATHs should be the norm, not the rarity. But while potential is universal (i.e. a defensive lineman that can explode off the ball would probably be a great run blocker), skills are not 1:1.

Really, the changes you're suggesting would be best if there was some kind of "potential" aspect to a players ratings, not just a rating set in stone. That would mean a player with a high squat (which, in the game, means break tackle, run block or tackling, depending on your position) would have a high potential in those three ratings, but would not guarantee he'll have an 80 in all three coming out of high school.

Make sense?

---

What you reiterated in the last paragraph is pretty much what I'm saying. Somehow I forgot to include position specific skills in all this. Think of the universal attributes, as charted in the previous post above, as a player's base universal rating with his height and weight included (i.e. his minimum rating no matter what position he played)...THEN when you factor in his position specific skills, the rating fluctuates for each position. His knowledge (experience) from position to position determines his max potential agility rating for each position.

Height + Weight + Agility Rating = Base Universal Agility Rating (3-Cone Drill time)

Base Universal Agility Rating + Position Specific Skills = Max Potential Agility Rating

Position Specific Agility ratings affected are Dropback, Spin, Juke, Route Running (Route Breaks), Blocking Footwork, Strafe, Backpedal, and Finesse Move.

I was initially talking about how height and weight should be factored in agility ratings in the previous post, but forgot to tie-in position specific skills. Although I did conclude with my point, which was that players should be more universal (i.e. able to play multiple positions), it starts with their combine measurables being universal, then position specific skills determine where they end up. And an athlete with great measurables, but not great at position specific skills, would be considered "raw talent." He needs development.

Okay, if we tie this all into "potential" then I whole-heartedly agree. We could both reduce the complexity of recruiting (less ratings to scout and worry about), while increasing the hit/miss strategy (that DT sure looks like a possible OL).

I think there needs to be a "potential" for players (I know it's there, and it's hidden, but there should be a way to see it once the player has signed), and I think there needs to be progression beyond just the position ratings. "Potential" is definitely one way to do it. In particular, I hate how slowly AWR progresses after a position change. It should be much closer to logrithmic growth, where the growth will occur rapidly until it gets closer to some upper bound. Progression should not be a linear function.

On a related note, I think we need to add "secondary" positions, where some of the player's progression will cause those secondary positions to progress. And, more importantly, the player's AWR would take a much, much smaller hit (if any) at that secondary position. This would allow for situations like Ryan Tannehill or Kerry Meier, where a backup QB was playing WR for a significant chunk of his playing career. As it stands now, I believe the hit to switch from WR to QB is significant. And it should be, for an average Joe at WR. But Tannehill, for example, was always in the QB meetings, always taking QB reps in practice, etc, etc. That should be a possibility. Especially with the game putting such a heavy emphasis on ATHs that can play multiple positions ... GREAT! Now show me how I can actually let that ATH play multiple positions. A secondary position (which wouldn't be required for every player, just an option) would help that, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Okay, if we tie this all into "potential" then I whole-heartedly agree. We could both reduce the complexity of recruiting (less ratings to scout and worry about), while increasing the hit/miss strategy (that DT sure looks like a possible OL).

I think there needs to be a "potential" for players (I know it's there, and it's hidden, but there should be a way to see it once the player has signed), and I think there needs to be progression beyond just the position ratings. "Potential" is definitely one way to do it. In particular, I hate how slowly AWR progresses after a position change. It should be much closer to logrithmic growth, where the growth will occur rapidly until it gets closer to some upper bound. Progression should not be a linear function.

On a related note, I think we need to add "secondary" positions, where some of the player's progression will cause those secondary positions to progress. And, more importantly, the player's AWR would take a much, much smaller hit (if any) at that secondary position. This would allow for situations like Ryan Tannehill or Kerry Meier, where a backup QB was playing WR for a significant chunk of his playing career. As it stands now, I believe the hit to switch from WR to QB is significant. And it should be, for an average Joe at WR. But Tannehill, for example, was always in the QB meetings, always taking QB reps in practice, etc, etc. That should be a possibility. Especially with the game putting such a heavy emphasis on ATHs that can play multiple positions ... GREAT! Now show me how I can actually let that ATH play multiple positions. A secondary position (which wouldn't be required for every player, just an option) would help that, IMO.

---

:+1:

Right there with you on everything. Especially like going a step further with the idea of secondary positions.

If you remember my post about my "off-season dynasty" wish that included recruiting and a spring depth chart, the secondary position makes me think the regular season depth chart should be utilized the same way I suggested for the off-season: make a depth chart applicable to practice i.e. set the percentage of reps for each position group during practice totaling 100%.

Example:

QBs
QB 1 = 50% reps
QB 2 = 25% reps
QB 3 = 15% reps
QB 4 = 10% reps

Now say "QB 2" is a WR as his secondary position. You would place him in the "practice depth chart" where you want him, so he can develop at his secondary position as well as at QB. By the way, I think the position groups should be determined by your specific offense i.e. SE, FL, Slot positions, etc. each separately instead of one big group of WR like we currently have.

Example:

Wide Receivers

SE
WR 1 = 30% reps
WR 2 = 25% reps
WR 3 = 25% reps
WR 4 = 25% reps

FL
QB 2 = 30% reps
WR 1 = 25% reps
WR 2 = 25% reps
WR 3 = 20% reps

*Rep percentages are arbitrary.

While I would absolutely love that, I wouldn't mind doing the simplest version and having it be so that a "secondary" position gets 20-30% of your "progression". So a guy that's only a WR gets 100% WR skills, while a WR/QB gets 75% WR, 25% QB. Or something "simple" like that. Your idea is possibly the advanced version, whereas I just want something there to start with. :)