edit....meh...forget it.
Printable View
edit....meh...forget it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by psusnoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinWolv
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinWolv
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.
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 :D ) the recruiting advisor as he has helped provide insight into a few things I may have missed.
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.
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. :nod:
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. :troll:
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. :eyeroll:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ctk989
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gigemaggs99
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.
+1.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
(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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gigemaggs99
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
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.)Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Sounds about right to me, based on what I've seen (including one or two Advisor Reports).Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBI
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.
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by psusnoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
It may not be 100% true but if you scout the high-star recruits who aren't getting any love, most will be busts.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
i think that thats mostly because the majority of 4 and 5* recruits are intentionally overrated, whereas a bunch of the 2 and 3*'s are underrated. i wouldnt think that gems and busts are randomly applied, but that they designed the elite players to be in the red a lot more. i doubt they'd want it occuring where an elite recruit somehow gets labelled as a gem and turns into a 90+ ovr true frosh.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
The tackle may be the exception to the rule because OL is a common position of need. In the Powerhouse OD, we've observed a lot of players that went untouched by the CPU and were busts. Yet the OD players loved them. So we imagined that it was cause/effect. It may not be the reason (may just be a strange coincidence), and could also have been something that was tweaked with a patch or tuner.
do you think that the cpu puts too much emphasis on whether the player will be a bust and not enough on existing talent?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Assuming we're right that the CPU avoids Busts, yes. They put an emphasis on the "Gem/Bust" factor and are not considering the final OVR. That's my read of it, at least. Personally, I care less about the Gem/Bust and more about the final OVR, and I would think the vast majority of us are the same. I'd rather a 75 OVR who was a -5 Bust versus a 70 OVR who was a +10 Gem.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
a few questions about recruiting
playing an offline dynasty as Nebraska, just finished my second season. On signing day somehow I had two extra commits and wonder what the deal is.
During the season I focused on getting a top QB and signed a 5* 76(-4) guy. I promised not to sign another QB before he was on campus, and I didn't recruit any more QBs.
I didn't try to fill all 25 scholarship, by signing day I had 22 commits which I was cool with. But somehow when I progresses from offseason recruiting week 5 to signing day, I got two more commits from players I never offered a scholarship, never scouted, never even targeted. They were definitely not on my board. One was a 3* QB and the other a juco WR.
I wondered what was up so at signing day I looked at the top classes and it listed me at 24 commits. But then looking at my recruiting board it only showed 22 (what I thought I should have). I couldn't see details of those two other guys.
When I then progressed further in offseason and got to position changes, I discover this other QB is a 3* gem 80(+13). He shows 100% scouted. WTF? The juco WR was I think a 4*.
So I'm wondering what's up. I had all the recruit assistants off. No accelerators. All my team needs had been filled. I'm not gonna complain about getting an extra 80 FR QB but now I'm wondering, does this break the promise I made to the 5* QB I signed during the season? Is this always gonna happen if I don't try to fill all 25 scholarships?
Also, if I sign an ATH and end up putting him at QB, does that break the promise I made to the QB when I said I wouldn't sign another player at his position before he arrived on campus?
Thanks in advance for any insight.
It probably will break the promise. At least I would think it would.
Are you sure you had all recruit assistance off? I've heard one other report of this happening to another member on the forum in NCAA 13, but I haven't seen it myself. In past years, the only way for this to happen was for the CPU to offer a scholarship during the offseason, which was a result of the "CPU can offer scholarships" assistance setting.
As for the QB being 100% scouted, I believe the CPU uses un-used scouting time, if you don't have any un-scouted players on your Board, on non-Board players. So that could explain that. As far as I know, there's no recruit assistance setting that dictates that.
I've advanced now to preseason and the promise to the 5* QB I signed early is still listed as "pending". I will check again once I advance to start season.
I'm almost certain all assistance was off, I know I had turned all off deliberately and I certainly never turned any back on deliberately, I'm going to recheck the settings. I know for certain the CPU never offered any scholarships to players on my board during the season or offseason, it was only when I advanced to signing day that this happened.
For the sake of argument, if the assistance was on and the CPU was going to offer a scholarship, would the player still not show up on my recruiting board?
the only way to prevent the cpu from signing players for you in the offseason, is to sign your 25 scholarships every year. i had this happen to me in the 360 od, where i missed out on 2 5* players and a 4* in favor of a 58 ovr rb and a 61 ovr wr, and a 63 ovr cb. :down: i was pretty mad when this happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
if you dont max out, you'll get at least a couple of players committing to you, whom you have never talked to, scouted, or have ever put on your board. this is the second year, i believe, that its been in the game too.
Ah. Well -- great.
Yep, I've gotten many extra kids via recruiting that came outta nowhere after week 5/Signing Day with all assistance turned off. Most of the time, they're cutting fodder but I've also gotten kids that were better then the ones I recruited.
Thanks all for the replies.
And can anyone answer the promise question?
Yes. If you don't have the assistance for "CPU can edit recruiting board" (or whatever it's called), then nothing will show on the board, but the CPU can still call/offer/other stuff. It's weird, but yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacoavlu
Not with any certainty. I don't think anyone "knows" how the promises work. But my impression, from that promise, is that signing another QB in that class will be breaking that promise, even if it wasn't your fault. The promise will probably still be pending until the end of the QB's first freshman season.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacoavlu
I still wonder as well whether that promise is broken by signing an ATH that ends up at the same position as the guy that was promised. Probably won't be using that one much.
Another question on promises, when you're trying to talk a player out of transferring or leaving early for the NFL, sometimes you can't promise them anything, it says all promises used up. Is that the case because 3 promises were used on that player when he was recruited?
I don't think ATHs would count, but it's certainly possible. I try to avoid that one as well. Only time I've ever used it is when I sign a K/P, and I KNOW I'm not going to going after a K/P for years. There are few other positions where I will guarantee I won't be going after anybody else (unless, like, I already had 8 WRs and was just going after the #1 WR).Quote:
Originally Posted by jacoavlu
Never saw that one. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacoavlu
Does anybody have any strategy on getting insta commits? I can put 20 guys on my board that have me #1, and not get any. I have a buddy that I'm not sh****ng you (is cussing allowed here?) gets 2-5 insta commits per year. There has to be some strategy to it...
No. It's random luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellisan
How have you proven this to yourself? Just curious. or maybe better stated, how has the community, if that's what it is, come to that conclusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
It would take a HUGE commitment from the community at large to get a LARGE sample size large enough to make any real solid conclusions. My hunch from my own playing through several seasons at several schools is that it does appear to be largely random/luck of the draw on the insta commit. It MIGHT increase SOME if your "on a roll" (i.e. winning allot for several years) at a particular program but not to anything that would be deemed "unfair"/unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellisan
when in an online dynasty, does anyone recruit a guy hard, and hold off on offering a scholarship? or do you always offer it right away?