Dynasty Mode - NCAA Football 12 Wish List & Feedback

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Now, along those lines ... I don't like when a player had Early Playing Time as a Most, and I have it as a D, yet I'm still able to get him to come to my school. Yes, on the one hand, I clearly put more effort into him than I would otherwise. But if a player is most concerned with getting playing time ... he's not likely to choose a school where he's not going to get that playing time. That's something I think the team should think about in the future, though I wouldn't put that high on the list.

---

You should be able to sway him down in this case. If he has Early playing time as Most and I'm a D, I should be able to sway him down from the Most to maybe average as a real life coach might be able to talk a recruit into realizing early playing time isn't that important.

Now to make this worth while you need to be able to get more recruiting points for matching up with a prospects interests, not just matching with his highly rated ones. In your example about the 3 star not opting to go to OSU, I completely agree with. But if that recruit has program prestige Low because he just doesn't want to go to that high end school and I'm a MAC school and my program prestige is C or B- I should be able to pitch that to him and get a significant amount of points.

The way the engine is right now you get more points based on how high the ratings are when that shouldn't be the case. It should be based more on matching ratings to the recruits ratings. Right now if I'm a A+ in something and the recruit has it at low I can still pitch it and get 50ish points, but if say Early PT is D and the recruit is low I get like 15.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

You should be able to sway him down in this case. If he has Early playing time as Most and I'm a D, I should be able to sway him down from the Most to maybe average as a real life coach might be able to talk a recruit into realizing early playing time isn't that important.

---

Not if it's a Most. I get what you're saying, but if I, as a football recruit, am saying that the absolute most important thing to me is Early Playing Time ... that should be a dealbreaker. And deal-breaker's don't exist in NCAA recruiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

The way the engine is right now you get more points based on how high the ratings are when that shouldn't be the case. It should be based more on matching ratings to the recruits ratings. Right now if I'm a A+ in something and the recruit has it at low I can still pitch it and get 50ish points, but if say Early PT is D and the recruit is low I get like 15.

---

Agreed that it needs looked at, but not your exact example. The problem there is the differentiation between "Low" meaning "It's not that important to me" and it meaning "I want a school with Low Prestige". If you look at the responses the recruits give, it seems like it means either one.

Actually, the real problem is balancing this without making it a nightmare for the casual player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Actually, the real problem is balancing this without making it a nightmare for the casual player.

---

Well I think this is were your difficulty recruiting levels come into play. Heisman recruiting should be all in intensive, not necessarily the CPU is better(like it is now)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Agreed that it needs looked at, but not your exact example. The problem there is the differentiation between "Low" meaning "It's not that important to me" and it meaning "I want a school with Low Prestige". If you look at the responses the recruits give, it seems like it means either one.

---

I think the main problem is that each pitch cannot be viewed the same. I don't think a recruit actually ever says - I want to go to a less prestigious school - They probably don't care more than anything. So them being a Low and me being a D or C shouldn't really have that much weight(now I know there are those kids that want to go to a "smaller" school but does that really relate to prestige). Now if Early PT is low and my rating is D or C, I should be able to pitch the heck out of that as a huge benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Well I think this is were your difficulty recruiting levels come into play. Heisman recruiting should be all in intensive, not necessarily the CPU is better(like it is now)

---

Yeah, that's one way. But I was just thinking in terms of interface. How do you convey the difference between Deep recruiting and Simple recruiting without a 20 page manual? Explaining the interface is something sports games struggle a lot with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

I think the main problem is that each pitch cannot be viewed the same. I don't think a recruit actually ever says - I want to go to a less prestigious school - They probably don't care more than anything.

---

Well, there are some. Maybe not "low prestige" for school, but there are probably some kids who "aren't ready" for the big schools, or would prefer to build a tradition. Those are obviously rare though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Now if Early PT is low and my rating is D or C, I should be able to pitch the heck out of that as a huge benefit.

---

Yeah, and that's kinda what I'm meaning. There's a difference between "Neutral" (I don't give a damn) and "I want to redshirt". If it's the latter, you're right about being able to pitch it. But, going back to the earlier quote ... how in the hell would you convey that without this turning into a Management Sim?

It's something worth thinking about though. At the very least, I think there should be a "Dealbreaker". Where if I pitch a D to a Most+Dealbreaker, I actually get Negative points rather than just very few.

What I see a lot of is that as I go about finding what the recruits want, everything is Low or Very Low and I end up wasting weeks trying to get pitches to move up in importance. I don't know how many times I've targeted a recruits and asked, "Man, do you care about anything?"

Not sure if this actually has any impact but it's kind of troubling when you get a recruit who is ready for a visit and you schedule that week and he makes a comment that you didn't schedule him soon enough or that he was ready last week...etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Not sure if this actually has any impact but it's kind of troubling when you get a recruit who is ready for a visit and you schedule that week and he makes a comment that you didn't schedule him soon enough or that he was ready last week...etc.

---

Yeah, that is annoying. There are a lot of repetitive lines in recruiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaymo76

Yeah, that is annoying. There are a lot of repetitive lines in recruiting.

---

There are too many, but the one psuexv mentions bothers me the most I think.

In my opinion, I think they should just take out the lines completely. They have horrible grammar as it is. I know CDJ submitted a doc of corrections for them. Either a re-write or completely scrap them, I'd be fine with either.

If scrapping them would mean the happy/sad football, I'm willing to forgo the bad grammar. There's gotta be feedback of some type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

They have horrible grammar

---

Have you ever heard an actual athlete speak? :smh:

I thought the grammar was actually pretty good. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

If scrapping them would mean the happy/sad football, I'm willing to forgo the bad grammar. There's gotta be feedback of some type.

---

This +1000, I could not stand the happy/sad/angry football. It's gotten to the point for me that I hardly ever look at what they say anymore anyway because they repeat themselves so much.

Maybe one day they will add lines like: "how much are you willing to pay me?" and "if anyone asks my dad didn't tell me anything..." :) :Auburn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

Have you ever heard an actual athlete speak? :smh:

I thought the grammar was actually pretty good. :P

---

LOL Steelerfan, this is spot on. At times, I think their grammar is too good.

They should have audio for some, now that would add some spice to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

There's gotta be feedback of some type.

---

Why does there have to be some sort of feedback if it's completely useless? If a recruit tells me he's pissed that I didn't schedule him earlier but he wasn't ready earlier and it's just random sentences being generated then I don't want to hear any of it.

Now if it's actually reflecting his mood/attitude then there needs to be something fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Why does there have to be some sort of feedback if it's completely useless? If a recruit tells me he's pissed that I didn't schedule him earlier but he wasn't ready earlier and it's just random sentences being generated then I don't want to hear any of it.

---

So you'd rather just see "+50" and absolutely nothing else? No thanks. At least give me something, even if it's crap.

If nothing else, I like that the occasional item makes me laugh. "Well played, coach, well played" on a sway was awesome (and, interesting enough, one I've only seen once).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

So you'd rather just see "+50" and absolutely nothing else? No thanks. At least give me something, even if it's crap.

If nothing else, I like that the occasional item makes me laugh. "Well played, coach, well played" on a sway was awesome (and, interesting enough, one I've only seen once).

---

Yeah that's exactly what I would like to see. For me the random quotes that usually don't make sense are pointless and the only thing they add to me is doubt that this recruit is starting to sway - For example when he has coach prestige as Most and I have it A and I pitch it and I get the "shouldn't you be talking about me?" What value does that add? Comical...no

I agree with Jeff on this one. Having just the score for the recruiting would make recruiting even more lifeless than it already is.

I can definitely see where both PSU and Jeff are coming from.

On one hand I would love to see them have something more than just a +50 when it comes to recruiting, as I said earlier I have gotten to the point where I pay very little attention to what a recruit says anymore and focus on the number. Basically I skim what they have to say because let's face it they say pretty much the same thing all the time and they tend to make very little sense. So having something there with some substance would be a very welcome addition, I mean if you actually has to pay attention to it it would make recruiting a whole lot more interesting.

I mean come on Jeff you have to agree with Mors and I on this. Some of the stuff that is on there now makes no sense. Let me give you some examples, I believe most of them have been mentioned already.

Recruit X is ready for a visit, I go ahead and schedule the visit and he says something to the effect,

"I was ready last week, why did you not schedule me then."

Decent comment except for the fact that he was not ready last week and I scheduled him as soon as he became ready. I mean does that make any sense?

Recruit X has coach experience rated as most, I have an A+ rating in it, the second team on his list has an A+ as well, make a pitch for coach experience button and he says...

"I get what your saying coach, it's just not that important to me."

Really it's not that important to you, you only have it rated as the most important thing you are looking for in a school. And there is no sway option, and next week after he said that it's still going to be the most important thing he is looking for, so why in the world would he say that.


Now let's talk about school pitch ratings. I have noticed over four or five years each in two separate online dynasties that I am currently in that these do change but it's strange on how they change. I will use the dynasty that I play as Duke in for an example with two different pitch ratings.

Athletic Facilities -- B- or C+ to start
Program Stability -- C+ to start

So 3/4 of the way through our fourth year I am 44-7 with Duke, I have won 3 conference titles, won the Orange Bowl twice, have a 12-5 record against top 25 teams, and a perfect 10-0 record against rivals. Here is where those pitches currently stand.

Athletic Facilities -- A+
Program Stability -- C+

Now I do not get either of those. I understand that a program after a few seasons of winning would make upgrades to their facilities but they would not go from Dukes current facilities to the best or one of the best in the entire country in three years.

Secondly, my program stability has not changed. Why is that? I have had no one transfer out, I have made no, and broken no promises, my approval rating is all the way full, etc. I mean in real life I would have been given a long contract extension and would be in no hurry to leave the school I am at if I had that type of success. But yet on the game my program is no more stable today than it was when I started.

Do not get me wrong I in no way want the angry/sad/happy football back. And I do believe that recruiting has come a long way in the game, it's no longer easy to get the #1 class in the game as long as you challenge yourself with the recruiting slider. But with that said it still needs a lot of work to make it anywhere perfect. I would start with the feedback the recruits give and the way that your programs pitches changes and how fast, etc.

Just my thoughts.

I completely agree Hawk. In an ideal world I would love to have feedback that I had to actually pay attention to. But if it's going to be pointless gibberish then just give me the +50 as I sim through it also.

Now I know people didn't like the football face from last year but at least you had to pay attention to the mood of the recruit. I can't remember exactly what '09 had, but I know it wasn't a football I think it might have been a face but it was decent with determining the mood.

Just to clarify for you Hawk, the Program Stability pitch has a major tie to your contract length. In an OD, there are no contracts (would be great to have in 12). Therefore, in an OD, your Stability is going to progress MUCH slower than it would offline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

Just to clarify for you Hawk, the Program Stability pitch has a major tie to your contract length. In an OD, there are no contracts (would be great to have in 12). Therefore, in an OD, your Stability is going to progress MUCH slower than it would offline.

---

interesting, with it tied to contracts is it going to move at all in online dynasty since it has nothing to base itself off of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HawkFan

interesting, with it tied to contracts is it going to move at all in online dynasty since it has nothing to base itself off of?

---

I'm thinking that's a no. Pretty much every school after a year of User control drops down to a C+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morsdraconis

I'm thinking that's a no. Pretty much every school after a year of User control drops down to a C+.

---

Wow, I know the game came out over 8 months ago and to find that out now is kind of disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HawkFan

Wow, I know the game came out over 8 months ago and to find that out now is kind of disappointing.

---

Yeah. It's even worse because it's been pretty much proven that Program Stability is one of those things that gets high star rated recruits to like your school more than others.

A really interesting experiment (and one I think I'm going to do now) would be whether or not other teams' ratings change over the course of a few seasons if they are CPU controlled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morsdraconis

Yeah. It's even worse because it's been pretty much proven that Program Stability is one of those things that gets high star rated recruits to like your school more than others.

A really interesting experiment (and one I think I'm going to do now) would be whether or not other teams' ratings change over the course of a few seasons if they are CPU controlled.

---

You know if you want some help with that I would be willing to look as well, is there a way to look at each teams pitches if they are CPU controlled? I mean I guess we could make a certain amount of teams that are user controlled. Write them down and change teams to others. Sim and check them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HawkFan

I mean come on Jeff you have to agree with Mors and I on this.

---

You could have stopped right there, lol. Of course I agree. Ideally, I'd want feedback that's semi-intelligent and makes sense to the context. However, given the choice between laughable grammar and the sad/happy football, I'll take the laughable grammar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HawkFan

Secondly, my program stability has not changed. Why is that?

---

Is that an OD? Then it's because Program Stability is inexplicably tied to our program prestige, and for any school under 6-stars, it's a C+ rating. It's a bug and it's been reported to EA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morsdraconis

I'm thinking that's a no. Pretty much every school after a year of User control drops down to a C+.

---

6-stars go to B, 5-stars and 4-stars go to C+. Can't say for anything lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Now I know people didn't like the football face from last year but at least you had to pay attention to the mood of the recruit. I can't remember exactly what '09 had, but I know it wasn't a football I think it might have been a face but it was decent with determining the mood.

---

It was the same annoying football.

I agree with you that the football was a more strategic way of doing it, and I'd rather go back to that. But with the Russian Roulette system of recruiting, there's no place for a mood indicator. It's not our fault if they keep bringing up Lows and C+ rated pitches.

In the TGT PS3 OD, I am PSU and my Program Stability is a B+. Program Prestige is certainly the other factor (besides contracts).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

In the TGT PS3 OD, I am PSU and my Program Stability is a B+. Program Prestige is certainly the other factor (besides contracts).

---

You know, that's interesting. Our PSU coach in the Powerhouse OD is also B+ and 6-star, while all of the other 6-star programs are B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

You know, that's interesting. Our PSU coach in the Powerhouse OD is also B+ and 6-star, while all of the other 6-star programs are B.

---

We are.....Penn State! ;)

Is this real or just another false alarm? I need some clarification....

here's the link----->http://www.operationsports.com/news/...ures-revealed/

For those who don't feel like clicking the link this is what was said....pretty much Op Sports wrote a blog revealing vague yet new features....

Features

* Feel the hits, experience the thrills and revel in the glory of college football

* Suit up in the college colors of your choice and take the field as an NCAA athlete in the most authentic college football experience to date

* Enhanced in-game presentation brings the excitement of Saturday's game to life with all-new traditions and school-specific crowd celebrations

* Take on your school's most heated rival in intense matchups

* Go for the glory on the road to the National Championship

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCdonnieG

Is this real or just another false alarm? I need some clarification....

---

Probably better to go post that here, McdonnieG. It's kind of out-of-place in the Dynasty Wishlist.

Thanks for the heads up Jeff...

As 2012 winds down in the TGT PS3 OD, I decided to look back at my first recruiting class to see how much weight they've put on with 2 years in the system. I was surprised to see that a handful had gained 9-11 pounds. My FB, a 4* recruit and the #1 FB in his class, is now a RS Fr and weighs in at 257 lbs. He was 235 when I recruited him, a gain of 22 lbs. in 2 years. Wow.

Anyone else have any data on this?

I think this is a dynasty thing. It could also be an overlay thing I suppose.

Anyways, I would REALLY love to see Zone and Man packages in each of the defensive substitution packages during play added. Give more options to get better personnel on the field for the play you're picking.

Would also love to see the ability outside of the game to set up these packages the way you want. So that you can put your specific packages together for quick in game navigation and use, along with the auto subs from last year. Give even MORE power to the "coach" to set up defense the way he wants.

Yes. Custom packages FTW. Would have preferred that over Formation Subs, honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Yes. Custom packages FTW. Would have preferred that over Formation Subs, honestly.

---

I personally wouldn't go that far Jeff but I definitely would like to see custom packages added. Those combined with formation subs and more spots on the depth charts would allow for complete personnel control throughout the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kwizzy

I personally wouldn't go that far Jeff

---

Why not? If I'm allowed to customize "Normal", then it's essentially formation subs. Formation subs is basically 1/10th of what I want, since I can only customize one package that way.

Note, when I say custom packages, I'm talking about customizing, not just adding my own created package. I'd rather edit the existing packages than be able to create new ones (though give me the ability to edit personnel and names and you essentially have both worlds).