Dynasty Mode - NCAA Football 12 Wish List & Feedback

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckfan4

But if a 3:30 start time was local (Pacific) then it would be the equivalent to a 6:30 Eastern time

---

Not so.

First, I'll go ahead and say that I think times are all Eastern. I'm in the Conference Championship Week, and the latest game is the Big 12 championship starting at 8:00 pm. There's no way they'd start a game at 9:00 pm Eastern ... so I think it's reasonable to assume that's 8:00 pm Eastern. (FWIW, I advanced to the bowl season, and the Fiesta Bowl is listed as 8:00 pm. If that was local, it would be 10:00 eastern ... no way the Fiesta starts that late.)

But going back to the local thing ... you're thinking about it a tad too far. A 3:30 pm local start time is just that ... local. There's no converting that to Eastern time ... a 3:30 pm home game for the Oregon Ducks would be 3:30 Pacific. And 3:30 games, depending on what time of year it is, can end with the sun still in the sky.

How about giving the user the ability to schedule times for home games. Give us the choices of 10am, 1pm, 4pm and 7pm. This would make life a lot easier

Quote:

---

But going back to the local thing ... you're thinking about it a tad too far.

---

Agreed. I've out of my mind these past two weeks and I wasn't thinking straight:smh: Sorry about that. I'll try to keep myself from posting bone-headed comments.

Anyways, back to topic: The ability to choose your starting times or the ability to change times before the game like ABC/ESPN did this year to some games would be nice. (Ex. Stanford-Oregon was supposed to be a 7:15 Pacific start time but ABC changed it to 5:00 so they could show it during the primetime window.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckfan4

Agreed. I've out of my mind these past two weeks and I wasn't thinking straight:smh: Sorry about that. I'll try to keep myself from posting bone-headed comments.

---

Haha, don't worry about it. I can see why you went down that direction, mentally.

what about some kind of visual that shows what kind of offense/defense your recruit plays in? recruiting players coming from similar offensive/defensive styles could have them progress more/faster than recruits from other styles.

also, ability to recruit kids for a position other than what they're listed as. since the recruits technically have access to where they stand on our recruiting board, they should also be able to see the depth chart (if they dont already). if being recruited at a different position is one of need, you could get a slight bonus. if you have tons of depth though, he'd might not like switching. staying at his current position wouldnt grant any bonus. recruiting a player as a different position would be a one time offer- meaning you couldnt recruit the kid as a defensive end one week, defensive tackle the next, outside linebacker the third week etc. once you decide on a position to recruit him as, you wouldnt get an opportunity to change his position until the position changes screen in the offseason.

applies to both offline and online dynasty

either eliminate the in-season hard commit or make it so that recruits can de-commit from a school and go to another one. this would bring in a new kind of challenge to recruiting, as you would have to continue to talk to your verbally committed players in order to keep their commitment to your school. this also prevents the 10 player recruiting board strategy that some people use.

a possible way to make decommitments happen would be to establish some kind of average minimum point requirement, once a player has decided to verbally commit. this average minimum is exactly like what the name says. if you're able to stay above this average requirement, obviously the recruit is yours. if you drop below this average point requirement, the recruit decommits from a school and opens his recruiting back up. from this point, if the recruit decommits and opens his recruiting up again, it could take 1000? or 1500? or more points in order for his new commitment to take place, in which case, the average minimum point requirement would have to be fulfilled in order to keep his verbal commitment. these average minimums would be different for every recruit and completely random. there also should be some kind of graphic on the recruit, in order to give the user some kind of idea when the recruit is close to possibly decommitting. (old football face from ncaa 08?) appear on the recruit, ie: solid verbal (very happy face), thinking about wavering (kinda happy face), close to wavering (average face), wants to decommit (angry face).

Well, I can say with confidence that we won't ever see the Sad Happy football return. Otherwise, good idea mvp. I've been trying to think for a while how to get de-committments, and that's a solid way to do it. The problem there would be communicating all of that information to the user, as you said.

Recruiting is enough of a black box. Wouldn't want to add to that.

Recruiting is long enough. I don't want to keep spending time on hard commits. Decommits is a good idea but maybe we can kill two birds with one stone. Each team has 3 goals at the beginning of the year. Get all 3 and nobody leaves. But every goal missed adds to a probability that a hard commit re-opens his recruiting after the bowls. All of the decomits become the "new" recruits in the off-season instead of new kids out of thin air.

I'd still like to see prospects ratings fluctuate a bit over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

Recruiting is long enough. I don't want to keep spending time on hard commits. Decommits is a good idea but maybe we can kill two birds with one stone. Each team has 3 goals at the beginning of the year. Get all 3 and nobody leaves. But every goal missed adds to a probability that a hard commit re-opens his recruiting after the bowls. All of the decomits become the "new" recruits in the off-season instead of new kids out of thin air.

I'd still like to see prospects ratings fluctuate a bit over time.

---

i disagree. recruiting isnt and shouldnt be a process in which someone could have large amounts of success in, while only spending 5-15 minutes of real time on.

maybe, recruits shouldnt be able to hard commit until after the season is over? that would mimick real life, and could keep every recruit open until the offseason starts. then they wouldnt even need to do what i described above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

i disagree.

---

The problem is, as this sequence of posts exemplifies, there is a lot of disagreement about recruiting, even among the hardcore audience. I've seen a lot of posts saying that recruiting is too long ... a lot more this year than year's previous. TGT's Wishlist Tournament had Deeper Recruiting, and it put up a good fight, getting to the Final Four of the 2nd chance tourney.

The problem is, for all of us that want deeper recruiting (personally I'm on the fence about it), there are an equal or larger amount that don't want it to go any deeper than it currently is.

The easiest answer would be for de-committments to be put in the game, but as an option that's set in the House Rules (like Dynasty Accelerators). The bad part about that is that it would be a significant investment to program into the game for an "option".

1. All Nike Pro Combat Jerseys from this year. Plus Adidas TechFit for teams with adidas.
2. coaches on sidelines.
3. more helmets and facemasks and more accessories.
4. Bowl patches on the jerseys. idk why they even took that out.
5. neutral sites when like VT played Boise State

I would love the ability to be able to move conference games up and down the schedule. I realize they probably should stay locked, but I hate not having the ablity to always make "rival X" the last game of the year if I want to.

I too would love the ability to adjust the time of my games. It seems like when I play a Thursday night game it's always at 6:00 PM. What the heck?

what about a bragging rights bonus for beating other schools in a recruit's top 10? if your team wins a big matchup against another school fighting for the same recruit, and you go to negatively recruit against them, you should get some kind of bonus since your team won the head to head battle....this would make negative recruiting more appealing, especially against elite schools and in any team online dynasties, because there's currently no point in trying to bad mouth the top schools. you're better off touting your own school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

what about a bragging rights bonus for beating other schools in a recruit's top 10? if your team wins a big matchup against another school fighting for the same recruit, and you go to negatively recruit against them, you should get some kind of bonus since your team won the head to head battle....this would make negative recruiting more appealing, especially against elite schools and in any team online dynasties, because there's currently no point in trying to bad mouth the top schools. you're better off touting your own school.

---

+1. There should at least be some kind of acknowledgement that the two schools played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

maybe, recruits shouldnt be able to hard commit until after the season is over? that would mimick real life, and could keep every recruit open until the offseason starts.

---

i still think this is something that needs to be added into recruiting, especially after what we saw yesterday.

deanthony thomas, a 5* athlete from los angeles, was committed to the usc trojans for over 6 months, before taking a surprise visit to oregon and then signing with the ducks last night. another example is christian westerman. he was committed to texas for over a year, and then switched his commitment to auburn at the army all american game. i'm sure there are a hundred other stories like these too.

idk, i just dont like the "sign em and forget em" strategy that the game currently uses or how the hard commit is treated as a signed LOI.

The simple answer to that, I think, is have Soft Commits last longer. The only real "hard" commitments in real life are guys like Braxton Miller who get big ass Ohio State tattoos and enroll early. Everybody else, until they sign that LoI, is a Soft Commit.

That said ... I hate Soft Commits in the game and certainly don't want them to last longer. But that's better that decommits, in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

i disagree. recruiting isnt and shouldnt be a process in which someone could have large amounts of success in, while only spending 5-15 minutes of real time on.

maybe, recruits shouldnt be able to hard commit until after the season is over? that would mimick real life, and could keep every recruit open until the offseason starts. then they wouldnt even need to do what i described above.

---

I agree with this ONLY if it becomes a little easier to recruit certain players. For instance, I don't care how much someone wants to go to a big time school, no 4 or 5 star recruit is going to walk on at Auburn when they have offers from Notre Dame, Ohio State and Clemson. Just NOT going to happen.

Also, it is entirely too difficult to snag less talented recruits. If a 3 star prospect is in his top 3 which are 3 MAC teams and Ohio State comes along and offers, Ohio State should IMMEDIATELY jump into the top 3 almost always. In fact, sometimes that recruit should commit to OSU simply on the offer. It just seems that sometimes in '11 it is just as difficult to recruit a mid-level 3 star recruit as it is a top-level recruit.

Finally, in some years there is a SERIOUS problem with the position distribution and the number of 5 stars that attend only a few schools. I have seen years where out of all the 5-star recruits available, 3 teams have 90 percent of them. I just don't think that is realistic. Also, as tough as it can be to recruit punters, last night I saw that one team in my offline dynasty had recruited THREE punters in the same recruiting class! Come on man!

I think decommits could be a good idea but EA MUST balance this with making it a little easier to fill your absolute needs if they do this.

I agree with most of your thoughts except the Ohio State / 3-star example. There are some real life examples of players that willingly chose the lesser-tier school and had a reason to do it.

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.

I'm not saying that Ohio State should always end up signing the player I'm just saying that if Ohio State is, say 8th and the player is in his top 3, if Ohio State offers they should SHOOT up into the top 3. He may still go to Miami (OH) or whatever but it shouldn't be the same up hill battle for Ohio State that it would if the player was a 5 star with offers from every major school in the country.

I agree with you on the pitches too but, again, I think it would have to work the same against the computer school that is recruiting that prospect as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantera1968

I'm not saying that Ohio State should always end up signing the player I'm just saying that if Ohio State is, say 8th and the player is in his top 3

---

In the case where Ohio State is also in his Top 10, I agree. I thought you were talking about those rare prospects (or maybe not as rare as they should be) that have MAC schools but no Big Ten schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantera1968

I agree with you on the pitches too but, again, I think it would have to work the same against the computer school that is recruiting that prospect as well.

---

Oh, absolutely, I think anything should work for/against the CPU just as it does for the user.