If progression it's heavily influenced by stats, then you'll have a ton of OD players that run up the score against the CPU just to max out progression. It needs to be more dynamic, but letting stat-whores heavily influence that is a recipe for disaster.
If we're going to use stats as an influence, it should be on AWR ONLY. That's where most of Manziel's jump will be.
meh....i think they could use stat based progression, but it should also have a built in factors of needing sustained performance and meeting certain factors to keep increasing. there should be a "progression meter" that only grants progression to various ratings when sustained perfomrance reaches a certain level. any dropping off in performance, and the progression stops, until you are able to reach the magic level again.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
ie: lets say on a game by game basis, progression for a qb can be anywhere from 1-3 points. a +1 jump could be throwing for 200 yards, 2 td's, 0 int's and completing 60% of your passes....these numbers would have to be sustained over, lets say, 2 games. a +2 jump would up those sustained numbers to maybe 350 yards, 4 TD's, 0 ints, and completing 63% of your passes. these numbers would have to be averaged for 3 games. a +3 jump for a qb would be 500 yards passing, 5+ TD's, 0 ints, and completing 67% of your passes for 5 games. however, if any one of the criteria numbers arent met, your progression stops....and you have to get back up to the sustained performance levels in order to start progressing again.
If you're going to base progression from gameplay, make it number of snaps with a cap at a certain percentage. Then, to help stars shine more, give a small bonus (like +1 on a random rating) for each conference player of the week award they get in a season.
I would like an online dynasty feature where a third party dynasty member could participate in player v player games via watch mode. Just log in and watch the game. Maybe it can't be done until the 720 comes out, but someday this would be great. Maybe even an app to download the game on to your phone, or have a sort of "DVR" feature on the online dynasty website.
they should cut the recruiting database by about 500-750 recruits. This would make recruiting against the cpu harder, as more teams are competing for the top recruits, but it'd also help the cpu teams go after those 4 and 5* recruits that never get called during the season. additionally, for the schools losing out on the great recruits, they would be more inclined to go after the remaining 2-3* players, unless they're still in the hunt for some lower 4* players.
the game generates walk-ons anyways for schoos that dont meet their position requirements, so its not like anything new would be done. if anything, its makng the recruiting database more efficient, as you're just getting rid of the players who dont receive a single call over the whole season.
Disagree. The size of the database is not the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
I don't think so. I think the existing problem is that the CPU doesn't re-evaluate their board properly. I did a simulation a few weeks back, and when I got to the end of the season (with full recruiting assistance turned on), I only had something like 10 guys on my board, and they were all signed. For some reason the CPU wasn't re-evaluating at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Now, that is true. If there were less top end players (whether or not there should be is another discussion), more 3* players would have to be in the mix. But that would require more 3* players that actually have ability. Like an AJ Hawk (who came in as a 3* and ended up starting at the end of his freshman year).Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Except, normally, those walk-ons suck. So you're just filling more teams with bad players (since the CPU has horrible cut logic, that might compound the problem).Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
I don't know how the game could possibly replicate this, but one thing a lot of us have commented on over the years is that there's not enough offers going around for the top players. The reason for this is pretty simple ... there are only 35 offers to go around, and you have to be somewhat efficient with them.
Ohio State, for 2014, has already made 119 offers. That's how, in real life, some of the top players can get 50+ offers. Because when there's no limit, you can just throw an offer out there and see what a kid thinks about it. You don't have to spend 1/10th of your recruiting time, every week, trying to convince that 5-star to come join you.
Again, no clue how that could apply or be represented in NCAA. But that number was astounding to me.
with a limited amount of players, you'll start seeing players have higher scholarship totals, and thus be a battle between 5-10 schools for every 5* player, instead of only 1-2 schools. some elite recruits are targetted by up to 5 cpu schools, but overall, with more schools in play for the recruit, the competition to land the recruit goes up as well. there'd be a greater chance that he would sign with another school.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
agreed regarding the cpu is terrible at re-evaluating its board. but again, with a smaller amount of players available, more players are gonna be recruited by cpu teams. i agree that players need to be more ready to play and not suck balls right off of the bat. if the cpu logic was tuned to more quickly dump players once they get down a certain point level behind and remove a recruit altogether who had committed to another school, you'd see an increased effort by the cpu to go after the players remaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
agreed. i thought that sometime last year, you replied to someone who wanted the number of 5* players to be increased, but said something about the numbers being pretty close to accurate. cant remember where those position tables i made went though.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
in order to have more recruits in play, they either need to slow down their recruitment or have the ability to decommit altogether (thus making every player available at all times). slowing down the recruitment seems like an easier choice.
then raise the starting ovr for the walk-ons....not too much, but at least a little. additonally, with a smaller amount of players, cpu teams are gonna be more inclined go after the remaining recruits that they have a realistic shot at signing. the current ratio of incoming to outgoing players is 1:1. this lets the cpu take more chances on going after the stud recruits or recruits that are normally out of their recruiting range. i saw western kentucky land a 4* wr because no other cpu teams were recruiting him. lowering the amount of available recruits makes every recruit that much more valuable, and there will be a greater urgency for cpu teams to go after the top end talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
They are. The overall number of 4* and 5* players is pretty true to real life. That's why I said whether or not we need to reduce the top end is another discussion ;) I do wonder, though, if the positions represented by the 5* players were more accurate (i.e. more defenders, less WRs), would that solve part of the problem? Is the problem with not enough CPU teams targeting top players because there are too many of certain positions? In other words, does having 20 WRs in the Top 40 (I'm just spitballing here) mean that only the Top 15 are going to get targeted, because the other 5 are out of range for teams that need WRs? And the teams that could get them (the top teams) dont' need them because they don't want to oversign.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
Though your reply just popped a thought into my head ... since we only have 70 players per roster, instead of 85, shouldn't the number of players be about 80% of what it would be in real life? Just to compensate for the lower number of players needed?
Not without a heavy dose of change in their recruiting logic. And THAT, I think, is the catalyst for fixing the system. I don't think lowering the number of players, independently, will make the CPU more competitive. As it is now, by and large, even on Heisman, I can beat the CPU 1-on-1 for any recruit. There are only a couple schools in the Powerhouse OD that give me trouble. Without changes to the Pipeline system (makes things too easy IMO) or to the CPU logic (letting go of targets earlier, putting more time on targets they're winning), I don't see that fact changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
See, I think lowering the number of available players would make the CPU LESS likely to take a chance (or more likely to lose if they do). Which doesn't benefit the non-top-tier schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
i'd like to see the ATH position continually get tweaks. it just doesnt feel like there's a whole lot of difference between each player. it seems like there are a ton of WR/DBs, a ton of QB/RB/WR/DB types, and a few DL/OL types. other than that, i havent seen a whole lot of other types like TE/DL/LB, RB/LB/DB, or QB/DB.
i'd also like to see a bigger difference between corners and safeties. i'd like to see the majority of corners be better in man coverage than zone coverage, whereas safeties should be better in zone coverage than man coverage. recruits are too balanced in this area right now.
I'd like to see more pronounced differences, but I don't want to see them make that change across the board. You can end up with very good safeties that are converted corners. That's true to real life, so I'm glad that's possible in the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
I like new features (don't get me wrong) but EA has to get their shit together when it comes to bugs and issues advancing seasons. I've got a 12 team league of very dedicated users and we've had numerous issues with being unable to advance from season to season too many times. The dynasty website needs an overhaul and these bugs of "the dynasty cannot advance at this time, check back later" need to be eliminated.
I agree. Manziel's stats aren't a reflection of his arm strength or accuracy, but his decision making. His ability to scramble doesn't mean his speed gets progressively faster, but that his "awareness" of defenders makes him hard to contain.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Awareness is truly the barometer to how well any player can play, given their basic skills at a position. However, player "tendency" must be factored in. A 99 AWR scrambling QB doesn't mean he's an elite pocket passer too because of high awareness. That sliding scale needs to reflect their tendencies.