What do you want to see in NCAA Football 13?

Thats why i think a bar should still fill, and have a max. once a recruit has taken all he can in terms of trips and recruitment and finally reaches that max number. Since isn't always just crap when a team is essentially tied with you for a top recruit and still goes to them everytime. Just have a recruit lock his list of schools with the "committed" status, that way you know you don't have to keep pumping someone who appears to have made up their mind, but at the same time, the winds of change may still shift and he may come knocking at your door since you have better stability (this way there is incentive for you to keep your coordinators.), or playing time (junior declared for the draft).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Wow. I'd never thought about it like that, at all. I'm not totally sold on it (namely because of the complete mess timing that on an OD would be)

The way Head Coach 09 (or, now, Madden 12) did its Free Agency, with the clock and the time limit is similar, but not exactly the same. But something along those lines would be pretty awesome. And a way to add in the unpredictability of some recruit signings, yet also not make it feel "cheap" or "easy mode" for some schools.

---

the way you'd have to do it is by team order with a time limit and the ability to skip the time if you are done. Probably have to go from the lowest ranked/rated (avg) team to the highest.

I'd like to see "committed" recruits still be able to be sway to the point of de-committing from a school. Like after the season you have all these coaches changes now it would be nice to have recruits change their mind and de-commit.

Maybe after a recruit commits to your school you still have to maintain contact with him and it will show a bar with his level of his decision, if you ignore him or have coaching changes at years end this recruits bar goes down and can be swayed by a different team. Now I'd think there would maybe need to be slightly more time available to keep interest at its peak, or a separate time for committed recruits that you'd have to use but this would add lots to recruiting and I think it would be lots of fun too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayrah

the way you'd have to do it is by team order with a time limit and the ability to skip the time if you are done. Probably have to go from the lowest ranked/rated (avg) team to the highest.

---

Well, I was more focused on the problem with organizing that many people, because if you're not all available to do that at the same time, a system like that could get ugly very, very quickly. But I suppose we have the same problem in other areas (Madden OF Fantasy Draft, for example), and they've gotta around it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illwill10

I would like to see a Special Teams section in the Adjustments part of playcalling. It can have Blocking for Punt Returns. Where you can set it to Conserative, it will have special teamers will hurry up and set up for blocks for a better return. Agressive where the special teams will try to disrupt the punter and going for the block. Negatives for the Conseratives, can be that the Punter will have better punts. Negatives for Agressive can be, Not getting good returns.

---

I know you're just throwing out ideas for gameplay changes/improvements... But I think the biggest improvement of all would be the removal of the Adjustments; or
at least the Pass Coverage/Tackling/WR Catching/RB Ability Adjustments.. This makes the online gameplay completely stale.. Players with average carrying ratings
never drop the ball and mediocre tacklers are always ripping the ball away from death grips... Shit is terrible.

If ratings meant something, I would like to see an Aggression Rating be implemented! Not a tendency!!! The Aggression Rating is applied universally and the rest of their Ratings reflect off of it... Kind of like the Swagger
Rating of Madden 2011.. (Stupid to call it Swagger, I hope they bring it back for Madden 13 and introduce it to NCAA 13 as the Aggression Rating)

Ex) A decent Defensive Lineman has an Aggression Rating of 38.
Since his Aggression Rating is so low, he will get pancaked from time to time versus an Offensive Lineman with lets say an Aggression Rating of 60.

There needs to be a way where Ratings cause for more interactive gameplay... We don't need 99 PMV pass rushers putting the best Lineman on their ass because they don't do that in the NCAA or NFL on any given gameday...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilblaze

This makes the online gameplay completely stale.. Players with average carrying ratings
never drop the ball and mediocre tacklers are always ripping the ball away from death grips... Shit is terrible.

---

There definitely needs to be more balance to the system. Each of the last two years I've had certain settings that I just turn on at the beginning of the game and never think about again.

It was fine until this past year when you had to put carry on conservative or you ran a real risk of fumbling it away 5+ times. They need to scratch it entirely when it comes to competitive online play. If they want it offline, fine. If they want it in dynasties, fine. It has no business whatsoever being in the competitive online portion of the game, which is exactly where it's going to get abused.

You really think the tendency for abuse is greater in Random Online over OD? Just because you're more likely to know people in your OD doesn't stop you from taking advantages, especially the ones that aren't obvious.

Then make it up to the commissioner to decide whether or not they want it to be used in their dynasty. If they want it, leave it on...if they don't, turn it off. I can actually see a use for something like that when you're playing an online dynasty with people that you know and are looking for a strategic experience. However, it doesn't belong in ranked matches at all. It's just another thing that is going to have issues and end up getting abused to hell and back.

The game actually not freeze on the recruiting screen if left alone for more than two or three minutes. I was doing something on my laptop while in the middle of recruiting, and yet once again, for the (including the multiple times back in July and August) probably 10th time, the game has frozen solid on me while sitting in the middle of the recruiting screen if I don't touch anything on my controller for more than 3-5 minutes. Thankfully, out of paranoia, I save my game after every 3-5 recruit calls, and every time before I'm about to put my controller down for something, so I don't risk losing any of my work in recruiting because of the game freezing.

i want the quick subs that madden has, where you can insert any player into any role, on the fly, from the playcalling screen. formation subs are nice, but its such a hassle always pausing the game, putting in a different running back into a certain formation etc. it was a stupid decision to not include the quick subs in ncaa12, when it worked perfectly in madden11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

Then make it up to the commissioner to decide whether or not they want it to be used in their dynasty. If they want it, leave it on...if they don't, turn it off. I can actually see a use for something like that when you're playing an online dynasty with people that you know and are looking for a strategic experience. However, it doesn't belong in ranked matches at all. It's just another thing that is going to have issues and end up getting abused to hell and back.

---

For me in coaching philosophies you have the chance to choose aggressive or conservative. I may be wrong here but isn't this just for play calling?

Instead of having all this things we can change during a game, have a bar there that dictates the type of style your team will play with. For example, PSU has traditionally been a bend but don't break defense in some or many years. There bar would be more towards conservative, where a team like Florida State would probably be more towards the aggressive side. I think I would like a slider bar for this and not just one or the other. Give people the chance to tune it to their liking. That would remove the ability to say "OK guys, I want you wrap up this tackle a little better" or "I need you guys to jump this snap here". While I have used these adjustments I do think they could be removed and replaced with this type of slider. Maybe even make that new slider available in the play calling screen, so that on a 3rd and 17 you can play to keep the ball in front of you to force a punt. Or on 4th and 1 you can slide it all the way up and tell you guys to go all out on this big play.

Sure we all want our CPU guys to play this way every down, but we also know that just doesn't happen. CPU AI just doesn't do a great job at recognizing the down and distance and flow of the game at times so this may or may not be a good way to get rid of something that many don't like and yet still give users a chance to decide how aggressive they want their team to play.

I dunno though, just throwing it out there to spark more conversation as well.

Sorry double post :fp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Well, I was more focused on the problem with organizing that many people, because if you're not all available to do that at the same time, a system like that could get ugly very, very quickly. But I suppose we have the same problem in other areas (Madden OF Fantasy Draft, for example), and they've gotta around it.

---

I would think they just go on AP and cpu does their stuff real quick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

Sorry double post :fp:

---

Or they could tie it in with the aggression slider they already have in the coaching tendencies. Have it tie in with how aggressive you want the playcalling. If a teams blitzes 75% of the time on defense, it would be pretty logical to assume the players will also play this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryby6969

Or they could tie it in with the aggression slider they already have in the coaching tendencies. Have it tie in with how aggressive you want the playcalling. If a teams blitzes 75% of the time on defense, it would be pretty logical to assume the players will also play this way.

---

Exactly, just something that makes a little more sense and gets rid of the current gameplanning while still giving users a chance to dictate how they want their team to play and identify their styles.

It would have to be more of a slider though and not just one or the other.

Yeah, in the coaching philosophy area, there is a slider for aggressiveness. I am assuming it means play calling, but they could make it for just how the team plays. I think they would be well served to get rid of some of the ratings that are just placeholders, and add an "aggression" or "risk" category. It would be especially good for QB's as well as the whole defense. For QB's, could help determine if a QB will try to fit the ball into tight spots frequently, or just play it safe.

If EA added something like that, it would have something wrong with it and it would be abused consistently in online play. Just like the aggressive strip under the game plan. If you set that up and your opponent doesn't set his carry to conservative before the first play, he's setting himself up to fumble 3, 4, 5, or even more times. I have a video where I forced 8+ fumbles in a FIRST HALF of a game with aggressive strip on. Stuff like that just doesn't belong in online play. It's bad enough we have to deal with shoddy AI and questionable play design, but when you factor in the things wrong with game plan...it's near unplayable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

For me in coaching philosophies you have the chance to choose aggressive or conservative. I may be wrong here but isn't this just for play calling?

Instead of having all this things we can change during a game, have a bar there that dictates the type of style your team will play with. For example, PSU has traditionally been a bend but don't break defense in some or many years. There bar would be more towards conservative, where a team like Florida State would probably be more towards the aggressive side. I think I would like a slider bar for this and not just one or the other. Give people the chance to tune it to their liking. That would remove the ability to say "OK guys, I want you wrap up this tackle a little better" or "I need you guys to jump this snap here". While I have used these adjustments I do think they could be removed and replaced with this type of slider. Maybe even make that new slider available in the play calling screen, so that on a 3rd and 17 you can play to keep the ball in front of you to force a punt. Or on 4th and 1 you can slide it all the way up and tell you guys to go all out on this big play.

Sure we all want our CPU guys to play this way every down, but we also know that just doesn't happen. CPU AI just doesn't do a great job at recognizing the down and distance and flow of the game at times so this may or may not be a good way to get rid of something that many don't like and yet still give users a chance to decide how aggressive they want their team to play.

I dunno though, just throwing it out there to spark more conversation as well.

---

Yo, Awareness needs to play a factor in this "Slider"... If you tune the Aggressive Slider higher than a players capability. You should get burned using a defense with mediocre players and low awareness. Lets say if you come in with a squad like Rice University to an offline dynasty. If you tune the slider to an Aggressive Approach - Pursuit, Tackling and Hit Power will raise quicker over the seasons. If you tune it Conservatively, Awareness, Play Recognition and Coverage Skills will progress faster. This should give weaker teams a better opportunity at becoming something and offering another form of strategy instead of just solely relying on recruits.. 1 Star Teams don't get 5 Star players, so we need to be able to build them... And quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

If EA added something like that, it would have something wrong with it and it would be abused consistently in online play. Just like the aggressive strip under the game plan. If you set that up and your opponent doesn't set his carry to conservative before the first play, he's setting himself up to fumble 3, 4, 5, or even more times. I have a video where I forced 8+ fumbles in a FIRST HALF of a game with aggressive strip on. Stuff like that just doesn't belong in online play. It's bad enough we have to deal with shoddy AI and questionable play design, but when you factor in the things wrong with game plan...it's near unplayable.

---

In my post, I initially said that an implementation like this would be exclusive to dynasties online or offline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

If EA added something like that, it would have something wrong with it and it would be abused consistently in online play. Just like the aggressive strip under the game plan. If you set that up and your opponent doesn't set his carry to conservative before the first play, he's setting himself up to fumble 3, 4, 5, or even more times. I have a video where I forced 8+ fumbles in a FIRST HALF of a game with aggressive strip on. Stuff like that just doesn't belong in online play. It's bad enough we have to deal with shoddy AI and questionable play design, but when you factor in the things wrong with game plan...it's near unplayable.

---

Just to be clear as well these ideas are based on them working correctly and not going off these ideas not working properly right from the start.

I think this could be done and have good results while eliminating the current game planning feature all together. To me I think this could be done online and offline, the game should play the same offline vs online.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

Just to be clear as well these ideas are based on them working correctly and not going off these ideas not working properly right from the start.

I think this could be done and have good results while eliminating the current game planning feature all together. To me I think this could be done online and offline, the game should play the same offline vs online.

---

If it worked correctly, it would be fine. But so would game plan, home field advantage, custom playbooks, and other various "new" features EA has added over the years that didn't work.

While I understand that IOU I think many have expressed their disappointment with the game planning feature in general and something like this would be a welcomed change that to most would be really fun trying to find the perfect balance for their team/teams. With a slider it really could have different settings for each team you have based on talent levels and some other things mentioned earlier.

As a community member I want to throw around ideas that will make the game even more appealing to me and others. I can't program it to work, but I can send feedback and ideas with the hope it can happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

As a community member I want to throw around ideas that will make the game even more appealing to me and others. I can't program it to work, but I can send feedback and ideas with the hope it can happen.

---

This.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

As a community member I want to throw around ideas that will make the game even more appealing to me and others. I can't program it to work, but I can send feedback and ideas with the hope it can happen.

---

That being said, it's good for us to be a little tempered in our hopes, and not think that the team is a bunch of miracle workers ... but yes, optimism is a good thing.

I'm all for optimism and I used to have it. I had it during the PS2 days when home field advantage could single handily win games for you. I've had it for '08, '09, '10, '11, and '12, and I've been met with nothing but disappointment, so all my optimism has been replaced with reservations. What I truly want for the series is the addictive and well designed game play that was present in '04, '05, and '07 on PS2. To me, one easy step to get back to that level of game play is getting rid of all things pertaining to game plan style features or correct the issues that exist with it...at least when it pertains to online competitive play.

What, exactly, is "online non-competitive" play?

You ALWAYS add the word "competitive" to "online" so you must be suggesting there is "non-competitive" play online as well.

What is it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

Would really like to see better goaline situations. Goaline plays may be the most unrealistic part of this game.

Also please fix or even get rid of the DB jump over the shoulder Interception on deep balls. This happens way too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

I'd like to see "committed" recruits still be able to be sway to the point of de-committing from a school. Like after the season you have all these coaches changes now it would be nice to have recruits change their mind and de-commit.

Maybe after a recruit commits to your school you still have to maintain contact with him and it will show a bar with his level of his decision, if you ignore him or have coaching changes at years end this recruits bar goes down and can be swayed by a different team. Now I'd think there would maybe need to be slightly more time available to keep interest at its peak, or a separate time for committed recruits that you'd have to use but this would add lots to recruiting and I think it would be lots of fun too!

---

Like where you are going with this Snoop(kind of) but I would hate to see it. #1 because I think in real life it's ridiculous that kids verbal early and then change their mind. Maybe I'm old fashioned but it would be nice to have kids value and stand behind their commitments.

The part I like is adding depth to recruiting. It's frustrating when say you are sitting at #1 with a soft commit and on the next advance the kid hard commits to someone else and you are sitting there with your thumb in your ass. Maybe if they gave you one last shot to convince him. Other than signing day you really don't see teams really left in the dark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Also please fix or even get rid of the DB jump over the shoulder Interception on deep balls. This happens way too much.

---

I agree, this happens way more then it should. I would like to see the CPU just swat these balls like they would IRL not make an amazing pick like they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Like where you are going with this Snoop(kind of) but I would hate to see it. #1 because I think in real life it's ridiculous that kids verbal early and then change their mind. Maybe I'm old fashioned but it would be nice to have kids value and stand behind their commitments.

The part I like is adding depth to recruiting. It's frustrating when say you are sitting at #1 with a soft commit and on the next advance the kid hard commits to someone else and you are sitting there with your thumb in your ass. Maybe if they gave you one last shot to convince him. Other than signing day you really don't see teams really left in the dark.

---

I don't really mind them switching their minds up, especially like this year for instance with PSU. Everything else not factored here, but just for the coaching changes at OSU and PSU. New coach at OSU came in and sweet talked a few PSU recruits into coming over there while PSU was in limbo with their new coach yet to be determined. These kids love to be sweet talked and promised the world and adding this into the game would really add depth to something that has been stale for the most part.

Losing recruits like that are frustrating, I mean they were so interested they gave a soft commit to only then commit somewhere else and you have no chance to even talk to them again and your SOL. This again can help with that part of recruiting and add new layers and strategies along with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Would really like to see better goaline situations. Goaline plays may be the most unrealistic part of this game.

---

It's either go all out for the run and get the stop and hope they don't pass or play the pass and hope they don't run. If you guess wrong they score and there is rarely any middle ground. You don't see a big play if you guessed wrong ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

I don't really mind them switching their minds up, especially like this year for instance with PSU. Everything else not factored here, but just for the coaching changes at OSU and PSU. New coach at OSU came in and sweet talked a few PSU recruits into coming over there while PSU was in limbo with their new coach yet to be determined. These kids love to be sweet talked and promised the world and adding this into the game would really add depth to something that has been stale for the most part.

Losing recruits like that are frustrating, I mean they were so interested they gave a soft commit to only then commit somewhere else and you have no chance to even talk to them again and your SOL. This again can help with that part of recruiting and add new layers and strategies along with it.

---

True, but the PSU situation this season was a very very rare occurrence. College football rarely sees a coach go in midseason.

Look at Gunnar Kiel that #1 QB recruit. He committed to Indiana, then decommitted and committed to LSU, then decommitted and committed to ND. There was also some WR that committed to like 4 schools and ended up at UCLA. I read an article about his HS coach going off and saying how ridiculous it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

It's either go all out for the run and get the stop and hope they don't pass or play the pass and hope they don't run. If you guess wrong they score and there is rarely any middle ground. You don't see a big play if you guessed wrong ever.

---

I was more so referring to the lineman interactions. Like in the first seconds of this video. You never see lineman on the ground, it's a lot of the times a jumbled mess with LBs diving in and such.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sJmdIRsgVM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

What, exactly, is "online non-competitive" play?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk

---

No 4-verts and no Code Red Mountain Dew? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Would really like to see better goaline situations. Goaline plays may be the most unrealistic part of this game.

---

Totally Agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

No 4-verts and no Code Red Mountain Dew? :D

---

HAHAHAHA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Like where you are going with this Snoop(kind of) but I would hate to see it. #1 because I think in real life it's ridiculous that kids verbal early and then change their mind. Maybe I'm old fashioned but it would be nice to have kids value and stand behind their commitments.

---

The simple reality is that there should be a lot fewer "hard" commitments in the game, and more (and longer) "soft" commitments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

Losing recruits like that are frustrating, I mean they were so interested they gave a soft commit to only then commit somewhere else and you have no chance to even talk to them again and your SOL. This again can help with that part of recruiting and add new layers and strategies along with it.

---

I think the key is, and this probably works for both you and E, is that it's not like these flips (at least the majority of them) happen in a vacuum. While some coaches (Billema) act like they were blindsided and kids were stolen from them, very rarely is there not some "writing on the wall" that a kid is thinking about leaving.

A situation like Gunner Kiehl's, where he was expected to show up for class and just didn't enroll, should not be replicated in the game. But flips would probably be a good thing ... as long as both parties have a chance and it's not "cheating" or "unstoppable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

I'm all for optimism and I used to have it. I had it during the PS2 days when home field advantage could single handily win games for you. I've had it for '08, '09, '10, '11, and '12, and I've been met with nothing but disappointment, so all my optimism has been replaced with reservations. What I truly want for the series is the addictive and well designed game play that was present in '04, '05, and '07 on PS2. To me, one easy step to get back to that level of game play is getting rid of all things pertaining to game plan style features or correct the issues that exist with it...at least when it pertains to online competitive play.

---

Totally agree. I've lost all faith and optimism in EA producing a football title on the PS3 that will be as fun as the PS2 versions. So much of it is tied to the player movement and physics engine which is very poor imo.

The old concept of design a video game engine and milk it until the next gen comes out is broken. These systems will last far longer than any previous one and EA and other companies need to make substantial changes at the mid point or they risk the game getting very stale. One year game cycles certainly hurt but I'd love to see a new physics based engine. The player movement was better on the PS2 imo. The DL play in 2K4 was better than EA's DL play now. I have very little hope for NCAA 13.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

The simple reality is that there should be a lot fewer "hard" commitments in the game, and more (and longer) "soft" commitments.

I think the key is, and this probably works for both you and E, is that it's not like these flips (at least the majority of them) happen in a vacuum. While some coaches (Billema) act like they were blindsided and kids were stolen from them, very rarely is there not some "writing on the wall" that a kid is thinking about leaving.

A situation like Gunner Kiehl's, where he was expected to show up for class and just didn't enroll, should not be replicated in the game. But flips would probably be a good thing ... as long as both parties have a chance and it's not "cheating" or "unstoppable".

---

I agree Jeff. Most coaches have a good idea. I mean yes there were some on signing day that were "surprises" as I remember seeing FSU super excited one of the guys picked them.