Dynasty Mode - NCAA Football 12 Wish List & Feedback

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

"Plenty" isn't the word I would use. I'd go for "some". Charles Woodson, Chris Gamble, and Champ Bailey are really the only ones beside Owen Marecic to do it a a high level.

---

That's superstar players on both sides of the ball that you hear about. There are PLENTY of guys that do it though. WSU had 2 guys play both sides just last year. Their starting TE is now starting DE, and one of their backup WRs played a ton of nickel back cb sets. I believe Arizona has/had a d-lineman/olb that played both sides just last year.

Also don't forget that several players play multiple positions on one side of the ball, which you can do with form subs, but you lose the effectiveness because ratings are screwy when you put a player out of position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayrah

Their starting TE is now starting DE

---

I think you're overstating things here ...

Quote:

---

Andrei Lintz is No. 1 at tight end after Skylar Stormo moved from No. 1 tight end to backup defensive end behind Travis Long.

---

Stormo had 3 career receptions going into this year, according to ESPN. And that's a Position Change -- totally different from being a true Ironman or Two-Way player.

You're right about WR / nickel though, and that does happen (usually when a team lacks depth, though). Troy Brown did that with the Patriots a few years ago. Again, though, it's a far cry from someone like Bronko Nagurski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayrah

Also don't forget that several players play multiple positions on one side of the ball, which you can do with form subs, but you lose the effectiveness because ratings are screwy when you put a player out of position.

---

Now this I agree with. Position Changes (and just moving guys on the depth chart) are out of whack. AWR doesn't recover nearly as fast as it should in NCAA 11. That would certainly help with the Ironman issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

I think you're overstating things here ...
Stormo had 3 career receptions going into this year, according to ESPN. And that's a Position Change -- totally different from being a true Ironman or Two-Way player.

You're right about WR / nickel though, and that does happen (usually when a team lacks depth, though). Troy Brown did that with the Patriots a few years ago. Again, though, it's a far cry from someone like Bronko Nagurski.

Now this I agree with. Position Changes (and just moving guys on the depth chart) are out of whack. AWR doesn't recover nearly as fast as it should in NCAA 11. That would certainly help with the Ironman issue.

---

Im not talking about true ironmen", just 2-way players...

i'd like to see more "one sided" mid tier players in recruiting. examples like a corner who excels at zone coverage, but sucks at man coverage. linebackers that can hit, but cant cover to save their lives. big arm qb's who cant hit the broad side of the barn or deadly accurate qb's who have noodle arms. players are too balanced, imo.

I'm not so sure about that, MVP. I was just looking through some of the recruits that like my school in the Powerhouse OD, and I see plenty of QBs that can't hit the broad side of the bar, DBs that can't do man coverage, and Linebackers that can't cover.

I have had 4 of my last 6 CB's that are great at zone coverage and terrible at man coverage (93-99 for zone) and a range of (82-88 for man coverage).

I also have had two QB's that were 99 throw power and 86 throw accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psusnoop

I have had 4 of my last 6 CB's that are great at zone coverage and terrible at man coverage (93-99 for zone) and a range of (82-88 for man coverage).

I also have had two QB's that were 99 throw power and 86 throw accuracy.

---

82-88 is terrible? thats pretty damn good, imo, especially for starters at >4* schools.

i'm thinking more in terms of 1-3* players here. like cb's with C+ zone coverage and d- man coverage ratings; lb's with b+ hit power but d tackling; qb's with b+ throw power but d accuracy, d-ends with b+ finesse moves but d- power moves, etc.... i want to see more variety in players and think it could be a way of getting the game to feel like not every player is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

82-88 is terrible?

---

Yeah, don't listen to him. He's at a six star school :)

I have seen a couple guys with B or higher THP (that'd be in the 85+ range, I believe) and C- THA (lower than 73, I believe).

I was giving what they were as SR's with redshirts. I should have made that clearer from the start. Those CB's were mid 80's and low 70's as FR, and never saw a big jump till their RS SO year where they got to be competitive for me.

Actually my recently graduated QB was as a FR a 94 throw power and 72 throw accuracy. As a SR he got to be a 99-88.

the cpu needs to do a better job of managing its recruiting board; specifically removing players from the board with whom they have no shot at signing. i simmed an entire season with lsu, games and recruiting, and took a look at the recruiting board at the end of the season. while lsu was able to sign in about 13 recruits during the season, there were a significant amount of players on the board that lsu had no shot at signing during the offseason. its spending time on guys who, even though have lsu listed as their #2, 3, 4, or 5 team, are 1000 points or more behind the recruits favorite school.

it needs to learn when to cut ties with a recruit, remove them from the board, and move on to the next guy. additionally, the cpu needs to remove players from their recruiting board who have hard committed to other schools. thirdly, the cpu needs to be able to identify when it has fulfilled position needs (there's no need to spend time recruiting additional mlb's when 3 have already committed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

the cpu needs to do a better job of managing its recruiting board;

---

Hear, hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

its spending time on guys who, even though have lsu listed as their #2, 3, 4, or 5 team, are 1000 points or more behind the recruits favorite school.

---

Actually, while the players are on LSU's board, it's unlikely they're spending much, if any, time on them. The CPU often devotes a high amount of time to their Top 10 or so, and no time to those beyond, even though they remain on the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

additionally, the cpu needs to remove players from their recruiting board who have hard committed to other schools.

---

They already do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

thirdly, the cpu needs to be able to identify when it has fulfilled position needs.

---

Well, maybe not just "needs", per se, but there's certainly no reason to go overboard. Minimums shouldn't be enough, but I get what you mean and completely agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Actually, while the players are on LSU's board, it's unlikely they're spending much, if any, time on them. The CPU often devotes a high amount of time to their Top 10 or so, and no time to those beyond, even though they remain on the board.

---

then whats the point of having those players, who rank lsu 1000 points behind their favorite school, on the board for 6 or more weeks if the cpu isnt gonna talk to them once? just cut ties with that player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

They already do?

---

i bet the cpu added them (since cpu recruiting board assistance was set to on), and then the recruit committed to the other team. nvm on this point. lol
Well, maybe not just "needs", per se, but there's certainly no reason to go overboard. Minimums shouldn't be enough, but I get what you mean and completely agree.[/QUOTE]well i mean, one of lsu's recruiting needs was a punter. at the end of the regular season, one punter had already committed, and there were 3 other punters on the board, 2 of which were listed in the top 5 of the recruiting board.
another example, has lsu needing 1 mlb. after i manually took over for the recruiting for the offseason, i removed all the players i didnt have a shot at, cutting the board down to 16 players (13 of which were already committed, 3 of those commits were mlb's) from 35. i forgot to turn the cpu recruiting board assistance off. week 2's recruiting board had 3 more mlb's on it (had they all committed to lsu, there would have been 6 mlb commits). the cpu had already taken care of its need at mlb; why did it try to add 3 more? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

then whats the point of having those players, who rank lsu 1000 points behind their favorite school, on the board for 6 or more weeks if the cpu isnt gonna talk to them once? just cut ties with that player.

---

I don't disagree that they should cut ties. But it is worth noting that they aren't wasting time either. It's really the same question I'd have for the human players (and I know they exist) that have a 35 member board even though they only call 15 or less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

i bet the cpu added them (since cpu recruiting board assistance was set to on), and then the recruit committed to the other team.

---

Yeah, the thing to keep in mind is that the CPU board processing takes place as the week advances but before recruit results are in. So recruits that commit to another team won't get removed until after the week advances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

well i mean, one of lsu's recruiting needs was a punter. at the end of the regular season, one punter had already committed, and there were 3 other punters on the board, 2 of which were listed in the top 5 of the recruiting board.

---

Right. But you wouldn't necessarily want a team that's losing 3 LBs, but only "needs" 1 to be content with recruiting only 1, y'know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp

the cpu had already taken care of its need at mlb; why did it try to add 3 more? lol

---

Don't disagree with this either. No idea what would trigger that.