NCAA Football 12 Dynasty Info Q&A thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

:easy:

---

too :easy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

too :easy:

---

The O-Line and D-Line must be 2 deep across with black dudes.

:easy:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

The O-Line and D-Line must be 2 deep across with black dudes.

:easy:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

Not going to touch that with a 10-foot pole. :D

---

*insert another black man/big penis joke here*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

*insert another black man/big penis joke here*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

...there was a reason why I chose that phrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by souljahbill

*insert another black man/big penis here*

---

Fixed???

How did the Generic FCS teams look in Dynasty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illwill10

How did the Generic FCS teams look in Dynasty

---

I'm not sure if anyone really had a close eye on that. I simmed dozens of seasons over the past few months, and never thought of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illwill10

How did the Generic FCS teams look in Dynasty

---

Beat 45+ to nothing?

They looked just as bad as ever. I do recall someone saying that Akron had lost to an FCS team in their dynasty sim, but then went on to the conference championship game because they dominated their MAC division. That's the only time I recall the FCS teams getting mentioned anytime during the events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by morsdraconis

Beat 45+ to nothing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

They looked just as bad as ever. I do recall someone saying that Akron had lost to an FCS team in their dynasty sim, but then went on to the conference championship game because they dominated their MAC division. That's the only time I recall the FCS teams getting mentioned anytime during the events.

---

Well, it looks like I wont be scheduling any FCS teams this year. I was hoping that we could at least edit them or swap TB teams with FCS teams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illwill10

Well, it looks like I wont be scheduling any FCS teams this year. I was hoping that we could at least edit them or swap TB teams with FCS teams

---

Agreed! It drives me nuts to see another year of generics... :(

One aspect of Dynasty that I just remember which hasn't been mentioned whatsoever to my knowledge... recruits now train based on what style of player they are. So for example, if you recruit an Offensive Lineman that is listed as a Run Blocker, during offseason training, his Run Blocking attributes will generally improve more than his Pass Blocking attributes. This definitely makes a fair difference when you're recruiting players and determining which guys you decide to go after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

One aspect of Dynasty that I just remember which hasn't been mentioned whatsoever to my knowledge... recruits now train based on what style of player they are. So for example, if you recruit an Offensive Lineman that is listed as a Run Blocker, during offseason training, his Run Blocking attributes will generally improve more than his Pass Blocking attributes. This definitely makes a fair difference when you're recruiting players and determining which guys you decide to go after.

---

Very interesting, this will make position players a lot of fun to sort through. Does this also tie into a recruits top schools? If he's a run blocker and I'm a run heavy team does that hold any more water for me than a team that puts up consistently more passing yards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

Very interesting, this will make position players a lot of fun to sort through. Does this also tie into a recruits top schools? If he's a run blocker and I'm a run heavy team does that hold any more water for me than a team that puts up consistently more passing yards?

---

They've mentioned to us in the past the yes, a recruit does look at how the school performs but that was for NCAA10 or NCAA11 (can't remember which). In my opinion though, it does't make enough of an impression on the recruit... not sure if it changed much if at all for this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

They've mentioned to us in the past the yes, a recruit does look at how the school performs but that was for NCAA10 or NCAA11 (can't remember which). In my opinion though, it does't make enough of an impression on the recruit... not sure if it changed much if at all for this year.

---

I do remember it in past versions, not sure which one. But say I lit it up in passing I would get more WR and QBs interested. I'm hoping with the changes that they made to CPU recruiting more based on style that they made the recruits smarter as well.

Very interesting. Thanks for bringing that up G. Definitely good to see that those player traits actually mean something (since, at least half the time, a RB labeled as a Power RB doesn't have much going for him in the power running categories). Hopefully it's a noticeable difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psuexv

I do remember it in past versions, not sure which one. But say I lit it up in passing I would get more WR and QBs interested. I'm hoping with the changes that they made to CPU recruiting more based on style that they made the recruits smarter as well.

---

that definitely wasn't the case fore NCAA 11. As Texas Tech I routinely had the #1 passing team(I had a 4-year starter gain 19,000 passing yards and around 166 pass TDs) and never could get any top WRs to commit(could really only get 3 star WRs), most never wanted anything to do with me at all. most of my best WRs over the years were ATHs that I converted to WRs(which worked out great though). I was able to attract a few big time scrambling QBs though, which sparked my moved to Miss St/Tulsa playbooks with a read option style offense.

we had another user that brought back the option to Nebraska, lead in rushing pretty much every year, and he could never get any top HBs interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gschwendt

One aspect of Dynasty that I just remember which hasn't been mentioned whatsoever to my knowledge... recruits now train based on what style of player they are. So for example, if you recruit an Offensive Lineman that is listed as a Run Blocker, during offseason training, his Run Blocking attributes will generally improve more than his Pass Blocking attributes. This definitely makes a fair difference when you're recruiting players and determining which guys you decide to go after.

---

I have a couple questions regarding this tweak in progression maybe you can answer them or not, lol.

If we recruit a balanced OL prospect will he progress to the same degree as say a run blocker? In other words if a run blocking G gained +4 in his run blocking skills during the off-season (+4 RBK, +4 RBS, and +4 RBF) would we see a balanced G go up only +2 in all his blocking skills?

How much difference is there in the pass blocking skills when comparing a balanced guy to a run blocking prospect? (Minimum difference is what I am looking for, is a guy labeled a specific type rather than balanced if say he has 1 letter grade difference between pass blocking and run blocking skills)

***edit***
I went an fired up NCAA 11 and looked at my offline Dynasty and viewed the OT prospects, and I think I see what criteria the game uses to label OL a specific tendency. If the generic PBK and RBK grades are the same the prospect is always balanced. If there is a slight difference say C+ to C then a prospect is still balanced unless there is a large difference in RBF RBS vs PBF PBS (usually 1 full grade) then the tendency will reflect the higher grade skills. If the generic PBK and RBK grades are almost a full grade better (C+ to C-) then the higher generic grade will be the tendency even if the other blocking skills are the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolverineJay

I have a couple questions regarding this tweak in progression maybe you can answer them or not, lol.

If we recruit a balanced OL prospect will he progress to the same degree as say a run blocker? In other words if a run blocking G gained +4 in his run blocking skills during the off-season (+4 RBK, +4 RBS, and +4 RBF) would we see a balanced G go up only +2 in all his blocking skills?

How much difference is there in the pass blocking skills when comparing a balanced guy to a run blocking prospect? (Minimum difference is what I am looking for, is a guy labeled a specific type rather than balanced if say he has 1 letter grade difference between pass blocking and run blocking skills)

---

I really don't have a good answer for you... I didn't track much for player progression in the few sims that I ran through. I just remembered it being something they mentioned while we were down there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solidice

that definitely wasn't the case fore NCAA 11. As Texas Tech I routinely had the #1 passing team(I had a 4-year starter gain 19,000 passing yards and around 166 pass TDs) and never could get any top WRs to commit(could really only get 3 star WRs), most never wanted anything to do with me at all. most of my best WRs over the years were ATHs that I converted to WRs(which worked out great though). I was able to attract a few big time scrambling QBs though, which sparked my moved to Miss St/Tulsa playbooks with a read option style offense.

we had another user that brought back the option to Nebraska, lead in rushing pretty much every year, and he could never get any top HBs interested.

---

Hmm. I noticed the opposite on 11. I signed tons of 4* WRs at SDSU. I played 4 years with them, then began simming. When I started simming, my HBs were garbage but I had a good QB and some good WRs. My 3-year starter at QB had over 17k passing (I upped passing to 80% in Coaching Philosophy) and I was getting mobbed by WRs and QBs. I also changed my playbook to Texas Tech's during that period.

I guess this is leading me to believe that I should always adjust my Coaching Philosophy to reflect the way I actually play the game. Typically, Coaching Philosophy is only used for simming, but my experience tells me it affects recruit interest, too.

The progression stuff is something I plan on testing the instant I get the game. I will be breaking it down in minute detail based on several years of simming with several different players. As soon as I find some concrete information, I will be posting it on here for all to know as, like everyone else, I want to know how this stuff works and what I can expect from various recruits.

Obviously, there's a bunch of different things to take into account (coach prestige, coach integrity, prestige of the school, starter/backup, player's hidden potential rating, and player's starting ratings) so I will attempt to minimize the variables as much as possible while doing the tests.

Does anyone happen to remember if you can set the recruits potential rating when creating recruits? If not, does anyone know if there's been any acknowledgement of whether or not the rating is set randomly or if it's a static rating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

Hmm. I noticed the opposite on 11. I signed tons of 4* WRs at SDSU. I played 4 years with them, then began simming. When I started simming, my HBs were garbage but I had a good QB and some good WRs. My 3-year starter at QB had over 17k passing (I upped passing to 80% in Coaching Philosophy) and I was getting mobbed by WRs and QBs. I also changed my playbook to Texas Tech's during that period.

I guess this is leading me to believe that I should always adjust my Coaching Philosophy to reflect the way I actually play the game. Typically, Coaching Philosophy is only used for simming, but my experience tells me it affects recruit interest, too.

---

I always thought it to be that way as well and why I always change it to whatever I plan on using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelerfan

Hmm. I noticed the opposite on 11. I signed tons of 4* WRs at SDSU. I played 4 years with them, then began simming. When I started simming, my HBs were garbage but I had a good QB and some good WRs. My 3-year starter at QB had over 17k passing (I upped passing to 80% in Coaching Philosophy) and I was getting mobbed by WRs and QBs. I also changed my playbook to Texas Tech's during that period.

I guess this is leading me to believe that I should always adjust my Coaching Philosophy to reflect the way I actually play the game. Typically, Coaching Philosophy is only used for simming, but my experience tells me it affects recruit interest, too.

---

I must have been really unlucky with the WRs I guess. I never had any 5* WRs interested. I signed 1 4* WR that ended up good, but bolted his junior year(mostof the WRs were 3 star). I had a scrambling QB win the Heisman 2 years, and 2 separate WRs win the Heisman(1 was a default WR, the other was an ATH turned WR). the only other thing that must have messed with it was that this was in an OD(currently in season 11), but the run heavy users were able to gobble up the top WRs every year, which made me kind of annoyed since they never used them that much. I was completely stacked at MLB though. one season I had 7 MLBs over 80 ovr, on my roster yet there were multiple top MLBs interested. just was confusing to me. you would think that the top MLBs wouldn't want to sit on the bench for 4 years, but I guess they just wanted to add to the stack. :D

Does NCAA 12 have Different Running Styles like in Madden

Are you able to change the simulation quarter length for Dynasty Mode? Unless I play full-length games, it is difficult to win season awards (especially defensive ones) because the CPU's stats based on longer quarters. I was hoping that would be changed this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swampfox574

Are you able to change the simulation quarter length for Dynasty Mode? Unless I play full-length games, it is difficult to win season awards (especially defensive ones) because the CPU's stats based on longer quarters. I was hoping that would be changed this year.

---

Great question, hope we can get a solid answer on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swampfox574

Are you able to change the simulation quarter length for Dynasty Mode? Unless I play full-length games, it is difficult to win season awards (especially defensive ones) because the CPU's stats based on longer quarters. I was hoping that would be changed this year.

---

No, unfortunately not.

Ah well, if you play 7-9 min qtrs depending on how fast you call plays you should still get fairly realistic stats. Maybe not for all positions but most.