(Online) Dynasty, DynastyWire, & StoryBuilder - NCAA Football 13 Wish List & Feedback

[JeffHCross]

Nice stuff, TIM. The hard part I see with your idea of the different levels is A) Effectively communicating that to a non-community (i.e. doesn't read the blogs) user; B) Giving us those options while not putting users that use Freshman/Varsity at a sizable disadvantage. This is assuming that, within an OD, users would be able to choose which method they want to use (rather than it being a set difficulty level across the board). Otherwise, if you can't mix and match options, then I can't see how it's really an "option" -- OD users would be forced to use the more in depth recruiting if their commish wanted to. Since you seem to be taking away recruiting assistance from the CPU (unless I'm simply misreading), then that would be a loss of feature for the guys that don't want to spend the time.

But, like I said, otherwise that's a great idea. Great write-ups too.

Side note: "No-Huddle" should be added to coach philosophy. There needs to be an actual option to toggle whether you're a huddle/no-huddle offensive team. And in the game, if you're a no-huddle team, you shouldn't have to ever hit the no-huddle button, it automatically goes no-huddle. And if you change formations, it should make the applicable adjustments. A WR shouldn't line up at TE. (Substitutions are still allowed. If you notice in a real game, the ref will stand over the ball. That's because if the offense makes a substitution, the defense is allowed to as well, therefore they stop play until the defense makes their substitutions. Other than that, the offense can snap it as quick as possible if they don't make substitutions. I'd like to see an illegal sub penalty.)

Agreed!!!! Though the only way to make this really effective is to bring back the presentation from NCAA 2000 (or PS1-era in general) where your players actually left the huddle and went to the sideline. While they wouldn't be leaving the huddle in this case, there'd have to be some way they were shown leaving the field, otherwise the defensive coach may not know he was able to make changes (again, the problem being how to communicate this effectively to the user).

I really loved the presentation of taking guys off the field, because that added risk/reward to changing formations if you were late in the play clock. If you made a really late change, you may not even break the huddle before the play clock ran out. That was a huge to me.

I also love your idea because I wouldn't have to constantly mash the No Huddle button. There are way too many times that I'm trying to no huddle and it doesn't trigger, for whatever reason. I'd love to see it added to the Gameplan menu as a toggle too -- that would make the two minute offense considerably easier. Keep the button for the "I need to take advantage of this defense!" moments, but make it easier to do sustained No Huddling.

[morsdraconis]

I don't think you'd need to actually do anything like actually making players leave the field and others coming on. You could do something as simple as just have a constant message above the play call screen indicating whether or not subs are allowed and have a fairly big (on the screen) countdown of 5 seconds or so showing when that's applicable based on the offense changing their formation and making subs themselves.

It's VERY doable in a way that makes sense without having to go through the hoops of of cutscene or something showing players coming in and out.

More than that though, I think there should be a logical amount of subs allowed at all times. How many times do you see teams rush subs out there at the last possible second trying to get a sub in before the team hikes the ball again? I've seen it done numerous times in college and pro football and not only when the offense makes changes as well.

[JeffHCross]

I don't think you'd need to actually do anything like actually making players leave the field and others coming on.

Oh, I know. I'd just love any excuse for that to come back. It was awesome, to me.

It's VERY doable in a way that makes sense without having to go through the hoops of of cutscene or something showing players coming in and out.

It wasn't a cutscene. They'd just leave the field while you were changing formations (i.e. if you changed personnel), and if you called your play before they'd gotten back the huddle, you'd be able to see them come back. No jarring cutscene or anything like that involved.

More than that though, I think there should be a logical amount of subs allowed at all times.

Agreed. When the offense is running no huddle, the defense should be able to take the risk of subs.

[morsdraconis]

Nice stuff, TIM. The hard part I see with your idea of the different levels is A) Effectively communicating that to a non-community (i.e. doesn't read the blogs) user; B) Giving us those options while not putting users that use Freshman/Varsity at a sizable disadvantage. This is assuming that, within an OD, users would be able to choose which method they want to use (rather than it being a set difficulty level across the board). Otherwise, if you can't mix and match options, then I can't see how it's really an "option" -- OD users would be forced to use the more in depth recruiting if their commish wanted to. Since you seem to be taking away recruiting assistance from the CPU (unless I'm simply misreading), then that would be a loss of feature for the guys that don't want to spend the time.

But, Jeff, I'd venture to guess, 99 times out of 100, the casual users don't change their difficulties levels any anyway. They play on the default levels that the game comes on and that's it. Anyone that changes anything along those lines is going to be someone that actually pays attention to what the game adds and subtracts by changing those difficulties.

Again, playing to the lowest common denominator is not how you make a football game that's great and while you said in another thread that by not doing so, they wouldn't be able to stay afloat, I think that's incorrect. You make a game that diehard football fans can get into because of how incredibly well done the more intricate parts of it are, and you'll bring back those people that haven't played NCAA since the PS2 days.

[JeffHCross]

But, Jeff, I'd venture to guess, 99 times out of 100, the casual users don't change their difficulties levels any anyway.

True. Which means that the default will be All-American, since that's the existing system. Which may look weird to someone playing on Varsity. I agree that most casual users don't change their difficulty levels, but since it's presented rather obviously on the main Dynasty screen, you can't avoid having to effectively communicate it. There are plenty of hardcore users that aren't community members and/or don't read the blogs. Plenty. Effective communication is not catering the lowest common denominator. You think gamers in general don't mess around with difficulty settings without absolutely knowing what they do? Bull. We see "difficulty" and we turn it down or up, almost naturally.

Catering the casual fan is not how you make a great game, I agree. But the sports genre has unique hurdles to overcome. Diehard football fans are going to be overwhelmed by the current game. There are ways to fix that while not dumbing it down so much that people like you are turned off by the game. It's not a 0 or 1 choice. And, besides, effective communication is not dumbing it down.

His four levels were so drastically different, that you'd have to effectively communicate it, even for people like us that read every word of the blog. Otherwise there are going to be tons of ODs out there that can't figure out why they'd suddenly lost In-Season Recruiting.

I'm not saying don't do it -- I'm just saying that how it will be communicated has to be considered. Programming something is only half (or not even) of the problem.

[TIMB0B]

His four levels were so drastically different, that you'd have to effectively communicate it, even for people like us that read every word of the blog. Otherwise there are going to be tons of ODs out there that can't figure out why they'd suddenly lost In-Season Recruiting.

What's funny is these different levels are simply the different recruiting levels the game started out with after Bill Walsh 95 and has evolved into over the years.

I didn't mean to make it sound like I'd do away with CPU assistance. All I'm trying to get across is the added recruitment periods during the off-season. How you recruit doesn't change. What I proposed is merely taking the current off-season, and adding features to enhance the dynasty.

[JeffHCross]

What's funny is these different levels are simply the different recruiting levels the game started out with after Bill Walsh 95 and has evolved into over the years.

Yeah, I know After putting NCAA 2000 in a couple times in the last few weeks, I'm reminded of how the series has changed. It's interesting to look back.

I didn't mean to make it sound like I'd do away with CPU assistance. ... How you recruit doesn't change.

Yeah, I misread your "Freshman" level. Forgot how it used to be way back when (though, actually, I don't think I played the game back then, which would explain the lack of recognition).

[TIMB0B]

Yeah, I know After putting NCAA 2000 in a couple times in the last few weeks, I'm reminded of how the series has changed. It's interesting to look back.

Yeah, I misread your "Freshman" level. Forgot how it used to be way back when (though, actually, I don't think I played the game back then, which would explain the lack of recognition).

Oh, yeah, when Bill Walsh came out on Sega Genesis (showing my age ) I was ecstatic. It was the first college football game that I recall. I had no idea what depths they could/would take this franchise.

[TIMB0B]

True. Which means that the default will be All-American, since that's the existing system.

I just want to be clear here, and make sure we're on the same page. I'm not suggesting the different depths of recruiting coincide with the different A.I. difficulty on the field or the Recruiting difficulty. Think of when you start a new dynasty, and the options you have before it loads: A.I. Difficulty, Quarter Length, Recruiting Difficulty, Injuries on/off, Rosters, etc.

I'm suggesting they add one more option: Recruiting Depth [1) CPU only, 2) 5-week post-season, 3) In-season + 5-week post-season, and 4) In-season + 5-week post-season + off-season]

[JeffHCross]

Oh, yeah, when Bill Walsh came out on Sega Genesis (showing my age ) I was ecstatic. It was the first college football game that I recall. I had no idea what depths they could/would take this franchise.

I don't recall which was first, but on the Genesis I first owned Sega's College Football's National Championship. I remember seeing Bill Walsh at Blockbuster, but never got it. It wasn't until my Playstation, IIRC, that I played EA's series. Though my first games in every other sport were EA

I'm suggesting they add one more option: Recruiting Depth [1) CPU only, 2) 5-week post-season, 3) In-season + 5-week post-season, and 4) In-season + 5-week post-season + off-season]

Ah. No, that was not clear (at least to me!). If you want, I'd suggest going back to your first post and removing the Freshman/Varsity/etc denotations. I'm probably not the only one that didn't see the difference. Just call 'em A), B), C) or something.

[TIMB0B]

Ah. No, that was not clear (at least to me!). If you want, I'd suggest going back to your first post and removing the Freshman/Varsity/etc denotations. I'm probably not the only one that didn't see the difference. Just call 'em A), B), C) or something.

Will do.

What about the "gameplan adjustments" post. Any clarity needed there?

[baseballplyrmvp]

I'm suggesting they add one more option: Recruiting Depth [1) CPU only, 2) 5-week post-season, 3) In-season + 5-week post-season, and 4) In-season + 5-week post-season + off-season]

i dont think those stages should ever be an option to turn off. i think the current model is done pretty well; there just needs to be a little more depth to it.

[steelerfan]

Nice work, TIMBOB.

I like your ideas and certainly agree that the current gameplanning is not done well/not realistic. The added depth to recruiting, along with the variable levels of depth would be a great addition too, imo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[TIMB0B]

Nice work, TIMBOB.

I like your ideas and certainly agree that the current gameplanning is not done well/not realistic. The added depth to recruiting, along with the variable levels of depth would be a great addition too, imo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

Thanks. I think incorporating coach philosophy as the gameplan would make the game a lot more strategic with less redundancy game-to-game. And adding year-round recruiting would really bring authenticity to the dynasty.

[TIMB0B]

i dont think those stages should ever be an option to turn off. i think the current model is done pretty well; there just needs to be a little more depth to it.

I personally wouldn't care if there were different modes with less recruiting, but it's good to have the options for the casual gamer.

[psusnoop]

First, almost all of the adjustments currently aren't applicable to a gameplan. These adjustments (Big Run, Hold Block, Jump Snap, Strip Ball, Swat/INT, etc.) should strictly fall under a player's specific attributes such as awareness, skill, and discipline (a Discipline attribute should be created regarding a player's penalty propensity - based on their GPA); but there are some of these adjustments that do pertain to coaching philosophy: Zone depth, Option defense (more on this in a moment).

The existing gameplan adjustments don't have to be scrapped in a sense, but merely embedded into the player's attributes giving them more unique identities of whether they're a playmaker or simply a role player - actually bringing the player tendencies to fruition. For example, why should a run stopping tendency DL-man have the same Jump Snap advantage as a pass rushing tendency DL-man? And what does jumping a snap have to do with a gameplan? Coaches ideally would like their DL-men to get off the ball quickly all the time.

Completely agree here and it has been debated at length here on the boards as well. Most have wanted to get rid of the gameplanning all together and have this tied into the attributes instead (which is really really should be). Like you said you should have to tell your DL to jump the snap it should be based of his awareness and acceleration among other things.

Also very nice breakdown of the recruiting. Nice write ups all together and welcome to the site as well.

[psusnoop]

I personally wouldn't care if there were different modes with less recruiting, but it's good to have the options for the casual gamer.

Yeah I think the casual gamer would appreciate the differing modes with less recruiting thus giving them more time to play the actual games while the hardcore guys like us would like the more in-depth modes to satisfy us.

[psuexv]

Couple of things on the gameplan adjustments. I definitely think some of these should be built into a players attributes and I would like to think that they are. I don't think that setting jump the snap to aggressive means that every DL gets off the snap at the same time, I think it has to do with their ACC and AWR, but I could be wrong. I also think you definitely still need these adjustments.

I remember a couple of years ago a game between the Cardinals and the Bears. Cards were winning big and the Bears defense took over late causing a ridiculous amount of fumbles and the Bears pulled out the game. You could actually see the Bears defense wrapping up runners and then someone else going for the strip. Not something they really doing early in the game. To me this would be the same as setting the Strip to aggressive. Or how many times late in games you will see a team that is losing to start going for the strip or a RB wrapping up the ball more if his team is winning or a defensive secondary that is winning is going to play off of the WRs and not take aggressive chances on going for a pick. These are adjustments that are made mid-game.

For example, why should a run stopping tendency DL-man have the same Jump Snap advantage as a pass rushing tendency DL-man? And what does jumping a snap have to do with a gameplan? Coaches ideally would like their DL-men to get off the ball quickly all the time.

Yes all coaches want their DL to get off of the ball quickly, but say you have DL who is trying to get off quickly and constantly getting himself out of position. A coach is going to pull him aside and "coach" him on the sidelines to probably be a little more conservative to not get pulled out of the play. Same goes for someone who is missing tackles a lot, a WR that dropping a bunch of balls, a RB that is fumbling. He'll get told about it on the sideline and his gameplay will definitely change.

The main issue to me is the adjustments are basically for your whole team. Some are obviously for different positional groups but you actually need individual and groups to make it work. I don't think simply adding it to attributes is the key for individuals, as I should be able to "coach" them on the sideline. Then you also have a group adjustment for those instances when you want your whole team aggressive/conservative, etc. The other issue is that these adjustments at times are overpowering and I think that's what most people have problems with. The whole if you set strip to aggressive and tackling to aggressive you always get a strip or whatever it is. If they are toned down and actually done right they would add a lot to the game.

[JeffHCross]

i dont think those stages should ever be an option to turn off. i think the current model is done pretty well; there just needs to be a little more depth to it.

Why not? It goes to the "let people run their dynasty how they want" opinion. It also acknowledges that while many of us here want more in-depth recruiting, others don't.

[TIMB0B]

Yes all coaches want their DL to get off of the ball quickly, but say you have DL who is trying to get off quickly and constantly getting himself out of position. A coach is going to pull him aside and "coach" him on the sidelines to probably be a little more conservative to not get pulled out of the play. Same goes for someone who is missing tackles a lot, a WR that dropping a bunch of balls, a RB that is fumbling. He'll get told about it on the sideline and his gameplay will definitely change.

Those examples are simply coaching a player up after they make mistakes, not a gameplan. This is why I brought up the creation of a discipline attribute. Penalties are a discipline issue i.e. holding blocks, clipping, jumping snap, late hits, etc. Awareness would play a factor in the case of a player going for the INT/swatting it away, or a receiver continuing deep or coming back to the QB after he completes the route and a RB protecting the football upon contact (to prevent fumbles). Again, ideally coaches would love for their players to always go for the pick. You wouldn't gameplan to just swat every pass away and never attempt an INT. It's an instinctual decision on the player given the situation. Turnovers are an integral part of the game, and every coach welcomes them 99% of the time (that 1% when they don't is during 4th down or a hail mary when a swat is more beneficial).

You make a valid point with the Bears/Cards game. I can see the validation for the strip ball adjustment staying in the game, but the reward currently outweighs the risk. However, there are some players out there that go for the strip even when their team is blowing out the opponent. It's their play style.

I think there's a difference between an actual "gameplan" and play style. A gameplan focuses on the Xs and Os strategy going into the game. Play style is instinctual. Now, I could see the in-game "adjustments" not being removed, but they need to be just that: adjustments. Tempo and Strip Ball would be applicable, but also these...

- Making a defensive adjustment to double cover the star receiver. Two DBs go man-to-man, or a safety rolls his coverage to that receiver's side.

- Or on offense, making an adjustment to double-team block the star pass rusher. Two OL double-team, or a TE or HB stay home to help the OT.

This also makes me think of additional or reworked audibles offensively and defensively. I'll post ideas on those later.