NCAA Football 13 Dynasty Mode Recruiting Discussion Thread

[JeffHCross]

It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

[baseballplyrmvp]

But in the game there is no difference between a T and a C. Their OVR is calculated differently, but you can jump between the three easily in Position Changes. ATH recruits that could play all three used to be much more common, and really should be again. But the easier move would be to just reduce it to a single OL pool.

if you combined the 3 positions, how would you go about giving an OL recruit a position when he signs? how would you know which position to give him? or would the game randomly assign that recruit to one of the 5 OL spots? or is this a case, as to where we would get the ability to recruit a player for a specific position? the light bulb isnt clicking on, cuz i'm not understanding why you want the o-line combined into a single group.

[souljahbill]

For o-line (and any other position with L/R distinctions), I want 3 groups like during recruiting: T, G, and C. Once you get them, they turn into LG/RG, LT/RT, etc. They should just stay as G, for example, so it would be easier to set depth charts.

[JeffHCross]

if you combined the 3 positions, how would you go about giving an OL recruit a position when he signs?

Position Changes? The game could have a set position for him already (much like the game identifies whether a recruit is a LG or RG, instead of just "G"), just not shown on the recruit screen.

how would you know which position to give him?

How do you know now? Besides AWR factoring in, there's no realistic difference between a C and a T. There are some players that are better fit to play T or G, but they might be recruited (in the game) as a C.

the light bulb isnt clicking on, cuz i'm not understanding why you want the o-line combined into a single group.

Hey, it wasn't my idea I just pointed out that real life and the game are different in this regard, and gave a reason to support G's suggestion that you could make the argument for OL. There's a reason there are Tackle and Center recruits in real life. In the game they're practically the same.


Your point, from what I can tell, was that Rivals and other sites don't differentiate between FS and SS. I would guess that's because there's little separation between a guy that plays FS and a guy that plays SS at the high school level. They probably do a decent amount of both Centerfield and Run Support. But in the game there's a clear separation of skills between a FS and SS. The FSes are, generally, better at Zone Coverage and have superior speed/agility ratings. The SSes are generally better at tackling and run support factors. So there's a reason to keep them separate as far as the game is concerned.

Rivals/Scout/247 aren't the best lead to follow, after all. 247 has separate rankings for Pro-style QB and Dual-style QB. No reason to emulate that, obviously. They also have WDE and SDE (Weak Defensive End and Strong Defensive End). I wouldn't like to see DE split into two either.

Anyway, to end a long bit of rambling, if the central question is "if they're combined, how would I separate them", then I could ask the same question for a combined Safety list. If it's left to the user to decide which fits best where, wouldn't that, again, be the same for a combined OL?

[baseballplyrmvp]

For o-line (and any other position with L/R distinctions), I want 3 groups like during recruiting: T, G, and C. Once you get them, they turn into LG/RG, LT/RT, etc. They should just stay as G, for example, so it would be easier to set depth charts.

so then which side of the line does the #1 guard on the depth chart line up at?

[baseballplyrmvp]

Anyway, to end a long bit of rambling, if the central question is "if they're combined, how would I separate them", then I could ask the same question for a combined Safety list. If it's left to the user to decide which fits best where, wouldn't that, again, be the same for a combined OL?

i didnt know the reasoning behind the idea, so sorry for any confusion if it came across as "me thinking the idea was stupid." it wasnt, i just didnt understand why they thought it should be changed.

as far as the question in this quote, ya, i guess it would be the same for the o-line. i would think that some of the blocking/footwork ratings for each position would need to be more/less important for every position (run/pass block footwork for tackles, run/pass block strength for guards and centers, awareness way more important for centers than guards/tackles).

maybe i'm just looking at it the wrong way, idk.

[souljahbill]

so then which side of the line does the #1 guard on the depth chart line up at?

Wherever I choose to put him.

[baseballplyrmvp]

Wherever I choose to put him.

i think i'm catching on.... but just to be clear, would you have an addition position on your team for unassigned o-linemen (like what the athletes position is) at the position changes screen?

[souljahbill]

No, that's not necessary. Continuing to use Gs as an example, when doing position changes/depth chart, ALL the Gs on the roster are shown as opposed to LGs only showing on the LG screen and RGs only showing on the RG screen.

[baseballplyrmvp]

guards and tackles can play the other side of the line without penalty, so correct me if i'm wrong, but all you're essentially doing is removing the letter of which side they play as? if thats the case, then i dont see the point of doing it. it doesnt seem like a step forward; more of a sidestep, imo. also seems like it'd screw up the cpu as well.

[souljahbill]

guards and tackles can play the other side of the line without penalty, so correct me if i'm wrong, but all you're essentially doing is removing the letter of which side they play as? if thats the case, then i dont see the point of doing it. it doesnt seem like a step forward; more of a sidestep, imo. also seems like it'd screw up the cpu as well.

Isn't that the same as not having FS and SS but just S? As far as I can tell, we both just want to pool our players so that it'd be easier to compare and make personnel decisions.

[prime9]

It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

I have had this happen to me countless times. In my online dynasty, I will be recruiting against a school with D- or D Coach Prestige (in comparison to my A+) and it will preview as a +180 points or whatever, but when I make the choice it gives me 0 points.

Curious as to if it's too big to write out, or if it doesn't go thru for some unknown reason.

[prime9]

Isn't that the same as not having FS and SS but just S? As far as I can tell, we both just want to pool our players so that it'd be easier to compare and make personnel decisions.

It isn't the same as moving a FS to SS or vice versa because the is a decrease in awareness with those position switches.

[souljahbill]

It isn't the same as moving a FS to SS or vice versa because the is a decrease in awareness with those position switches.

Yeah, that was always in the back of my mind as this discussion went on as typically, I think of SSs smaller, faster LBs while I consider FSs to be bigger stronger CBs. I wouldn't necessarily pool those positions together but I would Ts, Gs, DEs, and OLBs.

[JeffHCross]

i didnt know the reasoning behind the idea, so sorry for any confusion if it came across as "me thinking the idea was stupid." it wasnt, i just didnt understand why they thought it should be changed.

It was your idea to combine positions in the first place

[baseballplyrmvp]

only safeties. i didnt understand the reasoning for combining all of the o-line positions into one for recruiting purposes, to begin with.

combining o-line doesnt really make any changes though, as o-linemen are all basically interchangeable right now....unless they made some changes to what's important for each o-linemen. as of now, changing a T to a G, only drops him like 2 OVR points.

but combining safeties would create a hybrid safety model. he'd be slower than your typical free safety but faster than a strong safety, little worse in coverage than a FS but better than a SS, a better tackler than a FS but not as good as a SS, etc. obviously some safeties would be better suited as a FS and some as a SS, and some could play both. i think with a hybrid model, you'd see more variation between your elite recruits and the average recruits.

[JeffHCross]

only drops him like 2 OVR points.

Because of the AWR drop that comes from moving him from the position he was supposed to play to a position he's better suited for.

but combining safeties would create a hybrid safety model.

Only if they went out of their way to create safety prospects that could be either one. You didn't suggest that (that I saw) previously -- only to combine the list.

There should be a lot more prospects that blur the lines -- but that's what ATH is for. There are definitely ATHs that fit both FS and SS. That's where you'll find the hybrids.

[baseballplyrmvp]

Because of the AWR drop that comes from moving him from the position he was supposed to play to a position he's better suited for.

thats why i'm not in favor of combining the o-line. they could do it right now because there isnt a difference between the different o-line positions, however, once ea starts making major changes to how the OVR's are calculated between the different o-line spots, they'd have to change it right back to how it is now.

Only if they went out of their way to create safety prospects that could be either one. You didn't suggest that (that I saw) previously -- only to combine the list.

There should be a lot more prospects that blur the lines -- but that's what ATH is for. There are definitely ATHs that fit both FS and SS. That's where you'll find the hybrids.

they already have the hybrid safety model. and when i said combine the list, i assumed people would pick up on dropping the "free" and "strong" safety labels, and creating one safety classification, as could be seen on the rivals/scout/espn websites. when the recruits are randomly generated, there are naturally gonna be some who are better suited to play free safety, some who are better for strong safety, and some who can play either. its part of the deviation of the curve that they have to make sure that not all of the recruits are the same. this doesnt involve the athlete position group, as thats largely for recruits who can play offense and defense.

[baseballplyrmvp]

It was apparently not discussed previously in this thread, but thought I'd post this here anyway ...

I know some people have complained about the "Compare Schools" option showing (0 - 0), such as on a Most with an A+/D comparison. I've seen that a handful of times, and only once, that I can think of, did I actually receive 0 points on the comparison. Come to think of it, it might have been the one time I did recruiting from the Web that I got 0 points.

Anyway, the past two weeks I've had a guy that has Playing Style for Most. I'm A+, the #2 school is D, I believe. The pitch has shown (0 - 0). This week I got +188/-189. I think it shows 0-0 when the range is too big for the variable to count (I'm guessing).

just ran into this bug again, in this site's 360 od. i'm playing as ASU, and was recruiting against iowa for a WR.

i used the playing style pitch as i was rated an A+ in it and the recruit had above average interest in it. iowa, on the other hand, was rated a D- in it. comparing the pitch showed (0-0), but i tried it anyway, and it returned a 0-0 interest gained/lost result.

[JeffHCross]

Were you recruiting from the web or on the console? I've only seen it once, and I do almost all of my recruiting on the console.