Gameplay - NCAA Football 14 Wish List & Feedback

[Jayrah]

I really wish EA would add the position of Slot Receiver and place bigger emphasis on certain attributes like agility and catch in traffic for these players. It would make the entire game a little more dynamic, from recruiting to actual gameplay.

[Rudy]

I really wish EA would add the position of Slot Receiver and place bigger emphasis on certain attributes like agility and catch in traffic for these players. It would make the entire game a little more dynamic, from recruiting to actual gameplay.

Slot WR, 3rd Down Back (been in Madden for awhile), Short yardage back (3rd or 4th down and 1 or inches to go), 3rd Down DL (3rd and long passing situations) that would make many formation subs unnecessary as well.

[JeffHCross]

I really wish EA would add the position of Slot Receiver and place bigger emphasis on certain attributes like agility and catch in traffic for these players. It would make the entire game a little more dynamic, from recruiting to actual gameplay.

Slot WR, 3rd Down Back (been in Madden for awhile), Short yardage back (3rd or 4th down and 1 or inches to go), 3rd Down DL (3rd and long passing situations) that would make many formation subs unnecessary as well.

I can't remember if this was only in Head Coach 09 or also made its way to Madden, but at least one of them had a feature where, for every major position (i.e. WR, DE, DT), you identified what was important to you (e.g. Possession receiver, 3-4 rush end, 3-4 rush OLB), and the game would dynamically change the OVR rating of the players on your team to match those philosophies.

I think Madden must have had it too, because I can remember seeing more than just WR ... I swear I did it for WR #1, WR #2, and Slot Receiver as well. But I may be wrong about that.

[Rudy]

I can't remember if this was only in Head Coach 09 or also made its way to Madden, but at least one of them had a feature where, for every major position (i.e. WR, DE, DT), you identified what was important to you (e.g. Possession receiver, 3-4 rush end, 3-4 rush OLB), and the game would dynamically change the OVR rating of the players on your team to match those philosophies.

I think Madden must have had it too, because I can remember seeing more than just WR ... I swear I did it for WR #1, WR #2, and Slot Receiver as well. But I may be wrong about that.

Madden has that right now in CCM. When I signed Plaxico Burress in my first year his overall jumped a lot if I set the WR1 philosophy to Spectacular catch/red zone. If I set it to speed he would take a hit. It does have #3 WR. My only beef with that is I don't see a player scheme for second TE. Some offenses that is really important - like SF which use a ton. Both times when I did a CCM they dumped Delanie Walker for a 3rd or 4th rounder and left the cupboard bare at that spot.

[TIMB0B]

Better blocking logic

I've been playing the game recently after a long hiatus. I don't know if it's a universal problem when the running the option from under center (I don't think it is), but trying to run the Flexbone specifically is a huge problem. Aside from the QB-Pitchman relationship being out of sync more often than not, there are too many whiffed blocks to the playside. I'm playing on Heisman, so that may be it, but I can run the read/option out of the shotgun without any blocking logic problems.

[JeffHCross]

Concur. While it's not just under center option that has problems, there is inconsistency between Read Option and other styles of offense, specifically in regard to whiffed and missed blocks. Heisman is a factor, but not the sole cause of poor blocking.

[TIMB0B]

Concur. While it's not just under center option that has problems, there is inconsistency between Read Option and other styles of offense, specifically in regard to whiffed and missed blocks. Heisman is a factor, but not the sole cause of poor blocking.

I ran this offense back in high school. The beauty is in how it's blocked. The playside DE and OLB are duped into believing they can stop it.

[JeffHCross]

Same here. Triple and veer. Though we weren't all that good at it.

[Schauwn]

I've only noticed this problem on Heisman. The DE/OLB shoot up field well before there is any time to diagnose whether to pitch or not before being tackled for a loss. Less likely on AA and Varsity.

[TIMB0B]

Same here. Triple and veer. Though we weren't all that good at it.

Our first year of installing the offense we took our lumps with a soph QB and the OL trying to understand the concept of "Base, Backer, Safety" blocking progression. Two years later, that QB and one of our RBs ended up getting full rides to Air Force, while our FB (didn't make the grades) went to JUCO on scholarship as well. Highly productive offense, however the defense couldn't stop anybody.

[Rudy]

Can we get some more advanced DL moves? My goodness EA's football games are basic in this area. 2K5 had more control. When you look at how NBA 2K13 has a dizzying amount of dribble, post and shot moves due to r-sticks, modifiers and things why are we stuck with only two moves on the r-stick which don't even work well? Heck in Madden the best move is to just run into the player, engage and then try to run around him. There is nothing to this area and it is beyond stale. If I choose an outside rush every time you would think the AI would pick up on that and force me inside. There is no strategy or counter moves. A huge area of improvement is necessary here.

[baseballplyrmvp]

Can we get some more advanced DL moves? My goodness EA's football games are basic in this area. 2K5 had more control. When you look at how NBA 2K13 has a dizzying amount of dribble, post and shot moves due to r-sticks, modifiers and things why are we stuck with only two moves on the r-stick which don't even work well? Heck in Madden the best move is to just run into the player, engage and then try to run around him. There is nothing to this area and it is beyond stale. If I choose an outside rush every time you would think the AI would pick up on that and force me inside. There is no strategy or counter moves. A huge area of improvement is necessary here.

X

visually, it'd be nice to see d-linemen pulling moves and seeing them not be effective. i really hope that the infinity engine lives up to its potential, because after watching the alamo bowl game last night and seeing texas d-end alex okafor just completely manhandle the oregon state linemen, it'd be an awesome touch to finally be able to see one linemen's power and quickness pay off by pushing other guys around.

[TIMB0B]

X

visually, it'd be nice to see d-linemen pulling moves and seeing them not be effective. i really hope that the infinity engine lives up to its potential, because after watching the alamo bowl game last night and seeing texas d-end alex okafor just completely manhandle the oregon state linemen, it'd be an awesome touch to finally be able to see one linemen's power and quickness pay off by pushing other guys around.

Okafor is a great example. Which also reminds me of how the bullrush in the game needs to be redone, and this goes with the OL as well. EA could make use of the / buttons which are used for "sprint." They should have it function specifically as a bullrush button on defense and vice versa a run blocking button on offense after engaging with an opponent.

I should add as a ballcarrier, it should help break tackles i.e. leg drive through a defender's grasp.

Ratings should be universal in this sense. Okafor's bullrush, for example, means he'd be a fundamentally solid run blocker on the OL.


UNIVERSAL ATTRIBUTES

MEASURABLES	ATTRIBUTES	BALLCARRYING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	DEFENSE
40 Yard Dash	Speed w/ Acceleration
20 Yard Shuttle	Acceleration
3 Cone Drill	Agility	Dropback, Spin, Juke	Route Running	Blocking Footwork	Strafe, Backpedal, Finesse Move
Vertical	Jumping	Hurdle	Leaping Catch Range		Leaping Swat Range
Broad Jump	Explosiveness	Trucking, Diving	Diving Catch Range	Impact Block	Hit Power, Diving Tackle Range
Bench Press	Upper Body Strength	Stiff Arm	Release	Pass Blocking	Block Shedding, Power Move
Squat	Lower Body Strength	Break Tackle		Run Blocking	Bullrush, Press Cover
60 Yard Shuttle	Stamina
GPA	Discipline (Penalty Propensity)
Aptitude Test	Playbook Knowledge

[JeffHCross]

TIM, there's a reason they went away from universals though. An agile player does not automatically mean solid routes or spin moves, for example.

[TIMB0B]

TIM, there's a reason they went away from universals though. An agile player does not automatically mean solid routes or spin moves, for example.

Yeah, but you'd still have other factors such as awareness, height, and weight that determine effective route running and spin moves where agility is the main component. A guy with good agility can go in and out of route breaks (change of direction skills) more fluidly than someone not as agile; we know that. Agility + lower center of gravity + lower weight = optimum route running and spin move ability. That is not to say a 5'5 160lbs guy by default is a 99 agility. It just means he has that potential because of his size.

An OL/DL is not going to be as agile as a skill position player because of their weight, so their rating will naturally be much lower. However, it doesn't mean they won't have good blocking footwork. A 99 agility to a lineman would be around 70. Anything higher and their weight needs to be much lighter than the average lineman.

My biggest reason for wanting universal attributes is because the majority of all recruits played both ways in high school. Everyone is essentially able to play either side of the ball, and you see it happen in college where prospects were recruited for a specific position (i.e. they were NOT recruited as athletes), but end up moving positions: DL to OL, RB to DB, LB to FB, QB to TE, etc. and vice versa. This is because, fundamentally, they have universal skills.

[JeffHCross]

Okay, are we solely talking recruits here, or are we extending that to all players and positions? The discussion here is unclear on that to me.

The primary problem I have with what you saying is that you said "potential" in one place and "universal skills" in another. The two are not the same. An agile running back is not inherently a top-tier route runner as a wide receiver. Barry Sanders wouldn't have been as adept at running routes as Jerry Rice was. Because while, for example, juke moves and route breaks are both agility-based skills, and they share the same fundamentals, they are still different skills. Skills that take practice, both in practice and at game-speed, to become experts at. There's nothing universal about things that are truly a skill.

I agree with you that a 6-8, 280 lb tight end with blocking skills can transition pretty easily to be a 6-8, 310 lb right tackle. I say this because Reid Fragel did that this year for Ohio State. And I agree that the game, as currently coded, doesn't allow for such a thing to happen. A tight end will not suddenly bulk up and display the blocking skills necessary to be a right tackle. But that type of transition can't happen overnight either.

I do agree that recruits need to be more universal. ATHs should be the norm, not the rarity. But while potential is universal (i.e. a defensive lineman that can explode off the ball would probably be a great run blocker), skills are not 1:1.

Really, the changes you're suggesting would be best if there was some kind of "potential" aspect to a players ratings, not just a rating set in stone. That would mean a player with a high squat (which, in the game, means break tackle, run block or tackling, depending on your position) would have a high potential in those three ratings, but would not guarantee he'll have an 80 in all three coming out of high school.

Make sense?

[TIMB0B]

Okay, are we solely talking recruits here, or are we extending that to all players and positions? The discussion here is unclear on that to me.

The primary problem I have with what you saying is that you said "potential" in one place and "universal skills" in another. The two are not the same. An agile running back is not inherently a top-tier route runner as a wide receiver. Barry Sanders wouldn't have been as adept at running routes as Jerry Rice was. Because while, for example, juke moves and route breaks are both agility-based skills, and they share the same fundamentals, they are still different skills. Skills that take practice, both in practice and at game-speed, to become experts at. There's nothing universal about things that are truly a skill.

I agree with you that a 6-8, 280 lb tight end with blocking skills can transition pretty easily to be a 6-8, 310 lb right tackle. I say this because Reid Fragel did that this year for Ohio State. And I agree that the game, as currently coded, doesn't allow for such a thing to happen. A tight end will not suddenly bulk up and display the blocking skills necessary to be a right tackle. But that type of transition can't happen overnight either.

I do agree that recruits need to be more universal. ATHs should be the norm, not the rarity. But while potential is universal (i.e. a defensive lineman that can explode off the ball would probably be a great run blocker), skills are not 1:1.

Really, the changes you're suggesting would be best if there was some kind of "potential" aspect to a players ratings, not just a rating set in stone. That would mean a player with a high squat (which, in the game, means break tackle, run block or tackling, depending on your position) would have a high potential in those three ratings, but would not guarantee he'll have an 80 in all three coming out of high school.

Make sense?

What you reiterated in the last paragraph is pretty much what I'm saying. Somehow I forgot to include position specific skills in all this. Think of the universal attributes, as charted in the previous post above, as a player's base universal rating with his height and weight included (i.e. his minimum rating no matter what position he played)...THEN when you factor in his position specific skills, the rating fluctuates for each position. His knowledge (experience) from position to position determines his max potential agility rating for each position.

Height + Weight + Agility Rating = Base Universal Agility Rating (3-Cone Drill time)

Base Universal Agility Rating + Position Specific Skills = Max Potential Agility Rating

Position Specific Agility ratings affected are Dropback, Spin, Juke, Route Running (Route Breaks), Blocking Footwork, Strafe, Backpedal, and Finesse Move.

I was initially talking about how height and weight should be factored in agility ratings in the previous post, but forgot to tie-in position specific skills. Although I did conclude with my point, which was that players should be more universal (i.e. able to play multiple positions), it starts with their combine measurables being universal, then position specific skills determine where they end up. And an athlete with great measurables, but not great at position specific skills, would be considered "raw talent." He needs development.

[JeffHCross]

Okay, if we tie this all into "potential" then I whole-heartedly agree. We could both reduce the complexity of recruiting (less ratings to scout and worry about), while increasing the hit/miss strategy (that DT sure looks like a possible OL).

I think there needs to be a "potential" for players (I know it's there, and it's hidden, but there should be a way to see it once the player has signed), and I think there needs to be progression beyond just the position ratings. "Potential" is definitely one way to do it. In particular, I hate how slowly AWR progresses after a position change. It should be much closer to logrithmic growth, where the growth will occur rapidly until it gets closer to some upper bound. Progression should not be a linear function.

On a related note, I think we need to add "secondary" positions, where some of the player's progression will cause those secondary positions to progress. And, more importantly, the player's AWR would take a much, much smaller hit (if any) at that secondary position. This would allow for situations like Ryan Tannehill or Kerry Meier, where a backup QB was playing WR for a significant chunk of his playing career. As it stands now, I believe the hit to switch from WR to QB is significant. And it should be, for an average Joe at WR. But Tannehill, for example, was always in the QB meetings, always taking QB reps in practice, etc, etc. That should be a possibility. Especially with the game putting such a heavy emphasis on ATHs that can play multiple positions ... GREAT! Now show me how I can actually let that ATH play multiple positions. A secondary position (which wouldn't be required for every player, just an option) would help that, IMO.

[TIMB0B]

Okay, if we tie this all into "potential" then I whole-heartedly agree. We could both reduce the complexity of recruiting (less ratings to scout and worry about), while increasing the hit/miss strategy (that DT sure looks like a possible OL).

I think there needs to be a "potential" for players (I know it's there, and it's hidden, but there should be a way to see it once the player has signed), and I think there needs to be progression beyond just the position ratings. "Potential" is definitely one way to do it. In particular, I hate how slowly AWR progresses after a position change. It should be much closer to logrithmic growth, where the growth will occur rapidly until it gets closer to some upper bound. Progression should not be a linear function.

On a related note, I think we need to add "secondary" positions, where some of the player's progression will cause those secondary positions to progress. And, more importantly, the player's AWR would take a much, much smaller hit (if any) at that secondary position. This would allow for situations like Ryan Tannehill or Kerry Meier, where a backup QB was playing WR for a significant chunk of his playing career. As it stands now, I believe the hit to switch from WR to QB is significant. And it should be, for an average Joe at WR. But Tannehill, for example, was always in the QB meetings, always taking QB reps in practice, etc, etc. That should be a possibility. Especially with the game putting such a heavy emphasis on ATHs that can play multiple positions ... GREAT! Now show me how I can actually let that ATH play multiple positions. A secondary position (which wouldn't be required for every player, just an option) would help that, IMO.

Right there with you on everything. Especially like going a step further with the idea of secondary positions.

If you remember my post about my "off-season dynasty" wish that included recruiting and a spring depth chart, the secondary position makes me think the regular season depth chart should be utilized the same way I suggested for the off-season: make a depth chart applicable to practice i.e. set the percentage of reps for each position group during practice totaling 100%.

Example:

QBs
QB 1 = 50% reps
QB 2 = 25% reps
QB 3 = 15% reps
QB 4 = 10% reps

Now say "QB 2" is a WR as his secondary position. You would place him in the "practice depth chart" where you want him, so he can develop at his secondary position as well as at QB. By the way, I think the position groups should be determined by your specific offense i.e. SE, FL, Slot positions, etc. each separately instead of one big group of WR like we currently have.

Example:

Wide Receivers

SE
WR 1 = 30% reps
WR 2 = 25% reps
WR 3 = 25% reps
WR 4 = 25% reps

FL
QB 2 = 30% reps
WR 1 = 25% reps
WR 2 = 25% reps
WR 3 = 20% reps

*Rep percentages are arbitrary.

[JeffHCross]

While I would absolutely love that, I wouldn't mind doing the simplest version and having it be so that a "secondary" position gets 20-30% of your "progression". So a guy that's only a WR gets 100% WR skills, while a WR/QB gets 75% WR, 25% QB. Or something "simple" like that. Your idea is possibly the advanced version, whereas I just want something there to start with.