TCY - Uh, how hard is TCY anyway?

[QuikSand]

It's been quite some time since I busted out TCY for a run-through, but in my latest career I'm just getting creamed.

I'm playing as Akron, a MAC team starting out at the bottom of the heap in terms of both prestige and academics. I really don't want to get too bogged down in the details, so I am doing the recruiting in a fairly programmatic way, and am letting my staff do most of the work with the team itself.

After four seasons, I remain a 2-3 win team, and am still firml in the bottom 25 of the overall rankings. My academics have improved a lot, but we still can't beat anyone. I'm actually pretty pleased with most of my recruiting classes, even-- my team looks pretty decent on paper, but we just stink year after year.

Without going through and managing players' time myself (I hate it) and handling all these facets in detail -- should I expect to be doing better than this? Or are you only able to succeed in this game by tending to the tiny details yourself? ::shakes head::

[cthomer5000]

I'm on record as saying I think TCY is easily the most difficult of the FOF series. It takes time, and a lot of detail to turn a team around.

get a great QB, it changes everything.

[QuikSand]

Well, I have always found that excellent QBs aren't too tough to grab in TCY (I think there are too many) so that was my top initial priority. Four years later, I sent off a top-grade guy (hopefully a top pro prospect) who was among the nationwide career leaders in passing categories, but whose career W/L record was something like 10-34.

In addition to my stated problems, I'd add that Akron has something going to it -- their annual locked-in non-conference game is against a Sol-8 team, which should help things out. My annual game against Morgan State should help make my schedule easier - but my team still cannot win. *sigh*

[Buzzbee]

Couple of suggestions:

Schedule your two flexible games as home games if possible. TCY tends to make things a little easier on the home team. Might give you an extra win or two a year, IF you can find someone weak enough to travel to your place and not demand a "home and home" series.

Change your offensive formation to more of a passing attack. TCY also seems to favor passing over rushing (take a look at Univ. Calif. - Los Angeles as an example, they are always pass happy and put points on the board). This is especially true if you have been able to recruit a good QB, as you say you have.

Side note: The latest TCY patch (well, prior to the one made with the releas of FOF2k4) introduced a new screen for setting the time management for players. You can set it by position group and is significantly less painful than the previous method (going player by player or not at all). A little time here might help your players develop better, with not as much distaste.

[Vikings13]

I've been playing TCY a lot lately, and I know it's a pain to set the time management when you first start, but I really don't think you can win in the long run without adjusting the time management... It can be tedious, but once you get that first time over with, it goes much more quickly...

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Vikings13
I've been playing TCY a lot lately, and I know it's a pain to set the time management when you first start, but I really don't think you can win in the long run without adjusting the time management... It can be tedious, but once you get that first time over with, it goes much more quickly...

And the problem of time adjustment was certainly blown out of proportion. I refused to let my staff handle it. Then I would set the time for my freshmen, and only tinker with it in future years if necessary (for academic reasons). That way I only had to set the time for my freshman each season. 16 players annually versus 80.

Also, I firmly believe in using the coaching blocks heavily on 2-4 players each year, while leaving about 20% of your total time blocks for academic bail-outs. If you focus on the guys who can become stars, you can ensure they are solid contribuers as sophomores, and outright studs by their junior seasons. You have to give players with huge upside playing time as well (after red-shirting them).

[Dutch]

I set my time (with the new window in v1.2) once at the beginning of my career, then with basically no regard for talent, recruit based on smarts (1200 or better on tests) and just go for it. Once I see I can start pulling down top 100 players, I grab them (provided they are 1000 or better test score guys). And can go through season without being to tedious.

Mississippi State
2003 - 6-6
2004 - 2-9
2005 - 3-8
2006 - 3-8
2007 - 3-8
2008 - 3-8
2009 - 4-7
2010 - 7-4
2011 - 6-5
2012 - 8-4
2013 - 3-8
2014 - 9-3
2015 - 8-4
2016 - 9-4
2017 - 10-3 (#23 in nation)

moving on up in the SEC...unfortunately this is a pre-FOF5 exported draft class...

[primelord]

Originally posted by Dutch
2012 - 8-4
2013 - 3-8
2014 - 9-3

What the hell happened in 2013? :)

[rjolley]

I'm currently in 2009 of my Sol8 career based in Kansas, I've found it hard to win more than 6 games, even though I am get good scores for recruiting and appear to have very good talent at QB, RB, WR, and on defense.

I just switched to a single back set from a pro formation to take advantage of the talent I have at WR, but I just cannot get over the hump and win consistently. We will upset the #40 team on the road, then lose to the #100 team at home.

I think if we can just get to 7-4 or 8-3, we'll start winning consistenly, but getting there has been tough.

I've also noticed there are a lot of job offers every season. Is that normal for everyone else, or am I just a hot commodity?

[QuikSand]

Well, Dutch, my on-field results are awfully similar to yours so far -- but I have recruited for talent, and then filled in with super-high smarts guys after that. I have prety decent talent on my team in 2008, but can't get them to do much together. New QB this season, though - maybe he can do better.

I feel like I am doing everything that makes sense though - slating weak opponents at home whenever I can, playing a fairly air-intensive offense, and other things mentioned here. So far, it's getting me 2-9 seasons and a tender rear end.

[alterra]

Some of my tips:

- Recruit by strength, ie dbs with high int. ratings, de with high pass rush ratings, and avoid qbs with high int. ratings.

- Redshirt everybody.

- Bribe!

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by QuikSand
It's been quite some time since I busted out TCY for a run-through, but in my latest career I'm just getting creamed.

I'm playing as Akron, a MAC team starting out at the bottom of the heap in terms of both prestige and academics. I really don't want to get too bogged down in the details, so I am doing the recruiting in a fairly programmatic way, and am letting my staff do most of the work with the team itself.

After four seasons, I remain a 2-3 win team, and am still firml in the bottom 25 of the overall rankings. My academics have improved a lot, but we still can't beat anyone. I'm actually pretty pleased with most of my recruiting classes, even-- my team looks pretty decent on paper, but we just stink year after year.

Without going through and managing players' time myself (I hate it) and handling all these facets in detail -- should I expect to be doing better than this? Or are you only able to succeed in this game by tending to the tiny details yourself? ::shakes head::

When I chose to play Univ of New Mexico at the hardest level a few months ago, my results (and approach to playing) were identical (2-3 wins, rock bottom rankings). I concluded that 1) choosing a low ranked team initially in a tough conference makes it challenging to move up, 2) it has little to do with lack of attention to details, 3) low prestige kills when recruiting (maybe able to grab 1 or 2 rated above 70 but not enough to build a team around), 4) with such normal roster turnovers, little chance of improving if can't get better recruits and 5) for me, probably the solution would be to drop down a difficulty level if I chose to play with a low prestige team. But I think the next time I play, I will start with a much higher prestige team to make the primary part of the game (recruiting) fun and less frustrating.

[Godzilla Blitz]

The two times I have played long careers it has taken between 5-6 years before the team starts winning, and another 5 before they really start creaming opponents.

I've found it takes about four-five years to build academics up to a level where you can get good recruits, then another five years before those good recruits start winning enough to bring in the really good recruits.

Altogether about ten years.

[Buccaneer]

That was the problem, GB. My academic ratings were in the top 5 in the country. It didn't matter at all since prestige was in the bottom 10-20. With the patch changes, prestige becomes much more valuable.

[Vikings13]

I'm with Godzilla Blitz on his assessment... I usually find that within a decade I'm starting to look really good, then after that 10-year mark I lose interest as the team seems to run on autopilot without much input needed from me...

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
When I chose to play Univ of New Mexico at the hardest level a few months ago, my results (and approach to playing) were identical (2-3 wins, rock bottom rankings). I concluded that 1) choosing a low ranked team initially in a tough conference makes it challenging to move up, 2) it has little to do with lack of attention to details, 3) low prestige kills when recruiting (maybe able to grab 1 or 2 rated above 70 but not enough to build a team around), 4) with such normal roster turnovers, little chance of improving if can't get better recruits and 5) for me, probably the solution would be to drop down a difficulty level if I chose to play with a low prestige team. But I think the next time I play, I will start with a much higher prestige team to make the primary part of the game (recruiting) fun and less frustrating.

Bucc,

you paint a picture of doom with taking a low-prestige team. I took over Rutgers (complete with terrible prestige), and won the national title in 10 (roughly) years. If you want I can check my save game at home and see what my prestige rating was at the end of season one.

I think bad team in a good conference is a better situation than "bad team in a bad conference." At least when the wins start coming in a good conference, voters/recruits take note. With a bad conference, even eventual domination of the conference doesn't do much to impress voters.

I'm certain that bad academics/bad prestige would be a nearly impossible task. Or at least a 15+ year turnaround project.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Vikings13
I'm with Godzilla Blitz on his assessment... I usually find that within a decade I'm starting to look really good, then after that 10-year mark I lose interest as the team seems to run on autopilot without much input needed from me...

Good point. Nothing has ever killed my enthusiasm for a dynasty as much as winning the national title in my Rutgers career. It went from untouchable goal to reality much sooner than I expected. Still, it was the most gratifying video game moment I've ever had. Overall, TCY is significantly more challenging than FOF. I'd imagine it's a pretty accurate reflection of how much harder it is to turn around a college football program than it is an NFL team.

*thinks to self*
I really need to get back to that dynasty, I was still in the midst of trying to repeat when I just kinda dropped it....

[Dutch]

What the hell happened in 2013?

ha! I don't write anything down during recruiting and sometimes I go 2 or 3 years in a row when I neglect certain positions, notably safeties and corners (because they are at the bottom of the list). Well, I did that and in 2013 I realized I had walkons playing in starting spots!

I have prety decent talent on my team in 2008, but can't get them to do much together. New QB this season, though - maybe he can do better.

Also remember that if you can keep your offensive and defensive coordinators on the team for a long time, they will be more effective and I try not to change my offensive set.....I stick with the Pro Formation.

Let us know how that QB works out!

[alterra]

One thing I've noticed with the latest patch is you really need to pay attention to your depth charts. The ai logic is much more tilted towards potential.

[QuikSand]

I think my latest theory is right in line with the last post above, by alterra (which I didn't even see until I just fished up this thread).

In the latest patch, the scout recommends players on a mix of current and potential skills. Most of us would agree this is better -- it avoids seeing the 15/90 rated guy sit on the bend for four years behind the 25/35 guy. (The perfect balance, if any, aside -- it's hard to dispute that some recognition of potential is needed)

If this carries over to the computer-run teams (which I suspect is true) then they are all implicitly managing rosters better than before, and are getting more out of their high-pootential players than before. That has to improve the overall level of competition in the game -- there by increasing the difficulty.

For those who have not played since the past patch - you might be in for some degree of surprise. My guess is that the game got a notch or two tougher since the last update.

In the FWIW column...

[MizzouRah]

Originally posted by alterra
One thing I've noticed with the latest patch is you really need to pay attention to your depth charts. The ai logic is much more tilted towards potential.


I've noticed this as well.


Todd

[OldGiants]

ditto me on the AI choosing potential over current. I've had to make a few switches to current to keep Nebraska in the hunt for two straght national titles.

I've found this game is quite hard, but winnable, when you start out with a low prestige team. Like CTHomer5000, I've taken Rutgers to the title in a short time span. Also Chattanooga from the Sol8.

It's a much easier game starting out with high prestige and a great inital roster. When I do this (Penn St and my current Nebraska career) multiple unbeaten seasons open up the game. I"m 27-0 at Nebraska, with the the #3 and #1 recruiting classes to keep things going. Only the lousy showing of the rest of the Big 12 kept me out of the title game the second season, with a pitiful strength of schedlule. did the same thing happened to Fla St, though, and we met them again in a rematch of the 2003 title game. Can you imagine a real setting where the two teams from the prior year go unbeaten again and don't come back to the BCS game? Oh well.

I'm doing this largely to provide a draft file for FOF, so I'm not all that concerened.

[kingnebwsu]

My TCY interest is rekindled, so I bumped this thread ;)

I'm playing as a SCE team (Wright State) in the year 2046. I went through a stretch where I won a bunch of championships (7 in 15 years through the 20's/30's), but I haven't won one in the last 11. I've averaged over 10 wins in that span, including 9 top-10 finishes, but zero titles. Surprisingly, I haven't gone undefeated in any of those seasons (and gotten screwed by the BCS). That's imminent hopefully :)

To say TCY was tough to me at first is a big understatement. It took 14 seasons to get my first undefeated season (which was a huge fluke, as I never won more than 7 before then). I finished #2 in 2014. I then won my first championship in 2020. Since then it's been a fantastic ride with my alma mater. I want it to culminate in another championship then a job offer from Ohio State, but that hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it will soon.

On the plus side, I will be getting my first new stadium ever! HUZZAH!!! :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by cthomer5000 Also, I firmly believe in using the coaching blocks heavily on 2-4 players each year, while leaving about 20% of your total time blocks for academic bail-outs. If you focus on the guys who can become stars, you can ensure they are solid contribuers as sophomores, and outright studs by their junior seasons.

Maybe I'm misreading something here or maybe I've been doing something wrong for an awful lot of TCY seasons but I'm gonna ask -- does this mean that you're seeing impact on player development from the allocation of coaching blocks?

To date, all I've ever noticed this impacting was academics & player happiness/attitude, I've never associated coaching blocks with player development at all. Mistake on my part?

Also, from another post somewhere in the thread, the comment about the difficulty of turning around a low prestige/low academic program is almost tempting enough to cause me to consider a new TCY career.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
I'm on record as saying I think TCY is easily the most difficult of the FOF series. It takes time, and a lot of detail to turn a team around.

get a great QB, it changes everything.

Having played a bit of FOF2K4 now I think I disagree with this statement. I am really finiding 2K4 to be a much more challenging game, at least on the Wall Street setting. Used to be you could easily get great coaches any time you wanted and you could be reasonable certain a high draft pick could be an impact player. Now trading for draft picks is stupid and your best bet on coaches is to retain a good one when you get him. It's dang hard to find good coaches now. And I still can't figure out how, even with a HC who is excellent at discipline, to keep my team from being one of the two highest penalized every year and lose at least one or two game every year because of it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Maybe I'm misreading something here or maybe I've been doing something wrong for an awful lot of TCY seasons but I'm gonna ask -- does this mean that you're seeing impact on player development from the allocation of coaching blocks?Well, sort of. The direct result is on academics, but the indirect result is on development. For example, if I have a guy with 15/90 ratings as a freshman, and 60 int, 60 asp, I'll give him 3 or 4 coaching blocks in every 4-week period, and bump his study hall time down around 10%. The net result is that he gets high weight room and film study times, thereby accelerating his development.

When coaching blocks are used reactively (given to guys struggling academically), rather than proactively (given to guys who I want to develop), they have no real impact on development.

I try to work it so that I have 3 or 4 blocks per 4-week period to use reactively though, to keep my dumbest jocks eligible. ;)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Maybe I'm misreading something here or maybe I've been doing something wrong for an awful lot of TCY seasons but I'm gonna ask -- does this mean that you're seeing impact on player development from the allocation of coaching blocks?

To date, all I've ever noticed this impacting was academics & player happiness/attitude, I've never associated coaching blocks with player development at all. Mistake on my part?

Also, from another post somewhere in the thread, the comment about the difficulty of turning around a low prestige/low academic program is almost tempting enough to cause me to consider a new TCY career.

Jon--

I think that he means that you can cut down on the study time for the high potential guys and jack up their weight room and film time. You then use the coaching blocks on them to keep them from failing.

[albionmoonlight]

The True Dark Jedi can read my mind even as I am typing my post. His powers truly are not of this world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Thanks to both of you, I wasn't thinking of it in that way now, nor in the past, so it's good to know.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
The True Dark Jedi can read my mind even as I am typing my post. His powers truly are not of this world. :D