Gathering some feedback for a college football game

[GoldenCrest Games]

I'm starting to plan out a college football game for a future project, The Iverson Project, and I need some input.

What I know so far:

• The game will be similar in style to Desktop Dynasties. 8 and/or 9 man football, in a tabletop style.
• Heavy emphasis on the practice field. (get it? the "Iverson" project? ) Player development, playbook development, and school development will be a big deal.
• More play types and player roles. (the option, jet sweeps, read option, dummy routes)
• Multiple divisions/leagues to mirror how the NCAA does it.
• Some form of player scout management. Scouting will be a game of managing tradeoffs.
• Some form of recruiting management

What I don't know, and need some feedback on:

• What is fun, and what do you find tedious, about recruiting?
• Would you be upset if I had zero scouting uncertainty? (all scouting is 100% accurate, it just might not be complete)
• What about off-field issues? Should that be included? Would that just take away from the fun?
• Should academics be included as something to manage?
• What other features absolutely need to be in a college game?

It's been a while since I was obsessed with college games, so I want to make sure I haven't forgotten anything obvious or critical.

Thanks!

[jct32]

I'll go for some of these there.

What is fun, and what do you find tedious, about recruiting?

There are a couple of things for me that make recruiting fun. The first is trying to find players that fit your system. Sure going after 5 star recruits is fun but sometimes you can't get them and so then you have to focus your search on people who can make an impact for you. Yeah I can't get a 5 star QB but I throw a lot of short passes and here is one who is really good at that with a 3 star rating but he can't move in the pocket to save his life.

Another thing I really enjoy is trying to recruit people from local towns to where I grew up or have lived. It's nice to recruit someone from Oklahoma City as opposed to just Oklahoma. Bonus points if high schools are involved. If I can recruit between Jenks and Union (the two best programs in the state) that would be awesome but I understand that is a tough challenge to do all the schools.

College Hoops 2k8 had one of the best features that has been unmatched on all other recruiting. That was having players besides those who can come next year. The ability to scout juniors, sophomores, and freshmen was amazing. I know that will create a large database but being able to recruit someone who was a freshman and they develop into a great player by senior year but they remember you recruited them since the beginning would be awesome. Same as the heartbreak if you put in the time and then they become a 5 star senior year and they leave you for a bigger school.

Would you be upset if I had zero scouting uncertainty? (all scouting is 100% accurate, it just might not be complete)

I think so. I think one one of the best parts of the old NCAA games were the gems and busts. Getting a 2 star guy to come in as a similar rating as 5 star guy was awesome. I think a way you could implement this with 100% scouting accuracy is to have periodic reevaluations of players. Kind of like having scouting combines or camps where the players are evaluated.

What about off-field issues? Should that be included? Would that just take away from the fun?

It depends on how it is implemented. I think player illness could be something that crops up almost like an injury. Breaking team rules could be interesting but I think anything outside of "normal" college stuff such as anything criminal would be too excessive.

Should academics be included as something to manage?

I think it could be interesting. I think adding in what a players major could add to immersion with tying it to skills. Do you recruit the QB who is doing an engineering degree who will have higher mental stats or do you recruit one who is in an arts degree with better physical stats. Could be something to expand with several different routes that way. Same with managing time. Some degrees could require more time than others but there were offsets for it.

What other features absolutely need to be in a college game?

Rivalries for sure. It doesn't matter if you are 0-8, that game against your rival should mean something. It should have rankings (obviously), different conferences with conference championships, awards including all-american/all-conference for more than one string.

Hope this helps. After playing Desktop Dynasties I am really interested in the prospect of this game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: 100% scouting -- I'm fine with the scouting being the same being seen by the AI, i.e. it's all accurate to projected ability. But I think the opportunity for boom/bust has to be there once they arrive.

re: academic management -- I'd think academics has to be an element, not sure that it has to be being something I need to personally manage however (i.e. let it occur off-screen, without my involvement) though.

re: off-field. While I don't know that I'd want it to be overly detailed, I think to feel "right" it probably has to be an element somehow/someway.

[GoldenCrest Games]

I like the idea of booms/busts, as long as there's no way for you, the AI, or another owner in your game to gain an unfair advantage. (I'm thinking of things like a hidden potential rating that someone/AI uncovers, a secret formula of ratings that predicts a boom/bust, etc...)

What if the boom/bust was random at camp? Basically if there was no way to scout it, and most players progressed as expected. However, there were those rare players that boom/busted and you had no way of predicting who it would be.

[GoldenCrest Games]

There are a couple of things for me that make recruiting fun. The first is trying to find players that fit your system. Sure going after 5 star recruits is fun but sometimes you can't get them and so then you have to focus your search on people who can make an impact for you. Yeah I can't get a 5 star QB but I throw a lot of short passes and here is one who is really good at that with a 3 star rating but he can't move in the pocket to save his life.

This is one major thing I'm changing in the college game. I'm going away from positional ratings completely, and moving to a skill based rating system. I think for a college game, it's more fun to try and fit skills into roles.

As an example, I don't have a "LB" rating anymore. To find a starting LB, you need to take speed, strength, tackling, blitzing, man defense, and zone defense into account. I imagine you'll choose differently depending on the system you run, which should be fun and challenging.

I have high hopes for this one.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by GoldenCrest Games

[*]What is fun, and what do you find tedious, about recruiting?

Fun: Being able to see at a quick glance who I'm competing with and relevant information.

Tedious: Having to click a lot to get stuff done or go through reams of information.

FBCB is still my favorite sim as far as it handles recruiting.

[*]Would you be upset if I had zero scouting uncertainty? (all scouting is 100% accurate, it just might not be complete)

I'd rather have complete scouting with accuracy tied to coach scouting ratings (some combination of head coach and relevant assistants). To me, that's much more realistic than 100% accurate, but incomplete.

[*]What about off-field issues? Should that be included? Would that just take away from the fun?

It should be a very small part of the game and limited in scope. I'd only get in-depth on this if you were going for an RP style sim, which is a completely different approach.

[*]Should academics be included as something to manage?

Yes, but again, a small, limited part. DDS:CB and FBCB both handle this beautifully.

[quote][*]What other features absolutely need to be in a college game?
/QUOTE]

It should feel like a college game - so a wide variety of offenses, nice presentation for bowl games and the CF playoff, etc.

I think the positionless idea is brilliant and goes a long way towards that.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by GoldenCrest Games

I'm starting to plan out a college football game for a future project, The Iverson Project, and I need some input.

What I know so far:

• The game will be similar in style to Desktop Dynasties. 8 and/or 9 man football, in a tabletop style.
• Heavy emphasis on the practice field. (get it? the "Iverson" project? ) Player development, playbook development, and school development will be a big deal.
• More play types and player roles. (the option, jet sweeps, read option, dummy routes)
• Multiple divisions/leagues to mirror how the NCAA does it.
• Some form of player scout management. Scouting will be a game of managing tradeoffs.
• Some form of recruiting management

What I don't know, and need some feedback on:

• What is fun, and what do you find tedious, about recruiting?
• Would you be upset if I had zero scouting uncertainty? (all scouting is 100% accurate, it just might not be complete)
• What about off-field issues? Should that be included? Would that just take away from the fun?
• Should academics be included as something to manage?
• What other features absolutely need to be in a college game?

It's been a while since I was obsessed with college games, so I want to make sure I haven't forgotten anything obvious or critical.

Thanks!

Are there technical reasons you're choosing an 8 or 9-man game? For me, I just have an immediate aversion to a simulation that doesn't include the full set of players on each team.

[GoldenCrest Games]

Are there technical reasons you're choosing an 8 or 9-man game? For me, I just have an immediate aversion to a simulation that doesn't include the full set of players on each team.

It started off as a technical reason. Way back when I started the first game, I went 8-man simply to reduce the real-time AI load in the game engine.

I like the 8-man format now because small personnel changes make a significant difference in gameplay. There's a huge difference between the 4WR/3OL teams, and the teams who run 4 or 5 OL. In the 11-man game, the difference seems to be a lot more subtle. I can appreciate the subtlety, but that's not really what I'm going for.