Progression Explanation?

[mvandor]

Quote: Originally Posted by stevedrumsdw

Hey thanks for your time for posting and updating us all on what has happened. However I have to outright whole-heartedly disagree with your assessment that " there is nothing broken here" with dynasty progression. If this is how the NCAA team views a correct dynasty progression then I am at a loss for words.

Agreed, and I'm running outa steam on this. The problem is easily demonstrated, statistically proven, the denial is insulting spin.

Just say it was too complex and interwoven with other code to patch and shut up there. The rest of the diatribe about the problem not existing just costs EA customers and insults our intelligence.

[feeq14]

What I think people dont realize is that the real issue beyond the early rosters is the level that many recruits come in at. I remember specifically seeing in press work that recruits would come in at lower levels, and that they would get better more and faster. However, this is not the case. Players come in at the same level as always and progress faster than in previous years.

This is the problem, this is what needed to be fixed. Changing progression wasnt really the issues, what needed to be changed were the generated recruits.

[stevedrumsdw]

Quote: Originally Posted by mvandor

Agreed, and I'm running outa steam on this. The problem is easily demonstrated, statistically proven, the denial is insulting spin. Just say it was too complex and interwoven with other code to patch and shut up there. The rest of the diatribe about the problem not existing just costs EA customers and insults our intelligence.

Yes it certainly does insult our intelligence.

[CWSapp757]

So we now that EA feels that there is nothing wrong with progression. So let's look ahead then. Does this mean that next years game will have the same progression pattern?

[stevedrumsdw]

Quote: Originally Posted by feeq14

What I think people dont realize is that the real issue beyond the early rosters is the level that many recruits come in at. I remember specifically seeing in press work that recruits would come in at lower levels, and that they would get better more and faster. However, this is not the case. Players come in at the same level as always and progress faster than in previous years. This is the problem, this is what needed to be fixed. Changing progression wasnt really the issues, what needed to be changed were the generated recruits.

I guess they just forgot to do this just like they forgot about sliders, the main rosters, and the hoard of other issues that were neglected.

[fistofrage]

Quote: Originally Posted by CWSapp757

So we now that EA feels that there is nothing wrong with progression. So let's look ahead then. Does this mean that next years game will have the same progression pattern?

And Bingo was his name O. I've got a father in law that loves his steak Well Done. I don't understand it. It dries out a perfectly good piece of meat and makes it taste like crap. Worse yet, because he likes it that way, thats how everyone's steak gets prepared. In other words, he sees nothing wrong with his burnt steak and I guarantee he'll burn them until the day he dies. Why would he change? There is nothing wrong in his eyes. And it doesn't matter what you say, his house, his rules.

Its BS because I'll make your steak anyway you want it. I make mine rare, but if he wants his brown and tough with a coating of my dogs saliva on it, fine by me.

[jhawkmike]

Adam, you are a patient man. I don't think I could take the abuse that you endure on these boards. It's unfortunate that some people have to make this personal.

No one can rightly complain that the number of 90+ players and A rated teams is "unrealistic," because in real life players don't have inherent numeric ratings and teams don't have inherent letter grades. So the only thing that can be realistic or unrealistic is how talent is distributed among the teams in the game. And as I demonstrated in this thread, the talent distribution in NCAA 10 dynasties holds up very nicely; it's a classic bell curve.

So while the ratings aren't unrealistic, they are counter-intuitive. The ratings don't conform to our conventional understanding of these measurements; they are out of sync with the scale that most past sports games have used, and even the scale that NCAA 10 uses in its default rosters. We are used to seeing the worst teams rated D or F, not C. C is supposed to mean average. This makes things feel out of whack. Especially when you start your dynasty with one scale (teams are rated from A to D), and then end up with a different scale (teams rated from A to C).

But this doesn't break the game. It hardly even affects the way that the game plays. The worst that you can say is that there is a little bit less variety because you start off with 11 different caliber of teams (A+ to D) in year 1 of your Dynasty, and wind up with only 9 different caliber of teams (A+ to C-). But I'm not even sure how accurate this statement would be because I suspect that some A+ teams are a knotch above other A+ teams. And guess what, NCAA 2009 had this same problem except that it was even worse and it went in the opposite direction. The player controlled team would be A+ while all the other teams would range from B+ to D (with more Ds than Bs, and only the occasional A-). And from my experience, the on the field results and level of parity among the teams in NCAA 10 is just as realistic or more so than past versions of NCAA. If someone disagrees, then how about showing some statistical (not anecdotal) evidence to the contrary.

For your own sake, you guys should just let this issue go and allow yourself to enjoy this game. All that's required is a change in mindset. Think of it this way: If the US government decided to print a lot of money and give, to everyone in the world, 100 dollars for each dollar that they currently possess, would we all suddenly become rich? No, we'd all be just as rich or just as poor as we were before. The only thing that would change is that the dollar would now have the buying power of the present day penny. That's essentially all that's happening in NCAA 10; a little bit of inflation.

[JalenTigh]

Quote: Originally Posted by jhawkmike

Adam, you are a patient man. I don't think I could take the abuse that you endure on these boards. It's unfortunate that some people have to make this personal. No one can rightly complain that the number of 90+ players and A rated teams is "unrealistic," because in real life players don't have inherent numeric ratings and teams don't have inherent letter grades. So the only thing that can be realistic or unrealistic is how talent is distributed among the teams in the game. And as I demonstrated in this thread, the talent distribution in NCAA 10 dynasties holds up very nicely; it's a classic bell curve. So while the ratings aren't unrealistic, they are counter-intuitive. The ratings don't conform to our conventional understanding of these measurements; they are out of sync with the scale that most past sports games have used, and even the scale that NCAA 10 uses in its default rosters. We are used to seeing the worst teams rated D or F, not C. C is supposed to mean average. This makes things feel out of whack. Especially when you start your dynasty with one scale (teams are rated from A to D), and then end up with a different scale (teams rated from A to C). But this doesn't break the game. It hardly even affects the way that the game plays. The worst that you can say is that there is a little bit less variety because you start off with 11 different caliber of teams (A+ to D) in year 1 of your Dynasty, and wind up with only 9 different caliber of teams (A+ to C-). But I'm not even sure how accurate this statement would be because I suspect that some A+ teams are a knotch above other A+ teams. And guess what, NCAA 2009 had this same problem except that it was even worse and it went in the opposite direction. The player controlled team would be A+ while all the other teams would range from B+ to D (with more Ds than Bs, and only the occasional A-). And from my experience, the on the field results and level of parity among the teams in NCAA 10 is just as realistic or more so than past versions of NCAA. If someone disagrees, then how about showing some statistical (not anecdotal) evidence to the contrary. For your own sake, you guys should just let this issue go and allow yourself to enjoy this game. All that's required is a change in mindset. Think of it this way: If the US government decided to print a lot of money and give, to everyone in the world, 100 dollars for each dollar that they currently possess, would we all suddenly become rich? No, we'd all be just as rich or just as poor as we were before. The only thing that would change is that the dollar would now have the buying power of the present day penny. That's essentially all that's happening in NCAA 10; a little bit of inflation.

Thank you Dr. Phil!