The official 2011 progression thread

[drjones56]

A Win is a Win


Tuscaloosa,AL- The Alabama Crimson Tide improved to 2-0 on the young season with a 27-9 win over the visiting Arizona Wildcats...somehow. Junior quarterback Demetrius Fowler followed up a strong showing against Ole Miss with a horrendous performance against what was believed to be a far inferior Wildcat defense. Fowler was 5-19 for a measly 96 yards, throwing for a score and a pick. Thankfully for the Tide running back Doug Vaughn and the defense saved the day. Vaughn ran for 135 yards and a score on 22 carries highlighted by a 57 yard TD run in the second quarter to put Bama up 7-3. The defense again scored a touchdown on a 37 yard pick six and set up another score with a fumble recovery deep in Arizona's side of the field. 'Boy was it ugly. I usually don't care how we win as long as we win, but this was a terrible display of football today. I wouldn't rank us anywhere near the top 25 after that display. We'd have struggled to beat a local high school team today.' said a furious coach Jones following the game.

The road gets much tougher for the Crimson Tide 2-0(1-0) after today as they travel to SEC foe Arkansas 1-1(0-0)next Saturday. Arkansas beat Air Force in week 1 and lost to #25 Texas A&M 31-12 last week. 'It'll be tough for sure. It's never easy to go on the road in this conference and pick up a win. If we play at all like last week, we'll be in for a long day and our guys will be in for a long week of practice.' stated Jones.

Read more of this dynasty and other user submitted dynasties at videogamedynasties.blogspot.com and don't forget to download the podcast.

[tigershark635]

Great work here! As a stathead, I'm mostly concerned about there being a legit bell curve rather than just a mosh pit of flat garbage. Whether the average is some kind of C (you'd think, like grades for a test) or lowish B (like last yr's game), I just want accuracy. Looking at this experiment, I'm a bit disappointed that there are less A-rated teams but like someone said the team rating system is vague anyway.

In my own dynasty as Auburn, I'm on year 3...I'm also a little disturbed by the very low player progression. I heard last year that progression was a function of team prestige (correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to know the right answer on this)...well guess what I'm 6 stars and almost none of my players get better than +3 per year. This despite a top 5 incoming recruiting class (5 star Michael Dyer is an 85 junior from an 80 freshman).

In a related point, the default roster's rating inflation (too many highly rated players initially) is a bitch. Do I even need to say anything about Alabama...All I can say is, it doesn't help them beat me :rofl . Anyway, one idea to allow progression to adapt would be to partially tie it into on-field performance. That was the way it was more than five years ago...it usually meant user teams were stacked, but it's a bit closer to what we see with how EA comes up with ratings (freshman/soph has a breakout year --> his rating jumps from ~80 recruit to ~90 up and coming player). That doesn't happen in dynasty, not even last year. Just a thought. This also depends on the simming, which is super sketchy at best...but yeah I'd prefer that new players not be eternally stuck to their initial rating.

Quote: Originally Posted by dan_457

lol, i see I'm definitely the minority here, that's cool i guess, at least you guys are happy with it. See my issue is that progression and recruit ratings were never the problem, it's the jacked up default ratings players had, and rather than fixing that by creating reasonable ratings out of the box, they compensated by lower everything else, to take away the impact of their overrated default players. Oh well, I'm just venting here guys.

My thoughts exactly. I would like either the initial rosters to not have unusually high rated FR/SO, or the incoming players to compare similarly to what already existed at first. All I ask for is consistency--the way it is now, the current powers *coughBamacough* have an unfair advantage on the field and arguably in future recruiting. Good thing I'm just plain better than them, cause I'm having to work hard for it this time...

Maybe I'm just a bit ticked cause Auburn is just not represented 100% right in a video game--how could you translate all of it into a video game anyway? They don't even have our actual fight song!

[AncientEgypt]

WhiteOut et al - Thus far in my playing of the game for a week or so (3 seasons) -- I have not noticed that players progress DURING the season... this was a great tool in the past to bump up some players, or getting the newbies some PT if the star got hurt or whatever... can others confirm they have removed this?


In my own dynasty as Auburn, I'm on year 3...I'm also a little disturbed by the very low player progression.I heard last year that progression was a function of team prestige (correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to know the right answer on this)...well guess what I'm 6 stars and almost none of my players get better than +3 per year. This despite a top 5 incoming recruiting class (5 star Michael Dyer is an 85 junior from an 80 freshman).



I find it funny how you can see it will only be a matter of time before people say "my players dont progress fast enough". After people complaning of the ratings being to high for years.


I've been thinking that if they just used the tuner sets to tweak the progression up just a bit, it'd make it perfect. Which brings up a question, have tuner sets actually been confirmed? At this point they seem almost mythical in nature to me, because I've only seen OS talking about them, and haven't seen any developers confirm or deny. This also brings up another question, if we do get tuner sets that tweaked progression, can we change the set mid-dynasty, say around year 4, so that after the first 3-4 years, there wouldn't be such a large drop off?

__________________________________________________ _____

To me it is the Best thing about NCAA Football Period.
I played Madden since 88/89, and played NCAA since early 90's.

I'm sorry all this Bell curve stuff is nice, but it is BULL if
Progression Realism must be sacrifice for Bell Curve.
Player Progression and Skill Progression are part of this game roots.
To me it makes the game more realistic by far.
Bell Curve is nice but not by sacrificing Player Progression in the process.

All these people statements are all comments out of concern of player Progression. If it is not broke do not fix it.
Player Progression probably were part of this game before many people here started playing this game.

Now we're into going backwards! No Skill Progression! we're going backwards.