Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

[JJ_Bills9]

Quote: Originally Posted by Von Dozier

Every single year theres some sort of "DYNASTY IS BRRROOKKEEEENNN" panic posts. Now people are complaining that Dynasty actually has balance in their recruits.

There's not enough balance though. The lowly rated teams have no shot to even be competitive. I'm rolling with B- Colorado right now and pummeled FIU 41-3 on default Heisman settings. That means, if I'm any good at recruiting, my team will get a little better every year, whereas, there are going to be a myriad of teams down the line who are C- or D+ teams because recruits come in too lowly rated. There should be a few 2 stars who are in the low 70's and a few 3 stars who are around 80 when they come in.

I guess my idea is that a good 15% of the players accross the nation should fall into the 45 to 60 range, that's like a walk-on at Western Kentucky bad, 55% of the players should fall into the 60-75 range. That's an average player (which is what most teams are mainly comprised of). 20-25% should be in the 75 to 85 range, which is a very serviceable, above average, sometimes bordering on really good player. and 3-5% should be 85+ which signifies a draftable commodity type player.

Per team breakdown
85+......... 2.1 to 3.5
75 85...... 14 to 17.5
60-75...... 38.5
45-60...... 10.5

National breakdown
85+......... 252 to 420
75-85...... 1680 to 2100
60-75...... 4620
45-60...... 1260

Now personally, I think those numbers look pretty damn good. I'd tend to say the number of 85+ players should be closer to the 420 end because there are obviously going to be some guys (True Freshman and Sophomores) who aren't even eligible for the draft who are 85+. And the 75 to 85 range may need lowered to a 75-80 range instead, as the 85 cap may allow for a little bit too much balance still.

And obviously, the team averages are just averages, as top teams are going to have more guys in the top two tiers (75-85+) and occasionally in the 3rd tier (60-75). Then the average teams will be topping out mostly in the middle two tiers (60-85) with occasional duds (45-60) and bottom feeder teams will be comprised mostly of the bottom two tiers (45-75) with an occasional guy in the second tier (75-85).

This would allow for some real competitive balance with some teams that are clearly better than others, but the little guys would still have some hope of competing, and having an occasional NFL type player on their roster. It would also allow these teams to build their program. This sounds pretty realistic to me. I think I might have to save this post.

Led me add, this would mean EA would need a new mean by which they hand out letter grades because the system right now requires you to have about 15 90+ players to be an A team.

[Whoman]

And all that isn´t even considering the fact that the CPU doesn´t recruit to their on-field strategy or as an alternative change their playstyle based on personell.

That´s a major issues no matter how you slice it, period. The CPU should at least go to a run based playbook or a higher run-percentage in years it has a 85 HB and a 65 rated QB.

I actually will go in and edit the Top 25 and all my conference oponents before the next season and change their playstyle acording to their current roster (edits you make there do stick, right ? Right ?)

There are also dozens of teams later on with kickers so bad (40ish KP and KA) that they miss extra-points regularly on default sliders and even when you crank up the sliders. Super Sim is a bit better, but still it´s an issue. That´s an issue.

Also the awareness rating of a lot of players is way too low as mentioned and should go up a lot more. It´s fine to spread out ratings, but using awareness as the only tool ? Look at default rosters and compare the awarenes of starters and backups, seniors and freshmen (unless they are considered blue-chippers) , they will be seperated by very little in the skill ratings but a lot in awareness.

@MattUMD224:

this in general is part of the reason why the lower prestige teams really suck later on, i would expect a 3* QB to go a couple teams down on his list rather than signing with a team where he´s 7th on the depth chart.

In real life i think that Positions like QB and HB are actually filled with good players even at smaller programs, the problem starts in "depth-positions" like the Oline where they may have 1 or 2 serviceable guys but also 2 or 3 guys that are just totally outmatched on most nights.

a 1 or 2 star CPU controlled program in the game will basically never sign a 3 star player, i´d like for them to be able to "pick up the scraps" at the skills positions at least .

to those complaining about threads like this : Why ? What´s wrong with pointing out things that aren´t working overly well ? No one is arguing that the basic idea of less talent and more spread-out ratings is a good one, but that doesn´t mean it´s perfect.

I am currently in 2014 (simmed 3 years, played 1) and don´t find the gameplay broken, but there are certainly issues wor´th fixing.

[clee354]

Quote: Originally Posted by Whoman

There are also dozens of teams later on with kickers so bad (40ish KP and KA) that they miss extra-points regularly on default sliders and even when you crank up the sliders. Super Sim is a bit better, but still it´s an issue. That´s an issue. Also the awareness rating of a lot of players is way too low as mentioned and should go up a lot more. It´s fine to spread out ratings, but using awareness as the only tool ? Look at default rosters and compare the awarenes of starters and backups, seniors and freshmen (unless they are considered blue-chippers) , they will be seperated by very little in the skill ratings but a lot in awareness.

YES SIR you hit the issue real well!!!

Im in 2015 right now (simmed 2 seasons) being playing the game non-stop. Im using Mississippi state right now and I got them up to a four star school, I have been playing in Heisman mode with adjusted sliders to the pass blocking/pass rushing.

AWR is huge factor in this game especially in defence! It really makes me mad how alot of my starters are rated 80-85 BUT their AWR is so horrible that they constantly run around like idiots! I mean the progression is fine, BUT Most of my seniors AWR is in the 50 range. I feel this is the only major issue in this game right now.

Also the kickers are really bad. I remember playing Tennesse at their home game and we were tied and they made it all the way to make a 35 yd field goal kick to win the game but because of the kicker they completely missed the field goal! I was happy at the momment but I realized they should have won.

Other than these minor problems, the GAME is great! I love how they weakened the progression problem but AWR and kicking is probably the only issue they need to address in my opinion

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by IndyColts2

Kinda sucks, oh and at one point, teams like Stanford, Arkansas and other not so great teams were in the Top 5. Pretty gay but w/e

In the second season?

Arkansas has almost no senior starters. TE DJ Williams is a senior. Maybe an O-Linemen or two are seniors.

Ryan Mallett and the top 3 WRs are juniors, plus the 4th WR who is like an 86 ovr is a freshman. There are 4 or 5 RBs that are all sophomores and juniors.

And Arkansas' offense starts as a 96. In year 2, depending on who left early for the draft, I imagine their offense is a 99.

I'm not sure about the defense.

[Michgantown]

The bottom teams are terrible. If you want a real challenge play with them in the future. You'll probably won't beat the generic FCS teams

[ExistentialAngst]

Does the CPU play down because of awareness or is it only User controlled teams? I would assume it would be the entire recruiting class that would come back with the awareness problem

[ACardAttack]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigSteveTN09

not to sound like a jackass, but i honestly believe that the slow progression is to add incentive into buying their "max training" in the off-season.

I can jump on board with this theory

[Whoman]

Quote: Originally Posted by ACardAttack

I can jump on board with this theory

thats BS, the CPU doesn´t improve any more than you do.