Progression Explanation?

[OMT]

Quote: Originally Posted by mvandor

First, thank you for posting, putting this up yesterday woulda cut the negative reaction instead of letting us fester for a day and a half. But at least responding is something. Second, you hit your nail on the head in your first part, it was not something you felt you COULD patch because it was too complex. After that point, it's the same spin as Kinry on your boards and nothing more. We all know that the issue peaks with the default rosters and subsides some in year 5 or 6. HOWEVER, we also all KNOW that even then the number of 90+ players and A rated teams stays roughly double the initial roster. That drastically alters the NCAA landscape, and certainly could not have been intentional. It's also something EA should not be glossing over with "we don't see the problem" responses.

I'm not spinning anything. You are bolding the part about the initial roster. I addressed this in my post... the initial/default roster wasn't the best we've had (this has been discussed ad nauseum). The default roster is created subjectively by a person... it is done by hand. The generated recruits, however, are done by a computer algorithm. Yes, it would have been helpful if the default rosters were balanced with future year rosters, sure, but I'm not going to get into a discussion over rosters as this is about progression.

As far as thinking it is intentional... as I said in my previous post, we tuned progression well before the default roster was finalized. We don't have the luxury of tuning with the default roster.

[JalenTigh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

I'm not spinning anything. You are bolding the part about the initial roster. I addressed this in my post... the initial/default roster wasn't the best we've had (this has been discussed ad nauseum). The default roster is created subjectively by a person... it is done by hand. The generated recruits, however, are done by a computer algorithm. Yes, it would have been helpful if the default rosters were balanced with future year rosters, sure, but I'm not going to get into a discussion over rosters as this is about progression. As far as thinking it is intentional... as I said in my previous post, we tuned progression well before the default roster was finalized. We don't have the luxury of tuning with the default roster.

Well if the issue with the initial rosters is human error, I think it is time for EA's human resources department to head of to the roster forums and find some new people to do the rosters next year. People have been fixing the roster's for free year after year , and doing a heck of alot better job with them... It is time to hire some of them... I can not imagine they would do any worse with initial roster's.

[Merih]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

As far as thinking it is intentional... as I said in my previous post, we tuned progression well before the default roster was finalized. We don't have the luxury of tuning with the default roster.

So which rosters were you guys tuning with, if you don't mind me asking. The rosters that shipped with the game, before the free download rosters that you guys provided came out?

So do you think that adding all the freshman that were missing (giving them 4 years to progress) lent something to the high numbers of 90+ rated players. In other words, if you could have tuned with the final set of rosters, could the new tuning have accounted for it and made it a lot more like last years?

If so, it makes alot of sense why the progression is high and why it subsides after the current rosters leave. And possibly why I haven't seen the problem so much in my dynasty. I am using a retooled roster from dkrause, and I haven't run into nearly the same amount of 99 rated players down the road.

[yankeesgiants]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

I'm not spinning anything. You are bolding the part about the initial roster. I addressed this in my post... the initial/default roster wasn't the best we've had (this has been discussed ad nauseum). The default roster is created subjectively by a person... it is done by hand. The generated recruits, however, are done by a computer algorithm. Yes, it would have been helpful if the default rosters were balanced with future year rosters, sure, but I'm not going to get into a discussion over rosters as this is about progression. As far as thinking it is intentional... as I said in my previous post, we tuned progression well before the default roster was finalized. We don't have the luxury of tuning with the default roster.

Yo A,

It seems as though Head Coach nails down progression and draft prospects. Is there any discussion to possibly port those ideas over to NCAA?

[woodjer]

Quote: Originally Posted by JalenTigh

Well if the issue with the initial rosters is human error, I think it is time for EA's human resources department to head of to the roster forums and find some new people to do the rosters next year. People have been fixing the roster's for free year after year have been fixing EA's rosters, and doing a heck of alot better job with them... It is time to hire some of them... I can not imagine they would do any worse with initial roster's.

I'd be interested to hear Adam's response here but you have to remember that they have to be careful with the accuracy of their ratings. If it's too obvious that ratings are designed to represent a specific player, there could be some legal issues. I'm not exceptionally well-versed on the roster issue (saw that it was being fixed at launch and moved on) but I do agree that, based on what I did see, there should be some serious consequences related to them. Just my thoughts...

[yankeesgiants]

Quote: Originally Posted by Merih

So which rosters were you guys tuning with, if you don't mind me asking. The rosters that shipped with the game, before the free download rosters that you guys provided came out? So do you think that adding all the freshman that were missing (giving them 4 years to progress) lent something to the high numbers of 90+ rated players. In other words, if you could have tuned with the final set of rosters, could the new tuning have accounted for it and made it a lot more like last years? If so, it makes alot of sense why the progression is high and why it subsides after the current rosters leave. And possibly why I haven't seen the problem so much in my dynasty. I am using a retooled roster from dkrause, and I haven't run into nearly the same amount of 99 rated players down the road.

My feeling all along was that the rosters were the issue. If you look at what was done on the roster fix, all that was done in alot of cases was lower awareness then flip seniors to freshman. They didnt really address the other ratings. So if you had a senior LB with a 96 tackle rating, all they did was lower his awareness and make him freshman. The problem was that the other ratings were not addressed so you have freshman with senior ratings in alot of cases.

[Merih]

Quote: Originally Posted by yankeesgiants

My feeling all along was that the rosters were the issue. If you look at what was done on the roster fix, all that was done in alot of cases was lower awareness then flip seniors to freshman. They didnt really address the other ratings. So if you had a senior LB with a 96 tackle rating, all they did was lower his awareness and make him freshman. The problem was that the other ratings were not addressed so you have freshman with senior ratings in alot of cases.

Damn, that's sad if it's true.

[OMT]

Quote: Originally Posted by Merih

So which rosters were you guys tuning with, if you don't mind me asking. The rosters that shipped with the game, before the free download rosters that you guys provided came out? So do you think that adding all the freshman that were missing (giving them 4 years to progress) lent something to the high numbers of 90+ rated players. In other words, if you could have tuned with the final set of rosters, could the new tuning have accounted for it and made it a lot more like last years? If so, it makes alot of sense why the progression is high and why it subsides after the current rosters leave. And possibly why I haven't seen the problem so much in my dynasty. I am using a retooled roster from dkrause, and I haven't run into nearly the same amount of 99 rated players down the road.

Right. We tune several years into dynasty when the original rosters have graduated out.