Progression Explanation?

[Sundown2600]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

Yeah, I don't know why that wasn't patched. I remember working with the testers personally to track down why players don't fatigue enough. I agree it isn't working very well, but I don't know the specifics of why this was not addressed as it was handled by the central gameplay team. I'm on the NCAA team which is in charge of things like progression, so I was out of the loop on reasons a lot of things didn't get addressed. I'll try to get an answer on this.

I'm sorry Adam but not fixing fatigue is an unforgivable sin in my eyes. I respect you for coming on these boards but I'm not gonna kiss up and give you EA guys a medal for doing so. Next year around spring you or/and your colleagues are gonna be on these same boards hyping people up for next year's release, so the fact that you come here and take a beating is all part of the job. The way i see it is if you're gonna come here every spring and dangle a carrot in front of us in the form of new "features" coming here in the fall when the carrots prove to be sour is all part of the game.

This is not directed towards you specifically, but in ancient times the courier from an opposing army was sometimes killed just for the hell of it. Just for bringing a message. I guess that would be you, figuratively speaking of course.

[BoJackson]

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. 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.

This right here proves that you have no concept of why progression does not work.
Using your example, you forgot the fact that there is a exchange cap of $1,000,000 per say (similar to 99ovr for NCAA). So anyone with a fortune of $10,000 or more instantly jumps to $1,000,000, but no more than that. so bascially, whether you originally had $10,000 or $999,999, you are both equal in net worth now. Do you see the problem?

You example works well, if NCAA does not have a OVR cap of 99, but with it and the progression bug, most of the great players are at 95-99, and the decent players also become 90-97 eventually. Imagine you worked hard all your life for the million, and some bum with 10k instantly jumped to your net worth while you cannot do the same exchange since there is a cap. get it dude?

[JAYMO76]

Quote: Originally Posted by Adam_Thompson_EA

Yeah, I don't know why that wasn't patched. I remember working with the testers personally to track down why players don't fatigue enough. I agree it isn't working very well, but I don't know the specifics of why this was not addressed as it was handled by the central gameplay team. I'm on the NCAA team which is in charge of things like progression, so I was out of the loop on reasons a lot of things didn't get addressed. I'll try to get an answer on this.

Adam, I realise that you have already used your TWO patches. However, I am many, many, many other loyal NCAA enthusiasts who have stuck with this series close to a decade or more deserve a third patch... the fatigue/auto-sub issue is a game killer and it's inexcusable that it has NOT been fixed. Glaring omissions like this can not simply slip by... enough is enough this year!!!

[jhawkmike]

Quote: Originally Posted by BoJackson

This right here proves that you have no concept of why progression does not work. Using your example, you forgot the fact that there is a exchange cap of $1,000,000 per say (similar to 99ovr for NCAA). So anyone with a fortune of $10,000 or more instantly jumps to $1,000,000, but no more than that. so bascially, whether you originally had $10,000 or $999,999, you are both equal in net worth now. Do you see the problem? You example works well, if NCAA does not have a OVR cap of 99, but with it and the progression bug, most of the great players are at 95-99, and the decent players also become 90-97 eventually. Imagine you worked hard all your life for the million, and some bum with 10k instantly jumped to your net worth while you cannot do the same exchange since there is a cap. get it dude?

I addressed this issue in the post that I linked to. I'll use another analogy. Let's say two people decide to measure their weight. One weighs 260 lbs and the other weighs 285 lbs. They hop on a scale that can only measure weights up to 250 lbs. So it appears that they both weigh 250 lbs, but obviously that's not the case. I think the same thing happens in the game. My theory is that some 99 players are better than others, and some A+ teams are better than others. The rating scale used is just insufficient to communicate this difference (and always has been, although it's more relevant this year).

But even if I'm wrong about this issue, it doesn't change my overall point at all. Based on the displayed team ratings in the game, there is a very realistic distribution of talent among teams 10 years into a franchise (see the post that I linked to). It's a classic bell curve. This makes sense because the ratings cap scenario would apply to less than 1% of the players in the game.

[peteykirch]

They need to stretch the ratings out like Madden...Hopefully that happens for 2011, but I haven't seen pigs fly, snowballs in hell, the Cubs win the World Series, etc, etc.

Seriously, take a team like Temple. If you were to do a decent edit of them, they may have 1-3 80s, maybe a handful of 70s, and everyone else would vary from 40-65. But no, in this game they some how have 2 Star Recruits with Temple as their only offer at 83 overall, and the bulk of the players are between 70-75.

[CueDub]

Adam I hope you consider this.

I think that recruits not qualifying and the discipline points both need to return. Also I believe that some recruits just need to be busts. Not every 5 and 4 star high school stud turns into a stud in college. This to me is the problem. All players progress. There should be players that regress and players that just don't pan out. I don't want it in an unlockable grade like someone being "F" in potential so that the user can figure out. I just want it to be random. Therefore the user can't just sign nothing but 5 and 4 stars and know that'll mean an A+ team.

I also believe that there are some 99 players that are better than others and some A+ teans that are better than others.

[BoJackson]

Quote: Originally Posted by jhawkmike

I addressed this issue in the post that I linked to. I'll use another analogy. Let's say two people decide to measure their weight. One weighs 260 lbs and the other weighs 285 lbs. They hop on a scale that can only measure weights up to 250 lbs. So it appears that they both weigh 250 lbs, but obviously that's not the case. I think the same thing happens in the game. My theory is that some 99 players are better than others, and some A+ teams are better than others. The rating scale used is just insufficient to communicate this difference (and always has been, although it's more relevant this year). But even if I'm wrong about this issue, it doesn't change my overall point at all. Based on the displayed team ratings in the game, there is a very realistic distribution of talent among teams 10 years into a franchise (see the post that I linked to). It's a classic bell curve. This makes sense because the ratings cap scenario would apply to less than 1% of the players in the game.

Ok, lets take you scale example. but change the cutoff weight to 200lbs. it might be ok for slimmer europeans or asians, but to alot of us fat americans, the scale is of no use if it doesn't show anything over 200 lbs. same with NCAA, over 500 90+ players in a few years? the scaling engine has do better to show the difference between these players and the team with these players.

You may think that progression is fine, which is cool. the rest of us who don't are just petitioning for a 3rd patch. if you feel that its fine, just don't download the progression patch...nuff said.

[clayshime]

Quote: Originally Posted by BoJackson

Ok, lets take you scale example. but change the cutoff weight to 200lbs. it might be ok for slimmer europeans or asians, but to alot of us fat americans, the scale is of no use if it doesn't show anything over 200 lbs. same with NCAA, over 500 90+ players in a few years? the scaling engine has do better to show the difference between these players and the team with these players. You may think that progression is fine, which is cool. the rest of us who don't are just petitioning for a 3rd patch. if you feel that its fine, just don't download the progression patch...nuff said.

Adam pretty clearly said progression couldn't be patched. You can keep petitioning, but your just wasting your time.