My fix for progression. Opinions?

[DOSMedia4SC]

Quote: Originally Posted by Roggie

This is almost exactly what I've been telling people I play this game with. Recruits come in way too high. Not enough 2 stars stay 2 stars (hell, NONE do). They need to have an unknown rating that you find out AFTER you recruit someone: potential. You can get a 5 star with an F potential who never gets better. A 2 star can be an A+, and he becomes one of the ones who gets better like crazy. It doesn't even have to be a visible rating (I'd personally rather have it stay hidden). But they need to make it so some 5 stars fizzle out and even regress, while some 2/3 stars go nuts and become people like Larry English and Darren Evans (Yes, according to rivals, Evans was a 3 star recruit.) I also don't mind having some 3 star recruits be more like a 5 star, but if you do that, there should only be 3 or 4 of them, while there should be a handful of 4 stars who are more like 2.5 stars and some 5 stars who are 3 stars. Make it random. Don't make it so if I get a 5 star, I know I'm getting a 77 or better.

Best example of a hidden 2 star in college football right now is with out a doubt James Rodgers. One of the best all around receivers and do everything on offense type. Yup kid came in as a 2 star and I think he is actually now rated in the 90s in NCAA 10.

There are tons of 5 star guys out there that are busts.

There is another thing I have a problem with. Most of the time when players are injured for a long period of time they regress. There is no regression in this game. You can have a guy that gets hurt for a full year and next season he is rated 5 points better. I dont think that ever happens.

To the OP: I was actually reading that thread on the EA boards and was SHOCKED when the Developer didnt even know what people were talking about with Dynasty progression issues. He said

Quote:

So I just got done running multiple sims into years 10+ and on average my players overalls looked like this:

Making it seem like that was the first time he even did that? This has been an issue since day 1, and this was the first time a developer actually looked into it?

I mean at least he is actually responding on that board, since that is I think the first time I have seen someone from EA interact with the customers about an issue on there.

[JohnnyC5252]

One of the best commentaries posted on this forum. Its the redshirt freshman and freshman. They are rated way to high. I think progression isnt the problem, its the roster set. Every other game in the NCAA series players progressed form 1-7 points each year.

Yes, the freshman are coming in a little too high, but in my dynasty i started a few weeks back, i couldnt get a player over 78..... thats playin as pitt though.

I am working on a great roster file, I just finished the NON BCS schools. The progression actually looks fantastic with these rosters. The schools that I havent touched still are messed up.
If you want to take a look, sim a few seasons and watch how the smaller schools dont become powerhouses in a few years. Someone told me it actually looks like the Freshman arent coming in that highly rated either with all my re-ratings, hoping it curves it a little, but thats just wishful thinking on my part.

My psn is JohnnyC52

Please comment in my thread on the roster section of the NCAA Football board. Thanks

[JohnnyC5252]

Quote: Originally Posted by DOSMedia4SC

Best example of a hidden 2 star in college football right now is with out a doubt James Rodgers. One of the best all around receivers and do everything on offense type. Yup kid came in as a 2 star and I think he is actually now rated in the 90s in NCAA 10. There are tons of 5 star guys out there that are busts. There is another thing I have a problem with. Most of the time when players are injured for a long period of time they regress. There is no regression in this game. You can have a guy that gets hurt for a full year and next season he is rated 5 points better. I dont think that ever happens. To the OP: I was actually reading that thread on the EA boards and was SHOCKED when the Developer didnt even know what people were talking about with Dynasty progression issues. He said Making it seem like that was the first time he even did that? This has been an issue since day 1, and this was the first time a developer actually looked into it? I mean at least he is actually responding on that board, since that is I think the first time I have seen someone from EA interact with the customers about an issue on there.

Thats a great example of a 2star gem. He is great, and so many schools overlooked him.

[jts20]

Yeah. The main thing they have to do is spread out the ratings. Anything rated 90 or above should be considered elite, not average.

[tyler289]

A big reason for the progression problems is because they tied training results into program prestige. If your team has good prestige, your players all improve like crazy.

[jts20]

Quote: Originally Posted by tyler289

A big reason for the progression problems is because they tied training results into program prestige. If your team has good prestige, your players all improve like crazy.

That doesn't explain why 2-3* recruits that go to the likes of Utah State and Duke etc. all still end up highly rated?

[DOSMedia4SC]

Quote: Originally Posted by tyler289

A big reason for the progression problems is because they tied training results into program prestige. If your team has good prestige, your players all improve like crazy.

I like the idea of this concept, but I think they have it all wrong. Its not about the programs prestige, its about the coaching.
Example: Il use another Oregon State example... Oregon State is a 4 star program in this game (which is a correct rating). In reality their player progression would be considered some of the best in the country. Want proof? Heres some proof...
Oregon State last year had the second most NFL draft picks (tied with tOSU at 7). Want to take a stab at how many of those players were 4 and 5 star caliber HS players?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you somehow happened to guess ZERO then you are correct. Point being. Yes some schools have better progression in their players, but its not about the caliber in the school, its all about the coaching. I like the idea, it just needs to be fixed with that.
Also, like stated, freshmen still come in pretty high, but not every player in college progresses, and not everyone progresses that fast. Also players regress as well.
So I really do think the progression is an issue. This is the first time that NCAA has had this issue and they even said it themselves that they made it so players progress more, and thats what has ruined it.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by JohnnyC5252

Thats a great example of a 2star gem. He is great, and so many schools overlooked him.

Sean Weatherspoon, Missouri, is another two star gem who will play on Sundays.

I was reading this forum trying to decide whether to buy this game or not. My problem with previous versions was no matter what team you started with (I took Iowa State just for a challenge) recruiting studs was too easy and within a couple of years you could dominate.

It looks like they changed recruiting but player progression turns the team into an all star team in a couple of years. Is that about right?