Is this game worth buying for dynasty mode?

[Purplepower]

Another thread on this.

[mjussawalla]

IMO, Fatigue is a bigger issue than dynasty progression.

[Roggie]

Quote: Originally Posted by mjussawalla

IMO, Fatigue is a bigger issue than dynasty progression.

Agreed. Fatigue is pathetic.

[sportzbro]

Quote: Originally Posted by UGA14

If you want to get the urge to kill yourself.

LOL, I was going to say something else but you summed it up well.

[rudyjuly2]

Recruiting has always been too easy and it will always remain that way. People would tar and feather the EA devs if they ever made it realistic. Seriously, most people that play dynasty mode want to take over a smaller school and build them up into a title contender and hopefully win it all. This almost never happens in real life but is one of the biggest positives of dynasty mode in NCAA.

Pete Carroll could go to UConn and they will never become a powerhouse in real life. In NCAA Football, you could win it all in a few years. So many gamers love to take 1*, 2* or 3* schools and build them up in NCAA. The only way that's possible in a fun amount of time (3-5 years) is to make recruiting overly easy. If they made it realistic, those schools would still suck and the gamer would get frustrated and quit playing. This is a perfect example of where perfect realism = not fun. Is it too easy? Maybe but it still needs to stay on the easy side.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

Recruiting has always been too easy and it will always remain that way. People would tar and feather the EA devs if they ever made it realistic. Seriously, most people that play dynasty mode want to take over a smaller school and build them up into a title contender and hopefully win it all. This almost never happens in real life but is one of the biggest positives of dynasty mode in NCAA. Pete Carroll could go to UConn and they will never become a powerhouse in real life. In NCAA Football, you could win it all in a few years. So many gamers love to take 1*, 2* or 3* schools and build them up in NCAA. The only way that's possible in a fun amount of time (3-5 years) is to make recruiting overly easy. If they made it realistic, those schools would still suck and the gamer would get frustrated and quit playing. This is a perfect example of where perfect realism = not fun. Is it too easy? Maybe but it still needs to stay on the easy side.

If they wanted to make it realistic they would have athletic department budgets with different things to spend money on. Improve vendors, field condition, health and injury prevention, facilities, etc.

Missouri was lousy for many years, 15 consecutive losing seasons. Then they made a commitment to football and seriously upgraded the program from a-z. Now they go to bowl games every year and recruits who in the past wouldn't even consider Missouri now commit to the Tigers.

[NoDakHusker]

the thing with the progression is that within 4 or 5 years teams are all basically even.
as in mid majors going undefeated and being ranked #1 over, say, a one loss SEC champion. it just screws with the dynamic of the game.

[Solidice]

Quote: Originally Posted by ndhusker90

the thing with the progression is that within 4 or 5 years teams are all basically even. as in mid majors going undefeated and being ranked #1 over, say, a one loss SEC champion. it just screws with the dynamic of the game.

I've simmed many seasons and never had every team the same ratings, the teams were between A+ and C-(compared to '09 where CPU teams were between B+ and D- after 6+ years). in about 40-50 simmed seasons, if not more, Boise State were the only non-BCS team to get to the NC(2 times) and they won once, lost once. I saw more non-BCS teams getting to the NC in '09 than 10 so far. maybe I got lucky everytime?