I'M BUYING MAXIMUM PLAYER TRAINING

[mavfan21]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmik58

Sounds like a rip-off. I had guys progress by 5 with most of them being 4 and 3. Of course that was after a conference championship season in the Big East. Does anyone even know what factors affect progression the most? Is it a coach rating or program prestige?

From another post. I did an experiment and found progression is based on....nothing.

Try it for yourself:
BTW-

If you're not happy with a player's increase after training just remember to SAVE before doing off-season training.

Click on "Continue to Off-Season Training" or whatever it says and if you don't like how your players improved, just load again and try over.

There's no rhyme or reason to progression, it's just a random dice roll it seems. No matter the player rating, playing time, or performance. I played with this and EJ Manuel went up 1, then 6, then 4, then 1, then 2....etc.

Kinda wish performance, recruiting rating, and coach prestige had SOMETHING to do with it.

[Alex the Great]

Quote: Originally Posted by Block-O

Yeah thats cheesy. The problem is that 95% of your players go up 1-3 points. They need to spread it out from 1-6 points if there isnt going to be any in-season progression. Breakout players during the season go up a whopping 2 points in the offseason?? I dont remember having these issues on the PS2 back in the day. I say keep the progression the same and bring back in-season progression. If your a 4 star team, you get all 3 and some 4 star prospects. They come in at overalls in the mid 60s. So say he advances an average of 11 points max over the years that only makes him a mid 70 as a senior. Not bad for weaker schools i guess. But cmon, even their stock in game rosters are FAR better than what they will have 6 years into dynasty. I see that 5 & 6 star schools get 5 star guys in the mid 70s. So they will be mid 80s when its all said and done. Has anyone simulated 6 or 7 years into dynasty and seen what the rosters look like? I havent, but im assuming that big time schools best overall player is a low to mid 80 at the rate. Whos the best overall player in the country? an 88 overall guy?? NCAA 10s problem was that freshman came in too high and players progressed too high. NCAA 11s problem is that players come in real low, which I like. But progression is so low that its almost irrelevant. Seems to me that the fix is to mix and match the two games. Have players come in a little higher since progression is irrelevant or have players come in the same and make progression a little higher. OR, they could just progress teams like they used to. Have 2 or 3 periods during the season where players who are playing above their skill level progress. And then have an average of atleast 4 points for each player. Have some progress lower than 4 and some higher than 4. Throw in some 6 and 7s for breakout guys. This progression doesnt effect the game bc its the same for every team. In year 10 I see western kentucky with a lot of 50s and low 60s. Maybe 1 70. And teams like Florida still have the same gap between them and a team like WKU. Florida prob has some high 70s mid 80s, and MAYBE a 90.

Actually the top teams' best players are usually in the mid 90s, sometimes high 90s.

Just look at the spreadsheet I made tracking 4 years of all the 5* recruits:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...CI3Em-QB&hl=en

[Solidice]

Quote: Originally Posted by Block-O

Has anyone simulated 6 or 7 years into dynasty and seen what the rosters look like? I havent, but im assuming that big time schools best overall player is a low to mid 80 at the rate. Whos the best overall player in the country? an 88 overall guy??

when I simulated 5 years, there were 3 99 rated players(all 3 were RS SRs) 10 players at 95+. probably 80 or so players between 90-95.

Quote: Originally Posted by Block-O

NCAA 10s problem was that freshman came in too high and players progressed too high. NCAA 11s problem is that players come in real low, which I like. But progression is so low that its almost irrelevant.

I thought the post-patch 3 progression in NCAA 10 was pretty decent(not great). pretty similar to NCAA 11, but more 90+ overall players resulting in a few more A teams(and the recruit didn't come in so low, so there were a TON of players in the 80's), but still no A+ teams(compared to default NCAA 10 where there could be 10+ A+ rated teams, and a ton other A and A- teams).

I think the only issues(to me anyway) is some individual ratings in some positions, like spin/juke/etc.. ratings for WRs and possibly kicker's KPW and KAC ratings.
also awareness across the board seems a little low. only 8 players in the entire NCAA had 90+ awareness in the dynasty I simmed.

[dan_457]

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

From another post. I did an experiment and found progression is based on....nothing. Try it for yourself: BTW- If you're not happy with a player's increase after training just remember to SAVE before doing off-season training. Click on "Continue to Off-Season Training" or whatever it says and if you don't like how your players improved, just load again and try over. There's no rhyme or reason to progression, it's just a random dice roll it seems. No matter the player rating, playing time, or performance. I played with this and EJ Manuel went up 1, then 6, then 4, then 1, then 2....etc. Kinda wish performance, recruiting rating, and coach prestige had SOMETHING to do with it.

The amount a player goes up is random, but what I think it is, is that 6* schools have more points available, so say a 6* has 120 points each off season for use for all players while a 5* has 105 points or something. This is something that could definitely be tested, and i think it might be something similar to this.

[mavfan21]

Quote: Originally Posted by dan_457

The amount a player goes up is random, but what I think it is, is that 6* schools have more points available, so say a 6* has 120 points each off season for use for all players while a 5* has 105 points or something. This is something that could definitely be tested, and i think it might be something similar to this.

Across the board on my FSU roster the results were random. Redshirt WR would go up 5, then 2, then 4, then 2, and so on. I reloaded a dozen times and all the progressions were randomized.

[dan_457]

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

Across the board on my FSU roster the results were random. Redshirt WR would go up 5, then 2, then 4, then 2, and so on. I reloaded a dozen times and all the progressions were randomized.

Right, but what I think is going on is that there's only so many points a team can give to all of their players, in terms of progression, which is where Team Prestige comes in.

For example lets say there's 5 players, and 20 pts to divide amongst them

P1 + 5
P2 + 5
P3 + 3
P4 + 2
P5 + 5

Then you re-load and get

P1 + 1
P2 + 6
P3 + 4
P4 + 7
P5 + 2

The distribution is random, but I think there's a set number of points that can be distributed. This is just a theory, but it might not be to far fetched.

If Having more prestige means the school has more points, it puts some method to the madness.

[kingkilla56]

Quote: Originally Posted by Solidice

it's not the only factor, but it is one of the factors(it was given bigger influence in NCAA 10, not sure it it still is in NCAA 11). the player's potential plays part of it too and I think even playing time has some small part of it.

I doubt there is a potential rating and that playing time has anything to do with progression.

Progression is random but influenced highly by the program's prestige solely. So 6 star bama will have random +1-6 with more players jumping 3 and higher. If you sim player training 10 times for the same year and focus on your starting QB's progression it will fluctuate randomly according to the program prestige. One time it will go up 6, the next 2, the next 1 etc. The problem with that is the low prestige schools get an extremely low rate of +3-6 and their already low rated players stay low.

[Solidice]

Quote: Originally Posted by kingkilla56

I doubt there is a potential rating and that playing time has anything to do with progression.

it was explained by the devs for NCAA 10 that there is a potential rating(hidden to us, and potential was also talked about in a NCAA 11 blog) and that it is used for progression. playtime and school prestige also were a factor. and yes, like with most things in this game as well as most video games, there is some randomness as well. fairly certain the same principal applies for NCAA 11, although the exact 'formula' could be different.