I hope EA understands we dont want more 90+ rated players...

[Rebel10]

It's a tricky balance, but I'm confident in their ability to bolster this issue.
From the sounds of it, as well, "tuners" allow them to finely tune aspects of the game quickly and easily... so if they're seeing too much talent, they could tune down a bit, too.

[twigstudios]

Quote: Originally Posted by marktg30

Yeah, whatever happened to progression based on playing time? I always hated it when my benched FB who never saw the light of day EVER progressed like 5 points without being a part of my offense.

Does the computer assume that the FB practices or even uses practice as a factor of progression? Because if he's the starter at that position does the computer presume that the FB is practicing with the offense and therefore progresses that way?

I don't how the progression works because I've had players that have never played a down and so low on the depth chart that you forget they exist still progress +1.

[SA1NT401]

I have a 5*WR recruit who came in with decent skills overall and was at 68 ovr....But his AWR was a 38...Boost that up 25-30 pts and he becomes a 73-75....Not that big of an increase for a 5* recruit who was the 5th best WR overall.

Also have a 4* QB with decent stats but has 31 Awr and is rated a 60 OVR....Boost his AWR up 30-40 pts and he is a 72-74 OVR...Again, not unreasonable.

[jbrew2411]

I wish EA could see you can make players with lower ratings that can function. Anyone that has played a 2k basketball game knows what I'm talking about. You can have a player rated 60ovr that is not useless. Just because a 2* kid goes to Idaho does not mean he should be rated so low in all key position areas and lack the ability to function. No he is not as good as a kid that goes to a BCS school but he can play football. He may not be as smart of a player but he is better then a walk-on or in EA's eyes a FCS player.
My point is you don't have to rate every player high but you don't have to rate them so low as well. Small schools don't need to have a bunch of player rated in the 70's but to have them full of guys rated in the 40's-low 50's is pointless. These players are useless in the game and equal to walk-ons. Take a look at the NFL draft and see how many small school kids get drafted over big school guys. It happens but not in NCAA11.

A buch of people wated FCS schools added to the game, well we didn't get the schools but we got the players.

[goalieump413]

A tuning set can only go so far. It's still limited by the progression code in the game. Finding the sweet spot where players AWR ratings are neither a hinderance (as they are now) or a excessive motivator (as they could end up) is the trouble. Make the AWR too high, and there's no point in playing the games. Just simulate everything because the AI is smarter than the human holding the game controller. Make it too low, and these guys are dummies all over again.

I wouldn't mind leaving the AWR ratings where they are, so long as there was a way in the game to "learn up" these incoming freshmen through some sort of practice routine, playbook recognition test, or maybe even an assistant coach module that would report to you the progress of these kids. Maybe next year...

[wraith]

no i want more 90+ players seeing 80-83 guys leabing their jr year to go pro doesn't look right. stretched ratings doesn't work in college football

[TDTGodfather]

Quote:

"Yacky Trips 134 peel Z Ghost Dynamite check Shread on one" in college.

you've been spending too much time listening to sean payton.

[steamboat]

we've always had low rated guys leave early,but they dont always even show up in Madden.