Dynasty, seven years from now........

[Jr.]

How could you possibly know that FSU won't be worse in 4 years than they are now? I'm sure in 2001 no one thought FSU would be a middle-of-the-road ACC team in 2010. Teams get worse, it happens. This is a snapshot of a handful of the 120 D1 teams in the game. Is it weird that they all got worse? Yes, but it doesn't definitively mean that all teams get worse in the game. Now it could very well be true that all teams get worse, but no one can say after seeing the average ratings of a handful of teams. Play a few years for yourself before holding judgment, and if every team really does get worse, then come and start a thread about it.

And besides, Alabama's original roster was LOADED so the fact that they drop an average of 4 points is probably a good thing.

[Hassan Darkside]

Also, don't just look at the beginning and end result. Take a look at the average in 2013 with the average in 2017. Half of those teams actually improved.

[uofm1508]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pongsona

I'm with you on this one. I was pretty dumbfounded when I saw the chart for the first time. I wasn't quite sure what Russ was trying to tell us. Sure, after the LTP 1, teams overall doesn't drop as dramatically as it did prior to the LTP 1. That being said, every team on the chart still regresses in terms of team overall. Does this mean no team will ever improve? If that's the case, I'd say the progression is still broken.

No team will be good as good with generated recruited players as with the default rosters. That is a correct statement

However, once teams have all generated recruits, some did improve wile others dropped off.


The fact is rosters start off overrated, because they are based off real players. The casual gamer wants the players on their favorite team to be rated highly and they never get into playing with just recruited players.

This chart really should only be viewed from year 2013 on where rosters are all recruited players, that is the real clue and at that point both good and bad teams went both up and down

[mgoblue678]

There is a chance the default rosters were set the way they were because they produce the better gameplay. I remember a number of posters posting a couple of weeks ago about how they played a game or games pretty far into dynasty and didn't think it played as well as it did with the default rosters in the first couple of years. The tuner increased the recruits a little, but I think the same logic could be applied.

My main concern is the gameplay may not be as good as it could be with the lower ratings.

Not that the default rosters are as good as they could be either since I immediately downloaded the community roster when it became available and have been making my own roster changes/tweaks.

[Ramminyou]

Quote: Originally Posted by mgoblue678

There is a chance the default rosters were set the way they were because they produce the best gameplay. I remember a number if posters posting a couple of weeks ago about how they played a game or games pretty far into dynasty and didn't think it played as well as it did with the default rosters in the first couple of years. The tuner increased the recruits a little, but I think the same logic could be applied. My main concern is the gameplay may not be as good as it could be with lower ratings.

I thought a lot of that had to do with CPU players playing in incorrect positions, and things like teams recruiting the worst kickers.

[Solidice]

Quote: Originally Posted by mgoblue678

There is a chance the default rosters were set the way they were because they produce the best gameplay. I remember a number if posters posting a couple of weeks ago about how they played a game or games pretty far into dynasty and didn't think it played as well as it did with the default rosters in the first couple of years. The tuner increase the recruits a little, but I think the same logic could be applied. My main concern is the gameplay may not be as good as it could be with lower ratings.

wasn't most the complaints about kickers though?

I played a half of a game 6 years into a simmed dynasty(post-tuner update) and didn't notice anything majorly different in gameplay. my kicker was able to make 35 yard FG, CPU kicker made an XP(never attempted a FG). WRs were able to juke/spin/etc.. normally. it was a game between 2 closely rated mid-range teams though(C+ rated Troy, B- rated Texas Tech). don't remember what the ratings of those kickers were off-hand though. would have to load it up again.

[gigem]

My theory: get rid of 1* recruits= no 1+2* teams waste time recuriting 1* players and instead focus on 2 and 3's= no more FBS losing to FCS, and way less d- teams, more d+ teams.

Am I right?

[ghettoqball]

I don't understand why having the talent level in the future match up with the current level is such a bad thing. Who cares if the current rosters are overrated? Doesn't the game play pretty well with the starting rosters?

It really doesn't make sense that each team still drops in overall talent after a while. Nobody is asking for teams of all 99 ovr players. But what is so bad with keeping the talent level consistent? The game is basically saying that the talent level in college football is going to decrease over the years, and every single team is going to be worse than what it is now. Sure the tuner helped a little bit, but it still isn't where it should be.