Riddle Me This A Speed D Acceleration

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

No they don't and shouldn't. I'm sick and tired of these dev teams flip flopping back and forth between old and new because we get the same tired product year after year. They need to work hard to figure out the ratings scheme of the FUTURE, not use old models that also didn't work.

Tell me how you think the older rating scheme does not work? From all I have seen in the 3 dynasties I have tried to play in NCAA 11 is that the quality of the game falls off. People have tried to edit ratings in a way to get players to play like the do on Saturdays. The only way to do it is raise the ratings. When I use Playmakers Alumni rosters I can get players to do stuff you don't come close to seeing 7 years into a dynasty. I'm not a video game maker but I have played enough games to know that it plays much better with the higher rated players.

I also want to know how you think higher ratings makes the game the same tired product year after year? I have played this series since NCAA 98 and what makes it the same product is the fact we get very little change from year to year. Since the move from the ps2/xbox platforms to the current ones we have really seen a lack of quality features. When you buy the game for one mode, the offline dynasty mode, and it has been the same base mode for years that makes it a tired products.

I will agree with you that we do need changes, I can't agree with you that lowering ratings on all players across the board is the change I want. I have given up on this game. I hope NCAA 12 will give us the gamer more power to make the game the way we want it to be. Just give us the power to edit players ratings and appearance inside the dynasty mode and we could all be happy. That would be welcome change on my end.

[youALREADYknow]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

Tell me how you think the older rating scheme does not work? From all I have seen in the 3 dynasties I have tried to play in NCAA 11 is that the quality of the game falls off. People have tried to edit ratings in a way to get players to play like the do on Saturdays. The only way to do it is raise the ratings. When I use Playmakers Alumni rosters I can get players to do stuff you don't come close to seeing 7 years into a dynasty. I'm not a video game maker but I have played enough games to know that it plays much better with the higher rated players. I also want to know how you think higher ratings makes the game the same tired product year after year? I have played this series since NCAA 98 and what makes it the same product is the fact we get very little change from year to year. Since the move from the ps2/xbox platforms to the current ones we have really seen a lack of quality features. When you buy the game for one mode, the offline dynasty mode, and it has been the same base mode for years that makes it a tired products. I will agree with you that we do need changes, I can't agree with you that lowering ratings on all players across the board is the change I want. I have given up on this game. I hope NCAA 12 will give us the gamer more power to make the game the way we want it to be. Just give us the power to edit players ratings and appearance inside the dynasty mode and we could all be happy. That would be welcome change on my end.

The game engine needs to change to accommodate a wider ratings range, not vice versa. They changed the ratings distribution for recruiting classes without changing their game code and the result is the terrible game play that we've seen from NCAA 11 after a few years in dynasty.

When Tiburon finally realizes the following then we'll be going in the right direction:

1. Every player needs to have a baseline competency at every position (i.e. no D-1 college player should play worst at their position than the average high school football player). Animations and AI should be baselined at competent levels which are defined by the lowest prospect skill rating in a recruiting class. For example, if 1-star linebackers come in at a minimum of 50 in Pursuit then every player in the game with a 50 Pursuit rating should pursue to the ball carrier at a higher level than a high school linebacker.

2. Each physical measurable should impact physical ratings. For example, STR and TRK ratings for a 6'4" 250 HB prospect should have a higher normal distribution than for a 5'7" 170 HB regardless of their "star" rating. Weight needs to be tied more closely to core body strength ratings in all positions in recruiting classes.

3. In the example given in this thread, an elite WR prospect can come in with an A SPD but D ACC. There should never be such a wide spread between SPD and ACC for skill positions (WR, HB, CB). This is obvious to everyone, but ignored by Tiburon. The entire ratings scheme doesn't need to be overhauled to fix such a minor coding issue. The 40 yard dash time should also take both SPD and ACC into account. Yet another minor coding issue.

4. The difference between the powerhouse programs and small schools is almost always size and speed. 5-star prospect should play bigger and faster than the 3-star prospects in most cases. No more 6'4" 205 5-star defensive ends with C+ speed, 6'5" 260 4-star defensive tackles with B- strength, and 6'3" 165 5-star wide receivers with B+ speed. These prospects don't exist in the real world. 5-star prospects should almost always profile as future NFL prospects with the possible exception of college spread QB prospects.

All of the above items can be addressed even with the current ratings spread as the base. Going back to having every good WR in the 90-99 range for SPD/ACC/AGI isn't the answer. That makes the recruiting process stale and ultimately makes the differences in players at the same position insignificant.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

The game engine needs to change to accommodate a wider ratings range, not vice versa. They changed the ratings distribution for recruiting classes without changing their game code and the result is the terrible game play that we've seen from NCAA 11 after a few years in dynasty. When Tiburon finally realizes the following then we'll be going in the right direction: 1. Every player needs to have a baseline competency at every position (i.e. no D-1 college player should play worst at their position than the average high school football player). Animations and AI should be baselined at competent levels which are defined by the lowest prospect skill rating in a recruiting class. For example, if 1-star linebackers come in at a minimum of 50 in Pursuit then every player in the game with a 50 Pursuit rating should pursue to the ball carrier at a higher level than a high school linebacker. 2. Each physical measurable should impact physical ratings. For example, STR and TRK ratings for a 6'4" 250 HB prospect should have a higher normal distribution than for a 5'7" 170 HB regardless of their "star" rating. Weight needs to be tied more closely to core body strength ratings in all positions in recruiting classes. 3. In the example given in this thread, an elite WR prospect can come in with an A SPD but D ACC. There should never be such a wide spread between SPD and ACC for skill positions (WR, HB, CB). This is obvious to everyone, but ignored by Tiburon. The entire ratings scheme doesn't need to be overhauled to fix such a minor coding issue. The 40 yard dash time should also take both SPD and ACC into account. Yet another minor coding issue. 4. The difference between the powerhouse programs and small schools is almost always size and speed. 5-star prospect should play bigger and faster than the 3-star prospects in most cases. No more 6'4" 205 5-star defensive ends with C+ speed, 6'5" 260 4-star defensive tackles with B- strength, and 6'3" 165 5-star wide receivers with B+ speed. These prospects don't exist in the real world. 5-star prospects should almost always profile as future NFL prospects with the possible exception of college spread QB prospects. All of the above items can be addressed even with the current ratings spread as the base. Going back to having every good WR in the 90-99 range for SPD/ACC/AGI isn't the answer. That makes the recruiting process stale and ultimately makes the differences in players at the same position insignificant.

I got you now. That is how I thought you would respond. I agree that the engine is an issue. That has been the down fall since the move to the current systems. I don't see them giving us a new engine for NCAA 12 so that is why I want to go back to the higher rated recruits. Since the current engine only supports the higher ratings why not go back? Tiburon want make a change until Madden makes a change then it will be a year later.

[devinewon]

Its not necessarily the top rated guys. Its the guys its the 3 stars. The parody in this game plummets and the things that were broken in recruiting in NCAA 10 like Alabama and Ohio State getting all the recruits are exacerbated by the top heavy recruiting.

Things like the 1#1 and #2 QB going to the same school happens way too much or a 195 pound defensive end. It becomes a severe problem.

[adembroski]

Quote: Originally Posted by devinewon

In a Dynasty you will have a recruit that runs a 4.26 40 yard dash with a D+ acceleration. That is Impossible. A guy who is that fast should never have that low acceleration but its 75% of the fast guys in my dynasty.

You're right, but the explanation you're giving is backwards.

"A guy who is that fast should never have that low acceleration" would be better said "a guy who has that low acceleration cannot be that fast."

[DonkeyJote]

The mistake here, is that the listed 40 time should combine a player's acceleration and his speed. Then you wouldn't see 4.26 spd with D acc.

However, I see nothing wrong with A spd, D acc. Those are very different traits. You can have great topline speed with poor acceleration. You can have fantastic burst without good topline speed (like a lot of Defensive ends). What's the point of having them be seperate ratings if everyone's acc matches their speed?

I very much agree that size needs to be taken into consideration. A big back should be more likely to be a power runner than a smaller back (though it shouldn't always be the case - look at Maurice Jones-Drew).

I also feel they need to condense the number of ratings they have. There shouldn't be Run Block, Run Block Footwork, and Run Block Strength. Scrap Run Block. Why does there need to be Agility, if there is already Route Running, Man Coverage, etc. Why does there need to be Elusiveness if there is spin and juke ratings. Why is there break tackle and trucking?

[bgeno]

Quote: Originally Posted by DonkeyJote

The mistake here, is that the listed 40 time should combine a player's acceleration and his speed. Then you wouldn't see 4.26 spd with D acc. However, I see nothing wrong with A spd, D acc. Those are very different traits. You can have great topline speed with poor acceleration. You can have fantastic burst without good topline speed (like a lot of Defensive ends). What's the point of having them be seperate ratings if everyone's acc matches their speed?

But not to the point we are seeing in NCAA 11. There are guys with A speed and D acceleration. Sure, they have speed, but they need three seconds of real time to reach the speed. Have you ever seen anyone not hit top speed in their 40 until they were 30 yards in? It just doesn't happen. No one that fast has that much trouble getting up to speed. Your acceleration should be--at the most--no lower than exactly two letter grades below your speed. I agree there should be guys with great top-line speed that have trouble accelerating (look at some big WR's or TE's... they are fast, but may not get up to speed), but something isn't right with the way it works in NCAA 11.

Also, no RB should have D acceleration with great speed and still be ranked high. Acceleration is a key stat for a RB because it shows how quickly they can hit the whole. If a guy has A speed and C acceleration and is a running back, he should be no higher than 3*... and that's stretching it if you ask me.


I do agree, though, that having guys with great acceleration but not great high end speed is very realistic. You see that a lot.


It's funny because I realized how important acceleration is in my offline dynasty just before seeing this thread. I was having trouble getting my RB's going in the run game even with 87-94 speed and 82-87 acceleration (25 speed threshold if that means anything). They're still slow once they get the ball until they hit the second level. But I gave a handoff to a 92 speed 95 acceleration WR on a jet sweep and he took off as soon as he got the ball.

Now, when I recruit, I don't waste time on RB's who have anything lower than B- acceleration. I'm a little more lenient on WR's since it isn't QUITE as important that they have acceleration, but I still don't want a wideout with lower than C+ in that category.

[DonkeyJote]

Quote: Originally Posted by bgeno

But not to the point we are seeing in NCAA 11. There are guys with A speed and D acceleration. Sure, they have speed, but they need three seconds of real time to reach the speed. Have you ever seen anyone not hit top speed in their 40 until they were 30 yards in? It just doesn't happen. No one that fast has that much trouble getting up to speed. Your acceleration should be--at the most--no lower than exactly two letter grades below your speed. I agree there should be guys with great top-line speed that have trouble accelerating (look at some big WR's or TE's... they are fast, but may not get up to speed), but something isn't right with the way it works in NCAA 11. Also, no RB should have D acceleration with great speed and still be ranked high. Acceleration is a key stat for a RB because it shows how quickly they can hit the whole. If a guy has A speed and C acceleration and is a running back, he should be no higher than 3*... and that's stretching it if you ask me. I do agree, though, that having guys with great acceleration but not great high end speed is very realistic. You see that a lot. It's funny because I realized how important acceleration is in my offline dynasty just before seeing this thread. I was having trouble getting my RB's going in the run game even with 87-94 speed and 82-87 acceleration (25 speed threshold if that means anything). They're still slow once they get the ball until they hit the second level. But I gave a handoff to a 92 speed 95 acceleration WR on a jet sweep and he took off as soon as he got the ball. Now, when I recruit, I don't waste time on RB's who have anything lower than B- acceleration. I'm a little more lenient on WR's since it isn't QUITE as important that they have acceleration, but I still don't want a wideout with lower than C+ in that category.

I would definetly agree that top RB's should have higher acc, since it's so crucial to their success. But I still disagree that a guy's acceleration should be tied at all to his speed. Why is it okay for a guy with B speed to have D accel and not a guy with A speed? It should take them the same amount of time either way to get to top speed, with the guy with A speed having the higher top speed. I don't think it means that they'd both take x amount of time to get to the B guy's top speed, and the A guy would keep going. They'd both hit their top speed at the same, with the A guy's being faster. Now if it just takes too long (and is unrealistic) for a guy with D acceleration to accelerate, then maybe that should be tuned. But a slow guy and a fast guy can have the same rate of acceleration - they reach top speed at the same time, but the fast guy's top speed is much higher, so when he hits that top speed, he's already got a pretty huge lead on the slow guy.

I'd say a bigger problem is that RB's should have higher Acceleration across the board - it is probably the most important attribute for a Running Back - much more so than for, say a WR or a Linebacker. A RB with A speed and D acceleration wouldn't work, because that guy would get moved to a different position.