What you want to see improved in NCAA 13 Poll

[Aranor]

After the piss poor job EA has done for years, is it really worth it to continue buying the sub-par game being the beta tester? EA will just hype up 13 aswell, sa all these new and improved things are in it, but when we get it, same thing. BUGS BUGS BUGS. Lack of competition has made it easy for EA to put out crap and make millions and continue to do it.

[blkrptnt819]

^^^This is bashing

[ViLLiO]

As a defensive player, I just want the running game to be easier to stop. Opponents on last gen averaged 0 rush yards per game against me. Too much control is taken away from the user. I'm tired of usering my FS and not being able to jump the snap and get to the outside like I could last gen.

[Gotmadskillzson]

Quote: Originally Posted by mWolfe

I voted for most of them, but my vote for the expanded ratings system and what I think they need to do is take the general Strength rating and make it into Upper Strength and Lower Strength that way instead of the ball carrier either pushing down a bigger player or falling backwards from a smaller player his legs will keep turning and fighting forward while carrying a few weaker people with him. I would also lose the general pass and run block and add aggresivness and chemistry, one is obvious the higher the aggresineness the harder they will hit run ect., chemistry could be use for the type of sytem they run so that if you spread type team a scrambling QB will have low chemisrty and lower ratings while a pockect passer will have a high chemisrty higher ratings and be a better fit it that scheme.

The problem with speed backs is the way this game handles the elusiveness rating and the animations they have for it. Elusive means to AVOID & EVADE, however the way EA uses it for speed backs it means to duck under. Animation wise it looks TOO MUCH like the Trucking animation.

They need to scrap that animation and that whole logic. Instead they should use the logic of what the word elusive actually mean. That way speed backs and scrambling QBs would try to go AROUND defenders and not try to go straight through them and hoping they can duck under them. 97% of the time they don't succeed in ducking and just get tackled.

Many years ago last generation they had it better. Where as if you grabbed a speed back, he would spin and jerk his arm away from you type of animation. But more importantly, he didn't run towards you anyway, he tried to go around you.

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by ViLLiO

As a defensive player, I just want the running game to be easier to stop. Opponents on last gen averaged 0 rush yards per game against me. Too much control is taken away from the user. I'm tired of usering my FS and not being able to jump the snap and get to the outside like I could last gen.

But you know that is not a realistic stat right? Having to put an extra man in the box is actually how things really play out. But I would love for them to stop making me take the path they want me to take when I user control a lineman or someone set to blitz.

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by Gotmadskillzson

The problem with speed backs is the way this game handles the elusiveness rating and the animations they have for it. Elusive means to AVOID & EVADE, however the way EA uses it for speed backs it means to duck under. Animation wise it looks TOO MUCH like the Trucking animation. They need to scrap that animation and that whole logic. Instead they should use the logic of what the word elusive actually mean. That way speed backs and scrambling QBs would try to go AROUND defenders and not try to go straight through them and hoping they can duck under them. 97% of the time they don't succeed in ducking and just get tackled. Many years ago last generation they had it better. Where as if you grabbed a speed back, he would spin and jerk his arm away from you type of animation. But more importantly, he didn't run towards you anyway, he tried to go around you.

That makes so much sense, allowing the juke animation make sense too.

[ViLLiO]

Quote: Originally Posted by blkrptnt819

But you know that is not a realistic stat right? Having to put an extra man in the box is actually how things really play out. But I would love for them to stop making me take the path they want me to take when I user control a lineman or someone set to blitz.

I was being just a tad facetious with the number '0'.

"Come on, man..."

[mWolfe]

Quote: Originally Posted by blkrptnt819

But some teams are spread run and don't use pocket passers. Should they be punished?!?!

On the whole no, but what you can for I'd tie chemistry into the coaching staff ad well.

To do that you have the coaches have all the position listed in their rating and which the prefer and if say he wants a pocket passer and the team has a scrambler then that when the chemistry rating works. I'll do more explaining later because it's hard to type on my phone while I'm working.