Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

[Richuation]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

not to sound like a jackass, but i honestly believe that the slow progression is to add incentive into buying their "max training" in the off-season.

I think you might be on to something here...

[Michgantown]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

What i would really like to see is less teams that are absolutely terrible. Maybe a few more blue-chip prospects that come in rated 75-85, but most of all i´de like more recruits come in as 55-65 as opposed to 45-55, which would make for a better sense of accomplishment controlling a bad team against other bad teams and also would give small (CPU controlled !) programs a chance to be competitive every once in a while when they get lucky with a good recruiting class and maybe a transfer or 2.

Playing in the major conferences is still fun later in dynasty (simmed 4 years, played 1 in the WAC and am now playing my first in the Pac 10, 5-4 so far), but the lower ranked conferences become really pointless.
I realize there should be a big gap, but it´s gone overbord, there´s just too many really, really bad teams. A bell curve would be nice with a lot of medium teams distinguished by little things and timing (like 1 team having a lot of senior starters while another just graduated many stars) .

Theres a suffcicient amount of stars IMHO, there isn´t a sufficient amount of decent players available to spread out over 120 schools.

In 2016 it may look like this right now (taken from over at IGN, credit User BryanSW)



What i´d like to see from a competitivness standpoint is sth like this

A+: 0
A: 2
A-: 3
B+: 10
B: 10
B-: 15
C+: 15
C: 20
C-: 15
D+: 15
D: 15
D-: 10

There should be less atrocious teams and way more average teams that are distinguished by certain players within a similar Overall talent. Say one of the C teams got lucky 5 years ago and now has a 90 rated HB, they could make some noise despite a lack of talent in other positions. Or in the lower conferences you might have a D team that has a 80 senior QB that makes them suddenly the team to beat compared to other D-teams.

The only reason some of those teams are rated a D- is because that is the lowest rating. Alot of teams in the future are like a G-

[joejccva71]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Sorry guys but I would NOT rather have this then a ton of 99 rated players because what happens is now the lower tier teams are totally worthless and have absolutely zero shot of getting better. ZERO.

That completely kills the immersion. It destroys dynasty mode. Atleast having alot of players at 99 would give those lower tier teams a shot and maybe winning a championship one day.

[dalecooper]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

This is kind of a scary thing. I usually only play my dynasties for four years and then restart, so it won't affect me a whole bunch, but still.

Question - can you create recruits each season, or only at the beginning of the dynasty? If there's an option to create them year in and year out, you might be able to fix this just by creating 25-30 quality recruits with higher awareness. Scatter them all over the place and don't try to recruit them all yourself, just boost the talent pool somewhat.

[JJ_Bills9]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

I'll point back to my earlier post and say again that I don't think progression is a huge problem. The problem is that there are too damn many awful recruits. I mean, how did the team at EA decide that half the generated kickers would have KP and KA in the 40's. I can understand some bad accuracies, but still not 40's bad. And how would anyone make a D-1 roster if they can't kick a 35 yard field goal?

The majority of players in college football are good, average players. In my previous post, I said that would be a player in the 60-75 range. There should not be more than a handful of scholarshipped players below a 60. THat's just an absolutely terrible player.

At the very worst, The bottom teams in the country should be comprised of players between 60-70, with a few of those atrocious players below 60 mixed in for depth, and a few guys in the 70's who are the standouts of the team.

I mean, the teams are so bad down the road, that I'll just be rolling out 40-50 point wins against half the teams on my schedule with a B overall team, and I'll be putting my backups in during the 3rd quarter. That's not fun, nor is it realistic whatsoever.

[joejccva71]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

I'll point back to my earlier post and say again that I don't think progression is a huge problem. The problem is that there are too damn many awful recruits. I mean, how did the team at EA decide that half the generated kickers would have KP and KA in the 40's. I can understand some bad accuracies, but still not 40's bad. And how would anyone make a D-1 roster if they can't kick a 35 yard field goal?

The majority of players in college football are good, average players. In my previous post, I said that would be a player in the 60-75 range. There should not be more than a handful of scholarshipped players below a 60. THat's just an absolutely terrible player.

At the very worst, The bottom teams in the country should be comprised of players between 60-70, with a few of those atrocious players below 60 mixed in for depth, and a few guys in the 70's who are the standouts of the team.

I mean, the teams are so bad down the road, that I'll just be rolling out 40-50 point wins against half the teams on my schedule with a B overall team, and I'll be putting my backups in during the 3rd quarter. That's not fun, nor is it realistic whatsoever.

Exactly which makes playing in a lower tier team in a lower tier conference completely worthless. I may start over now and just pick a team in the SEC so i can atleast have competition in both the games and recruiting. I want to see star recruits and how they shine on the field. The last thing I want to do is give a 4 year scholarship to a player that is completely and utterly worthless and rated in the 40's or 50's.

[lsu4life86]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

I'm at the end of year 2 in my dynasty and all the powerhouses of this past season have 2 losses or more. Bama, Texas (not even ranked preseason), Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio State, etc are all out of the top 10. TCU and Boise of course are going to the NC cause of such easy schedules and no more powerhouses to take the spot. Penn State has 1 loss but idk if they can slip into 1 of the spots. Kinda sucks, oh and at one point, teams like Stanford, Arkansas and other not so great teams were in the Top 5. Pretty gay but w/e

almost identical to mine dynasty...i am in the middle of yr 2

[Whoman]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Question - can you create recruits each season, or only at the beginning of the dynasty? If there's an option to create them year in and year out, you might be able to fix this just by creating 25-30 quality recruits with higher awareness. Scatter them all over the place and don't try to recruit them all yourself, just boost the talent pool somewhat.

You can each year (and when creating freshman means HS senior !), but all that will do is boost up the bigger programs still, doesn´t do jack for the smaller programs. For that you would propably have to create another 100 prospects rated around 60-65 i guess.

I also don´t get how they don´t put in a template for creating players ... that way it would be super easy to use a template like, say, "4* Power HB* or "3* scrambling QB* (or 2*kicker ...) and do a few edits to those templates and create a couple dozen prospects within an hour ...

[youALREADYknow]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

You can each year, but all that will do is boost up the bigger programs still, doesn´t do jack for the smaller programs. For that you would propably have to create another 100 prospects rated around 60-65.

I also don´t get how they don´t put in a template for creating players ... that way it would be super easy to use a template like, say, "4* Power HB* or "3* scrambling QB* (or 2*kicker ...) and do a few edits to those templates and create a couple dozen prospects within an hour ...

Excellent idea. Creating prospects is extremely time consuming which turns me off spending the time every offseason.

[dalecooper]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

You can each year (and when creating freshman means HS senior !), but all that will do is boost up the bigger programs still, doesn´t do jack for the smaller programs. For that you would propably have to create another 100 prospects rated around 60-65 i guess.

Well I would assume that if you create a bunch of highly rated recruits, big programs will go after them and leave some of the average-rated, random-generated guys to the others. Just having better recruits at the top should theoretically elevate the talent level available to everybody all the way down the line, kind of like a cascade effect. The question is how many you need to see an impact on a large number of schools and keep the overall program ratings roughly the same - I would guess probably 50 players per year at least.

[Whoman]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Excellent idea. Creating prospects is extremely time consuming which turns me off spending the time every offseason.

It´s also not a novel concept, 2K has it in for years in their basketball and hockey title.

For some reason EA doesn´t see a good editor as important at all. See FIFA, where you basically can´t edit players at all (you need to take away points for one skill to add them to another ...)

[youALREADYknow]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Well I would assume that if you create a bunch of highly rated recruits, big programs will go after them and leave some of the average-rated, random-generated guys to the others. Just having better recruits at the top should theoretically elevate the talent level available to everybody all the way down the line, kind of like a cascade effect. The question is how many you need to see an impact on a large number of schools and keep the overall program ratings roughly the same - I would guess probably 50 players per year at least.

The key would be finding what positions have the largest talent gap. Then create the most 4-5 star prospects at those positions.

In prior years the talent gap was the greatest at Center, Guard, and Tight End. Most CPU teams would have Off Tackles playing Tight End and backup Guards at Center.

[StormJH1]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Sorry guys but I would NOT rather have this then a ton of 99 rated players because what happens is now the lower tier teams are totally worthless and have absolutely zero shot of getting better. ZERO.

That completely kills the immersion. It destroys dynasty mode. Atleast having alot of players at 99 would give those lower tier teams a shot and maybe winning a championship one day.

The problem in NCAA 10 with OVR's maxing out at 99 for literally dozens of players across the board destroyed that game for me, and made it the first NCAA that I had ever purchased on release day and traded in early. I don't know what flaws this dynasty has going forward, but I would much prefer the problem of poor recruits and slow progression over hyperinflated progression.

Here's another way to look at it: The vast, vast majority of dynasties and online dynasties probably run less than 4 years. That's just the reality of people's level of interest and the sheer time commitment it takes to play season after season with one team. If that's the case, then all that your telling me is that the by years 3 and 4, the upperclassmen held over in the game from the original roster will be superior to most of the new recruits, which aren't that good. I can live with that. While I think the dynasty engine they used from 2003-2007 was just fine, if there was one knock against it, it seemed like 4 and 5* freshman recruits made a little bit too big of an impact right off of the bat.

[ODogg]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Every year it's "freshman are rated too high" or "freshman are rated too low" or else it's "progression is too fast" or "progression is too slow". This is all subjective and it's never going to change. Honestly I think you guys stress too much about these things. Can you just play the game and try to enjoy it? I mean assuming everyone's getting the same type of players it should be even across the board.

[kingkilla56]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

yeah im in year 2017 and kent states best player is a 61 ss. This is basically how it is for all the lower teir schools in the future. The best players are 40-64 rated. Im all for making the bad teams bad but this is totally out of hand.

When importing a draft class to madden there will be no players from these lower tiered schools. A draft full of oklahomas ohio states and alabamas is unrealistic. Even these low schools have their stars who are actually good. But in ncaa, a star player is 57 rated.

Its a simple fix. The progression as it is is fine. They need to bump up the ratings of 2 star and 3 star recruits and have some very good sleepers at these star ratings. Have 10 or so 70 rated 2 star guys who can get to 80 by their senior years. As it is now, a low teir school's best recruit is rated 57 and progresses toi a 64 by senior year.......absurd! There is no value to scheduling these schools in the future