Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

[kingkilla56]

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.

you must not have seen what happens when you sim past the default roster players.

[RoyalBoyle78]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Isn't there a recruiting level you pick before you start your dynasty. Put it on Heisman, and see what happens. I'm assuming that recruting top level players to the little schools will then be very hard.

[joejccva71]

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

Just curious but what players are the top teams getting in the year 2017? Are the 4* and 5* players still being rated as 80+ and 90+'s? Or are those teams getting lower rated players as well. (70's, etc)

Can you check this please?

[choadler]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Really what needs to happen is a more robust dynasty progression. Offensive and Defensive lineman should be modeled to, for the most part, "the light to turn on" in around 3 years in the program. As such, a big jump in ratings should happen going into the 3rd year

Running backs should be able to be good right away. This is a position where many kids are physically ready to play right away. Not all of them, but you should see an rare superstar running back come in ranked very highly, overall in a 90's. Receivers should start making impacts in their sophomore year in some cases with a rare freshman able to make an impact.

Quarterbacks should take at least 2 years before their awareness and other ratings start to come on, but again there needs to be the rare Superstar that is good his Freshman or Sophomore year.

Kickers should come in and be able to generally kick pretty well. Not at all american level, but they should be decent. They need to do this for gameplay reasons as a 70 man roster is hard to carry 4 kickers.


If they really want to fix this, they need to add busts to the recruiting classes, not necessarily regression, but no progression as far as critical skills. Awareness should always continue to increase. They need to have breakout people, not just people that progress 3 or 4 points, but jump 7 to 9 points in one year. If I am not mistaken, this is what they had in 2004 and I thought it worked great.

[mjarz02]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

White Out simmed a dynasty quite a few years I think till 2018. What he did was before advancing to the next season he would make sure that there were at least 25-30 5* recruits for each season.

Maybe if someone tested it by making sure each year there were 30 5* recruits that it would make a difference.

Not really sure but its worth a try for a workaround.

[MattUMD224]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

White Out simmed a dynasty quite a few years I think till 2018. What he did was before advancing to the next season he would make sure that there were at least 25-30 5* recruits for each season.

Maybe if someone tested it by making sure each year there were 30 5* recruits that it would make a difference.

Not really sure but its worth a try for a workaround.

white out didnt take a look at the recruited players though, all he did was the simulations.

[Michgantown]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Why can't dynasty just be like last gen. I'll take last gens dynasty over this new recruiting system.

[joejccva71]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Really what needs to happen is a more robust dynasty progression. Offensive and Defensive lineman should be modeled to, for the most part, "the light to turn on" in around 3 years in the program. As such, a big jump in ratings should happen going into the 3rd year

Running backs should be able to be good right away. This is a position where many kids are physically ready to play right away. Not all of them, but you should see an rare superstar running back come in ranked very highly, overall in a 90's. Receivers should start making impacts in their sophomore year in some cases with a rare freshman able to make an impact.

Quarterbacks should take at least 2 years before their awareness and other ratings start to come on, but again there needs to be the rare Superstar that is good his Freshman or Sophomore year.

Kickers should come in and be able to generally kick pretty well. Not at all american level, but they should be decent. They need to do this for gameplay reasons as a 70 man roster is hard to carry 4 kickers.


If they really want to fix this, they need to add busts to the recruiting classes, not necessarily regression, but no progression as far as critical skills. Awareness should always continue to increase. They need to have breakout people, not just people that progress 3 or 4 points, but jump 7 to 9 points in one year. If I am not mistaken, this is what they had in 2004 and I thought it worked great.

I agree with this and it's how it should be. In my opinion one of the only games where EA really nailed progression almost perfectly in how it was setup was NFL Head Coach 09. The issues from that game were on the field with the way the AI worked, but the back office stuff worked better than anything else I've seen. It was a masterpiece.

[youALREADYknow]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Really what needs to happen is a more robust dynasty progression. Offensive and Defensive lineman should be modeled to, for the most part, "the light to turn on" in around 3 years in the program. As such, a big jump in ratings should happen going into the 3rd year

Seniors should get huge boosts in awareness, stamina, etc. after their JR offseason. This would help balance the game between the powerhouses who play underclassmen and the smaller schools who develop talent over 4 years.

This is how real football works as smaller schools with upperclassmen can typically compete better with the younger powerhouse teams.

[kingkilla56]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Just curious but what players are the top teams getting in the year 2017? Are the 4* and 5* players still being rated as 80+ and 90+'s? Or are those teams getting lower rated players as well. (70's, etc)

Can you check this please?

Well im doing a usc dynasty that came out of a sandiego state dynasty.
When i was at SDSU i could only get 3 and 2 star guys.
A 3 star can be anywhere from 57-69 maybe 70.
A 2 star can be a 49-61

While doing usc
A 4 star can be 69-80
A 5 star can be a 72-82 ive never gotten an 85+ 5 star guy but it might be possible. I got the number one rated recruit one year, a 5 star QB from california, and he came in at 78.

[dalecooper]

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.

It's not subjective, you should take a look at this thread on IGN: http://boards.ign.com/ncaa_football_...1/193961974/p1

There's nothing subjective about having no teams with A ratings and half the teams with D ratings. It's an objective, marked decline in overall player quality.

I posted this over at EA's forum and I firmly believe it, so I'll post it again here. This ought to be a guiding principle for EA when they program recruits and progression (in NCAA) or draft picks and progression (in Madden). Regardless of how they want to tweak it and adjust it, what people really want is for the overall quality of players and teams to not go drastically up or down. So here's how you achieve that:

...I just don't understand how their entire system isn't math-based. It's all about averages. What people don't ever want to see is teams overall getting much worse or much better, as well as the best and worst players getting a lot worse or better. They want the roster each year to roughly resemble the default roster, even if specific teams improve or decline, and stars come and go. And it's really not that hard. They don't even have to hard-code the specific values, just average out the current ratings and base new recruits and progression off of that. For example, take all the default roster's running backs. Average out their specific ratings as well as their OVR, and store the averages for each class (freshmen, sophomores, etc.).

Then when a new recruiting class is generated and it's churning out random halfbacks, the range of ratings is based on the previous freshmen averages. If average freshman halfback awareness was 72, then the default random HB should have a 72 AWR - plus/minus ten points or whatever they think is reasonable, so long as the recruiting class overall averages out to about 72. The overall average should then conform to the previous year's OVR average as well, and schools recruiting halfbacks should end up with basically the same quality level of running as they had before (again in aggregate only; specific schools might get better or worse).

Same with progression. Want to know how much to progress awareness for a freshmen halfback going into his second year? Well what was the average AWR for sophomores the previous year vs. the average AWR for the new sophomores (pre-progression)? Take the difference and that is your baseline AWR improvement, plus/minus a few points. It's not a guess, it's just math. There's no reason for them not to be able to maintain overall roster quality in perpetuity, for however many years of dynasty you want to play or sim.

[Whoman]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Isn't there a recruiting level you pick before you start your dynasty. Put it on Heisman, and see what happens. I'm assuming that recruting top level players to the little schools will then be very hard.

what has that to do with anything discussed in this topic though ?

The problem is the little school not getting any decent players (controlled by the CPU !) and 5 years in every player ending up being (on average) rated 15 points less than in the original rosters. The scales just don´t match and the result is that there´s just nothing distinguishing the smaller schools from each other as 1/5 of all schools are rated D and the gameplay does suffer from it.

What is just pretty much inexcusable is that the created recruits are not at all in line with the deafult roster. If you change the engine and scale for created recruits you have to make sure the original roster reflects that, otherwise it´s just pointless to make such a change.

They simply overshot on a good idea. The way the original rosters ratings are spread out is pretty much perfect , no reason why the created recruits shouldn´t be based on them and how good (on average) the original-roster FR, SOs, JRs and SRs are.

Again, less star players is great, but the rest should then fall in a bell curve and not in sth where you have just way, way too many terrible players and schools. There should be more average players and teams where little things distinguish them and where the boarders are more fluid.

[Mtneer08]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

I think the low rated recruits are great. Im in year 2014 and so far the player ratings of generated recruits are looking pretty realistic. Also some sorry teams still do have very good players. Just played Ball State and they had a generated recruit that is a 86 as a junior. He was a WR and even though I beat them by 20, this WR still caught 2 TD's with 160 yards.

[Whoman]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Just played Ball State and they had a generated recruit that is a 86 as a junior.

I´d wager he was a transfer.

[Mtneer08]

Re: Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

Well im doing a usc dynasty that came out of a sandiego state dynasty.
When i was at SDSU i could only get 3 and 2 star guys.
A 3 star can be anywhere from 57-69 maybe 70.
A 2 star can be a 49-61

While doing usc
A 4 star can be 69-80
A 5 star can be a 72-82 ive never gotten an 85+ 5 star guy but it might be possible. I got the number one rated recruit one year, a 5 star QB from california, and he came in at 78.

But see it just depends...I got a 3 star DB and he came in at 72 but most of them do come in at 57-69. The #1 recruit that Ohio State got in the last class was a FS and he shocked me by coming in with an 86 overrall rating. I love the randomness