More Links

RavensFan2k3 · 01-10-2010, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kehlis


	How did we all forget that the only opinion that matters is that of TomBrady's and RavensFan2k3?

What are you talking about? I agreed that they need to focus alittle more on making the NCAA draft classes more realistic

splff3000 · 01-10-2010, 01:28 AM

I voted for random but I actually don't mind a custom-crafted class as long as the names/schools are random. I just don't like the fact that someone can go online and look up players names in the drafts and know which players are gonna be good and which ones aren't. It kinda ruins online franchises and things like that. If the names were random then they wouldn't be able to do that.

If they had to go the true random route then there should be a range of "randomness" for each attribute in relation to other attributes. For instance if a player had 90 speed his acc could be no more than plus or minus 7 of that speed. So the lowest acc he would have would be 83 and the highest would be 97. That would help cover the range from someone with slow acc and someone with high acc. I know 83 is low for a 90 speed, but with the range set as it is, you wouldn't consistently get 83 acc like in the past. That would allow for the occasional slow acc, high spd player to come out in the draft, but the majority would be on par are faster as far as acc is in relation to speed.

RavensFan2k3 · 01-10-2010, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splff3000


	I voted for random but I actually don't mind a custom-crafted class as long as the names/schools are random. I just don't like the fact that someone can go online and look up players names in the drafts and know which players are gonna be good and which ones aren't. It kinda ruins online franchises and things like that. If the names were random then they wouldn't be able to do that. If they had to go the true random route then there should be a range of "randomness" for each attribute in relation to other attributes. For instance if a player had 90 speed his acc could be no more than plus or minus 7 of that speed. So the lowest acc he would have would be 83 and the highest would be 97. That would help cover the range from someone with slow acc and someone with high acc. I know 83 is low for a 90 speed, but with the range set as it is, you wouldn't consistently get 83 acc like in the past. That would allow for the occasional slow acc, high spd player to come out in the draft, but the majority would be on par are faster as far as acc is in relation to speed.

I agree with what you said, ESPECIALLY with whats in bold

KBLover · 01-10-2010, 03:51 AM

I liked the Random classes, even with the "funky" player types.

A blindingly fast player with crap agility sounds like someone with straight-line speed but doesn't make sharp cuts. Sounds like a good kick returner, or a WR who you try to hit on screens or simple routes like streaks or slants and hope they can use their speed to burn the defense. Or if low enough is a "track star" who has no concept of being able to make football-related moves.

A slow but agile player is like a WR who's good at changing direction and uses that to compensate for a lack of 4.2 speed.

Plus, "funky" players would make scouting more important as you might want to make sure that fast guy really can make cuts or at least basic football moves, or is that guy with the bad 40 time a worthless WR or does he have a chance as a possession type WR who can shake the defense with his sharp, precise routes and cuts.

Of course, funkiness can go too far, but I think not having all players fit near the ideal or even the average makes things interesting. Might help to create more "system guys" or chances to get creative in using a player, instead of just plain good and bad players.

And, yes, I played the "old school" Maddens that had the randomize players.

Randomizing the names/schools/bio data would be interesting as well.

Molarmite · 01-10-2010, 04:05 AM

Agreed that created classes should stay but the names/schools definitely need to be mixed up. That would be make it harder to do the other thing I would like, stories ala Head Coach but I think it's still possible if you attach a story to a certain player ID. One of my favorite parts of HC was hearing about the rookies and how the college season was going, scouting them as the season progressed.

Anyway, here's to more HC stuff making it over for 11 now that they have a good base.

Swingking77 · 01-10-2010, 07:47 AM

I was a huge fan of created rookies in HC. But they had back story which really added depth to them. Now though, they're just names and some of them are perfect players... I don't mind having random rookies, but I really wish they'd just have a better thresh hold system so that things like SPD 90, ACC 50 don't happen for positions like WR, DB, and RB... Just like you wouldn't see a 310 WR, DB, RB. If they had a better system, I think that having random rookies would rock... Or better yet, just like in HC, have NFL clones with different names. That way, all the CPU has to do is take other rookies or players and rename them for us, which was already listed as a possible solution. I just don't like the idea that you have a limited amount of playability right out of the box...

On one hand we have infinite draft possibilities. The other is limited and opens the door to DLC...

It really wasn't that big of an issue before, but now since we can't DL the rosters from NCAA without having NCAA, I think it warrents a re-do.

2Koalition · 01-10-2010, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jump


	NOOOOO!!! Sorry, I just hate the random rookies. 95 spd 93 acc 68 agi. yuk.

Make each position not totally random, but capped for randomness....

the 'random generator' should not be totally random, it should be capped for each position.

When you go to draft a WR, the random rookie's ratings should be locked inbetween a set attribute, so the Acceleration can never go down to 68 - it would vary from 87-99 so the randomization cannot go below 87, so you will never see a Rookie with 86 acceleration.

Same for the height of a lineman and weight, weight should be capped in the randomization - dont make it random everywhere so we see Lineman that are like 5' 5" 450 pounds. it has to be capped.

Like take NFL 2K5 for example, i dont think i ever seen anything weird for lineman who have been 5' 11" 250 pounds. it appears to vary within a set of parameters so lineman cant have 90 speed, etc.

Cryolemon · 01-10-2010, 08:51 AM

I really like the created rookies. It would be cool if they had it like HC with more detailed back stories, etc. though.

View Poll Results: Controlled Random Rookies
Yes! Random rookies keep things fresh.	49	44.14%
NO! EA keep making rookies for us.	52	46.85%
Who cares!	10	9.01%
Voters: 111. You may not vote on this poll

01-10-2010, 01:28 AM	#18
splff3000 All Star OVR: 32 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Blog Entries: 3	Re: Back to Random Rookies? I voted for random but I actually don't mind a custom-crafted class as long as the names/schools are random. I just don't like the fact that someone can go online and look up players names in the drafts and know which players are gonna be good and which ones aren't. It kinda ruins online franchises and things like that. If the names were random then they wouldn't be able to do that. If they had to go the true random route then there should be a range of "randomness" for each attribute in relation to other attributes. For instance if a player had 90 speed his acc could be no more than plus or minus 7 of that speed. So the lowest acc he would have would be 83 and the highest would be 97. That would help cover the range from someone with slow acc and someone with high acc. I know 83 is low for a 90 speed, but with the range set as it is, you wouldn't consistently get 83 acc like in the past. That would allow for the occasional slow acc, high spd player to come out in the draft, but the majority would be on par are faster as far as acc is in relation to speed. __________________ PSN - Splff3000 Twitch Last edited by splff3000; 01-10-2010 at 01:30 AM.

01-10-2010, 03:51 AM	#20
KBLover Hall Of Fame OVR: 40 Join Date: Aug 2009 Blog Entries: 14	Re: Back to Random Rookies? I liked the Random classes, even with the "funky" player types. A blindingly fast player with crap agility sounds like someone with straight-line speed but doesn't make sharp cuts. Sounds like a good kick returner, or a WR who you try to hit on screens or simple routes like streaks or slants and hope they can use their speed to burn the defense. Or if low enough is a "track star" who has no concept of being able to make football-related moves. A slow but agile player is like a WR who's good at changing direction and uses that to compensate for a lack of 4.2 speed. Plus, "funky" players would make scouting more important as you might want to make sure that fast guy really can make cuts or at least basic football moves, or is that guy with the bad 40 time a worthless WR or does he have a chance as a possession type WR who can shake the defense with his sharp, precise routes and cuts. Of course, funkiness can go too far, but I think not having all players fit near the ideal or even the average makes things interesting. Might help to create more "system guys" or chances to get creative in using a player, instead of just plain good and bad players. And, yes, I played the "old school" Maddens that had the randomize players. Randomizing the names/schools/bio data would be interesting as well. Last edited by KBLover; 01-10-2010 at 03:54 AM.

01-10-2010, 04:05 AM	#21
Molarmite MVP OVR: 13 Join Date: Mar 2009	Re: Back to Random Rookies? Agreed that created classes should stay but the names/schools definitely need to be mixed up. That would be make it harder to do the other thing I would like, stories ala Head Coach but I think it's still possible if you attach a story to a certain player ID. One of my favorite parts of HC was hearing about the rookies and how the college season was going, scouting them as the season progressed. Anyway, here's to more HC stuff making it over for 11 now that they have a good base.

01-10-2010, 07:47 AM	#22
Swingking77 Rookie OVR: 6 Join Date: Jul 2006	Re: Back to Random Rookies? I was a huge fan of created rookies in HC. But they had back story which really added depth to them. Now though, they're just names and some of them are perfect players... I don't mind having random rookies, but I really wish they'd just have a better thresh hold system so that things like SPD 90, ACC 50 don't happen for positions like WR, DB, and RB... Just like you wouldn't see a 310 WR, DB, RB. If they had a better system, I think that having random rookies would rock... Or better yet, just like in HC, have NFL clones with different names. That way, all the CPU has to do is take other rookies or players and rename them for us, which was already listed as a possible solution. I just don't like the idea that you have a limited amount of playability right out of the box... On one hand we have infinite draft possibilities. The other is limited and opens the door to DLC... It really wasn't that big of an issue before, but now since we can't DL the rosters from NCAA without having NCAA, I think it warrents a re-do.

	MLB The Show 24 Review: Another Solid Hit for the Series
	New Star GP Review: Old-School Arcade Fun
	Where Are Our College Basketball Video Game Rumors?

01-10-2010, 08:51 AM	#24
Cryolemon MVP OVR: 23 Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Newark, Nottinghamshire, England Blog Entries: 7	Re: Back to Random Rookies? I really like the created rookies. It would be cool if they had it like HC with more detailed back stories, etc. though.

More Links

Back to Random Rookies?