Who agrees with me on these two features.

[HoundsOfHowl]

As always the NCAA dev. team is focusing on gameplay and presentation. Ok these two features would make an even more awesome game. If they added create-a-rival feature and new create a schedule feature.

Create-a-rival : Either have you go in and manualy do this in Dynasty options or after a couple years of playing a team and having close games it makes them your rival. Maybe even be able to create a trophy to have for your rivalry and a name.

New scheduling feature : Have it like the college hoops games, where if you are a small or mid major program having some rough years these big schools won't come to your stadium, and vice-versa, if you are a big school some of these smaller schools may not play you because they dont want to get slaughtered.

*also a feature that I'm sure we could all agree on, is having a real crowd, if your team is only averaging 10,000 fans per game and your stadium seats 25k then the stadium should look half full. Also if the games are blowouts the crowd should start leaving and making the stadium look like its emptying out.

[dan_457]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

I would love if there was a sort of new rival logic implemented. Where if you played enough great games against a school(judged by using a score like the ESPN instant classics games) enough you'd get the option to add them as a rival. Even if you could just manually add one it'd be great.

[JohnZapp]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

there should be create a rival for your teambuilder so they can ACTUALLY HAVE A RIVAL

[PaperBoyx703]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

there should be create a rival for your teambuilder so they can ACTUALLY HAVE A RIVAL

Yeah I have always thought about this for years. I like it alot and since the games record greatest games then it should be able to take that and generate rivals. Also blowing out(running up the score) teams should contribute to hatred too.

[Special27K]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

These two would increase the re-playability of dynasty by years and years. For the rivals, they'd have to ask if you'd like to make it a rivalry game is my only suggestion. I don't want every conference opponent to become a rival. For the scheduling idea, I love it. It should've been implemented the year after the Basketball game did it. Miami(FL) should never be like "Yeah, we'll come to Toledo and play there" (This is kind of a joke since in 2013 that game is happening). But, none the less games like that should be rare for MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt teams to host.

[TDenverFan]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

Maybe if you play an OOC team 3 years in a row, a screen pops up that says 'Your team, ______, just formed a rivalry with _______. WOuld you like to name this rivalry?' and then you could give your rivalry a name (Battle of Idaho, Battle For THe Freemont Cannon, Holy War, etc.). Also, if 3 years in a row, you have an instant classic with a conference rival, you could create a rivalry.

Maybe a rivalry ould be removed if you don't play that team for at least 4 years.

[DCDuck]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

Maybe a rivalry ould be removed if you don't play that team for at least 4 years.

Unless you're Notre Dame, who played Miami last year after a decade-plus-long hiatus and people still touted it as a "rivalry".

Then again, Notre Dame somehow manages to get by every pre-established rule in the franchise when it comes to Dynasty mode (6-star prestige every single year?)

[UniversityofArizona]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

New rivalries would be great! Or maybe just have a rivalry meter with all schools. If it is full from several years of bitterly close games for conference championships the meter should be full and the crowds should react appropriately. If it is empty, then it is treated as a normal game and the fans don't care as much. For instance because two teams have never played each other, or because one team always slaughters the other.

[cbass63]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

I like the rival idea but what if the other team doesnt accept the same proposal?
Im sure if it was against the CPU than a user could control that destiny but against another user, I guess it would go both ways..

[Soarindude02]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

Im not sure if its just me but the whole breaking a record thing gets annoying as well. There should be a way to erase all records if you replace a team. That way if I make a fantasy team, I wont have records for the team I replaced. (Dont make it madatory because some people redo teams and plug them in. Aka creating a new Ohio State team and keeping the records)

[Sammidysam]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

I agree, those two things would greatly improve this game. I'm more into the rivals thing, though. When you move your conference, the schedule should be adapted so that you always play your old conference rivals in non-conference. Also, some old rivals from the old conference could leave and you could get some new ones in the new conference.

[doom41]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

Scheduling: I'ld like scheduling to be an Off-season activity. You recieve Schedule offers from different teams that you can accept or reject, or you can send offers to other teams that they can accept or reject.
They could range from a single Home game, A Home & Away series for 2,4,6,8,or 10 yrs, a 3yr 2home-1Away series, or a Multiple year Neutral Site Game. This way you can set your schedule for up to 10 years in advance, and you will be stuck with the schedule you set. So if you schedule a long series with a 5* team for a schedule boost, but they have bad years and drop in rankings then you still have to play them every year until the deal is up.

Rivalries: A rivaly logic that can set rivalries would be very cool, but at the very least we need to be able to manually set our own rivals. It really takes away from Teambuilder and Custom Conferences to not be able to do this.

[wesglenn]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

well said well said i agree
you play a team home and home for more than 4 years then yes you should have a rivary between the two schools and i also agree with the trophy, or you get a flag, a piece of engraved marble or a product made of wood something to make it count and be worthy of it being in the game and you get option of what to call the rivalry like "the way the west is won" TCU vs Houston
OR "the west coast east coast memorial gridiron classic" USC vs Boston College or the" kick off classic" it could be anywhere between any 2 teams, this would be cool to create and be able to impliment it into dynasty as far as trophies collections

[poopoop]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

Before they introduce create-a-rivalry they should do a better job with the rivalries the have now. Not to mention that a lot of the rivalries in cfb are historic and have a lot of tradition, not just spur of the moment things.

The scheduling part I agree with.

[WipeOut464]

Re: Who agrees with me on these two features.

*also a feature that I'm sure we could all agree on, is having a real crowd, if your team is only averaging 10,000 fans per game and your stadium seats 25k then the stadium should look half full. Also if the games are blowouts the crowd should start leaving and making the stadium look like its emptying out.

I thought one of the devs said that dynamic crowds were in this year. Right?