2015 preseason progression is not as bad as i was told.

[stevedrumsdw]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Trust me it has little impact on me. That post above was for you. We all have seen you post the same thing over and over, always going to the negative extreme. My point is simple. I am not trying to prove that progression is great, perfect or any other degree of measure. All i did was post verifiable fact. And if it pains you so much to dispute that, you could keep moving instead of trying to prove me wrong. It is true however that you had a more reasonable tone in the later posts and i would have had a different tone in response. My point was simple. This is whats in this dynasty and what you saw in another dynasty that advanced doesn't support this topic, beyond noting you have seen different. We have to cut you off before you get started or else the thread will turn into EA did this and EA aint sh!t, which was not the point of the topic. The point of opinions stems from most people, including myself prior to yesterday, did not advance to season 2015 to check player ratings. Those that did don't need someone telling them what they saw. I can see for my self.

Just stating the facts

[stevedrumsdw]

Quote: Originally Posted by stewaat

Oh man there are too many 99 players! If there were 50 or something, ok, that's ridiculous. There are 19! How many are there by default? Like 10? It doubled, big deal. It's a video game! Oh yea, one you don't have but you still like to come complain about based on the demo which was terrible.

uh............ I have 60 + players at 99 overall in my 4th year of dynasty? Do we have to raise this dead horse and beat him all over again

[smace767]

Quote: Originally Posted by sois

I like how you disregard the mathematics. Even a simple formula such as average rating would indicate that the ratings mean SOMETHING. For example, if the average team rating is over 85, the team earns an A. If that number of teams is now doubled, that means there are twice as many teams with an average rating over 85. Clearly the grade ratings are more complicated that that, but you can surely agree they are based on something measurable.

Mathematics is the point.
I was a Computer Science major and we are not talking calculus or anything like that. If you went to Tech you should have understood my point. The point was that 5 teams with an A- rating does not mean that those 5 teams are identical or equal. which in sense makes the A- rating not matter when looking to see which team is better. You still have to look at individual player ratings and skills.

Two teams can have an 84(B rating in the game) avg and be total different.
Team one could have 99 ovr combined avg for Hb and cbs and 69 ovr combined avg for dline and oline. team avg of 84.

They can't block anybody on offense and get pancaked all game on defense. but team rating is 84.

Team two could have everyone at 84 for an avg of 84.

Team one has skills but the weakness of the oline and dline would make this team less affective than the team with everyone is an 84 in most cases and most games. Extreme, but it is the point i was making.

Also one team had two 99 ovr oline players. Both high pass and run block ratings and closed to same spd, agil and so on. One had 87 awr the other 76 awr. The guy that has 87 awr should be the better player, even though the 99 ovr rating is the same.

It trips me out that fellas want to look at the letter grade of teams vs looking at the rosters of the teams and the skills of the players. Nobody evaluates teams based on letter grades without looking at depth charts and individual ratings. And yes 2012 could have been all f'd up, even in this dynasty but this is what i see in 2015.

Again its not perfect and im not supporting EA's progression system. The Letter grades could be F'd up among other things but, when you look at depth charts and team identities and player skills, its still not as bad in my dynasty in 2015 as i thought from listening to everyone else or is it as bad as the dudes who haven't even looked at these depth charts say it is.

[smace767]

Quote: Originally Posted by stewaat

OP, you can't like this game because others don't. They say it sucks and is the worst thing ever so you must hate the game too. You've been around a couple months now you should know this!

This is entertainment to me in it self.
jabbin with these dudes. You know i know who is who. I been reading this board longer than i posted on it. Its funny to me watching guys spend their time and energy on something they don't like.
I figure i'll add fuel to it if they want, help them get more anger , disappointment, and frustration out. They should pay me for the therapy.

[stevedrumsdw]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

This is entertainment to me in it self. jabbin with these dudes. You know i know who is who. I been reading this board longer than i posted on it. Its funny to me watching guys spend their time and energy on something they don't like. I figure i'll add fuel to it if they want, help them get more anger , disappointment, and frustration out. They should pay me for the therapy.

I think this post sums up this thread

[sois]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Mathematics is the point. I was a Computer Science major and we are not talking calculus or anything like that. If you went to Tech you should have understood my point. The point was that 5 teams with an A- rating does not mean that those 5 teams are identical or equal. which in sense makes the A- rating not matter when looking to see which team is better. You still have to look at individual player ratings and skills. Two teams can have an 84(B rating in the game) avg and be total different. Team one could have 99 ovr combined avg for Hb and cbs and 69 ovr combined avg for dline and oline. team avg of 84. They can't block anybody on offense and get pancaked all game on defense. but team rating is 84. Team two could have everyone at 84 for an avg of 84. Team one has skills but the weakness of the oline and dline would make this team less affective than the team with everyone is an 84 in most cases and most games. Extreme, but it is the point i was making. Also one team had two 99 ovr oline players. Both high pass and run block ratings and closed to same spd, agil and so on. One had 87 awr the other 76 awr. The guy that has 87 awr should be the better player, even though the 99 ovr rating is the same. It trips me out that fellas want to look at the letter grade of teams vs looking at the rosters of the teams and the skills of the players. Nobody evaluates teams based on letter grades without looking at depth charts and individual ratings. And yes 2012 could have been all f'd up, even in this dynasty but this is what i see in 2015. Again its not perfect and im not supporting EA's progression system. The Letter grades could be F'd up among other things but, when you look at depth charts and team identities and player skills, its still not as bad in my dynasty in 2015 as i thought from listening to everyone else or is it as bad as the dudes who haven't even looked at these depth charts say it is.

1. You are blindly ignoring the biggest issue. Does this happen in real life? Do B- and B programs magically become elite A- and A teams in a span of five seasons? Do all elite programs stay elite? Look back five years ago. Are there now more elite teams than in the past? No. If anything, for every team that comes up (Boise State, Cincinnati) an equal amount go down (Miami, Notre Dame).

2. You have to admit they didn't test the progression. With that being said, the game obviously is designed for the rosters provided with the game. Since the rosters in 5 seasons are so different, don't you expect the game to play differently?

All of the range is gone in the game. Look at the default rosters. There are 50 and 60 rated players. Those players are liabilities. That element is gone in future seasons. Depth doesn't matter anymore. With this messed up recruiting/progression, that dynamic is lost. The game becomes flat. All teams feel the same.

[mcpheje]

Quote: Originally Posted by sois

All of the range is gone in the game. Look at the default rosters. There are 50 and 60 rated players. Those players are liabilities. That element is gone in future seasons. Depth doesn't matter anymore. With this messed up recruiting/progression, that dynamic is lost. The game becomes flat. All teams feel the same.

This whole issue is too entertaining for me to keep entirely quiet on it. sois is kinda on to a crucial point here. One of the key issues that keeps getting overlooked is the fact that teams keep getting better because they cut low rated players because the new recruits come in rated higher. Without minimizing the number of 70+ rated recruits most teams aren't forced to keep the lower rated players. This becomes very apparent over the course of a number of years.

The ideal solution to this problem has to include a reduction in the number of 70+ rated recruits and/or some kind of limit to how many players get cut. IRL teams don't cut scholarship players with the frequency that happens in this game.

[VitaminKG21]

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Mathematics is the point. I was a Computer Science major and we are not talking calculus or anything like that. If you went to Tech you should have understood my point. The point was that 5 teams with an A- rating does not mean that those 5 teams are identical or equal. which in sense makes the A- rating not matter when looking to see which team is better. You still have to look at individual player ratings and skills.

No one is saying they're identical or equal, but the fact that they've reached that rating, either with good defense or good offense, is irrelevant. They're there and once they get there, they stay there.

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Two teams can have an 84(B rating in the game) avg and be total different. Team one could have 99 ovr combined avg for Hb and cbs and 69 ovr combined avg for dline and oline. team avg of 84.

True.

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

They can't block anybody on offense and get pancaked all game on defense. but team rating is 84.

Also true.

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Team two could have everyone at 84 for an avg of 84. Team one has skills but the weakness of the oline and dline would make this team less affective than the team with everyone is an 84 in most cases and most games. Extreme, but it is the point i was making.

Like I said in an earlier post, this is also true, but only in-game. The sim engine doesn't fully take into account the differences in player-by-player rating and how those differences play off one another. It uses team rating and program prestige mostly, from what I can tell, which would explain the "lower level" A-rated teams beating the Ohio State's and USC's of the world with regularity once they've reached that level.

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Also one team had two 99 ovr oline players. Both high pass and run block ratings and closed to same spd, agil and so on. One had 87 awr the other 76 awr. The guy that has 87 awr should be the better player, even though the 99 ovr rating is the same.

AWR means nothing unless you're playing.

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

It trips me out that fellas want to look at the letter grade of teams vs looking at the rosters of the teams and the skills of the players. Nobody evaluates teams based on letter grades without looking at depth charts and individual ratings. And yes 2012 could have been all f'd up, even in this dynasty but this is what i see in 2015.

I don't see why this trips you out since the sim engine actually does evaluate teams based on letter grades without much consideration at all for depth charts and player ratings.

Quote: Originally Posted by smace767

Again its not perfect and im not supporting EA's progression system. The Letter grades could be F'd up among other things but, when you look at depth charts and team identities and player skills, its still not as bad in my dynasty in 2015 as i thought from listening to everyone else or is it as bad as the dudes who haven't even looked at these depth charts say it is.

You're actually pretty much right here, but as I said, those unique team identities only show themselves in-game. Which is great, but not ideal for playing a lot of years into a dynasty.

And for some of us, it is as bad as us dudes who have actually looked at depth charts say it is. You got eighteen 99-rated players, I've seen as many as 30+ (not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of 90+ guys every year). So best case scenario is that the number of "great" players double in six years and the worst case is that they more than triple. That's not good no matter how you slice it.