Have you started your Dynasty or are you holding out for a progression fix?

[choadler]

One question that I wanted to ask. Have you guys seen anyone pick up more points? like 8 or 9 at one time in the overall rating? I really loved the way 2004 did the progression. I liked having the breakout star. I just don't understand how the progressoin in 2004 was done so much better than 2010.

[dan_457]

Quote: Originally Posted by choadler

One question that I wanted to ask. Have you guys seen anyone pick up more points? like 8 or 9 at one time in the overall rating? I really loved the way 2004 did the progression. I liked having the breakout star. I just don't understand how the progression in 2004 was done so much better than 2010.

The most I've ever seen is 5 pts, and you'll only get a couple players that will increase that much in a year. Most of the time is +3 with a lot of +2 as well.

[choadler]

I am ok with only a couple of guys getting huge jumps each year, it makes it so that there are actually stars in the game. I would mind seeing 3 point average jump, but there should be some guys that jump 8 or 9 points in a year. You get some separation in the ratings.

[Pogo27]

When I was achievement hunting in a dynasty with Alabama, numerous players on their team got +6 maybe some +7 to their overall. Some of them may have got more but were capped at 99 overall.

+7 over 5 training sessions would mean that, potentially, a 64 overall freshmen could be 99 overall by the time he's a redshirt senior.

Now, granted, I know that for the most part we aren't seeing these kind of training results, and I don't know if the training is tied to coach experience/prestige or maybe athletic facilities or just your W/L record, or if maybe there's a hidden potential rating, and EA overrated all the Bama players on that too, or if maybe it's just a random thing, but regardless, I believe the potential is there for a 64 overall to become 99 overall by the time he's a senior, and if that's the case, is there really that big of an issue?

[dan_457]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pogo27

When I was achievement hunting in a dynasty with Alabama, numerous players on their team got +6 maybe some +7 to their overall. Some of them may have got more but were capped at 99 overall. +7 over 5 training sessions would mean that, potentially, a 64 overall freshmen could be 99 overall by the time he's a redshirt senior. Now, granted, I know that for the most part we aren't seeing these kind of training results, and I don't know if the training is tied to coach experience/prestige or maybe athletic facilities or just your W/L record, or if maybe there's a hidden potential rating, and EA overrated all the Bama players on that too, or if maybe it's just a random thing, but regardless, I believe the potential is there for a 64 overall to become 99 overall by the time he's a senior, and if that's the case, is there really that big of an issue?

The potential is technically there, but it's one in a million. A 3 or 4 star school that recruits a 4* running back will be lucky if he even breaks into the 80's, let alone 99. The problem with these low recruit ratings and progression, is that important categories take big hits to allow for low ratings, and have no chance of increasing to something reasonable.

[fcboiler87]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pogo27

When I was achievement hunting in a dynasty with Alabama, numerous players on their team got +6 maybe some +7 to their overall. Some of them may have got more but were capped at 99 overall. +7 over 5 training sessions would mean that, potentially, a 64 overall freshmen could be 99 overall by the time he's a redshirt senior. Now, granted, I know that for the most part we aren't seeing these kind of training results, and I don't know if the training is tied to coach experience/prestige or maybe athletic facilities or just your W/L record, or if maybe there's a hidden potential rating, and EA overrated all the Bama players on that too, or if maybe it's just a random thing, but regardless, I believe the potential is there for a 64 overall to become 99 overall by the time he's a senior, and if that's the case, is there really that big of an issue?

If that is the case, then no. But it doesn't seem to be. These terrible 49 ovr recruits never progress past the 50s. And for some, that's fine. They are busts, or no good, or whatever. But it would be great if some of them would get up to the 70s or 80s.

If there is some "Hidden" potential rating, like they claimed there was supposed to be, then make it unhidden! We should be able to discover their potential when we are recruiting. That could be tied in to coaching experience or something. I'm not saying we should get their rating, but something to the effect of "this guy is raw now, but with good coaching, could really be a great player," or "this guy plays at a small school so isn't receiving much attention, but he is a dynamic player." This is how it happens all the time. It's be nice to see. But regardless, we should have the ability to view a potential rating.

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by dan_457

The potential is technically there, but it's one in a million. A 3 or 4 star school that recruits a 4* running back will be lucky if he even breaks into the 80's, let alone 99. The problem with these low recruit ratings and progression, is that important categories take big hits to allow for low ratings, and have no chance of increasing to something reasonable.

Well, the question is...where are these results coming from? Purely simmed scenarios?

What if I recruit a 4* running back he sees 20+ touches a game all 4 years he's on campus? Versus a completely simmed RB with who knows how many career rushing attempts. Maybe there'd be a difference here.

But I've mentioned before also... if all the recruits are getting worse, it should be too big of a deal.

It may take a RB with 99 break tackle to beat a LB with 95 tackle, but it only takes a RB with 89 break tackle to beat a LB with 85 tackle, etc. Carrying stats could be lower, but defenders hit powers and strengths are also lower.

A QB's awareness may be lower, but so is that of the safety/linebackers.


Now, maybe the stats do effect the game play, maybe not. Has anyone actually tried playing an entire season 5+ years in with pure recruits and compared the gameplay to an entire season in the initial year? Does the game play really get that bad, or is it just bad compared to how it starts in year 1?

There's an obvious fix we can do here regardless of whether EA does anything about it, and that is to lower all the ratings of the players on the default rosters.

If the highest overall rating 5 years in is an 89, well then edit Mark Ingram down until he's an 89, and edit everyone down, etc.

Based on the training results I saw with Alabama and how many players they turn into 99 ovrs from Yr1 to Yr2, I have a feeling that at least part of the problem stems from the initial overrating of the default rosters. Alabama has like 6 or maybe more 99s in year 2 (depending on how many people stay/leave for draft).

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by fcboiler87

If there is some "Hidden" potential rating, like they claimed there was supposed to be, then make it unhidden! We should be able to discover their potential when we are recruiting. That could be tied in to coaching experience or something. I'm not saying we should get their rating, but something to the effect of "this guy is raw now, but with good coaching, could really be a great player," or "this guy plays at a small school so isn't receiving much attention, but he is a dynamic player." This is how it happens all the time. It's be nice to see. But regardless, we should have the ability to view a potential rating.

I don't mind potential showing up in this manner while recruiting, however it should never show up as a quantifiable number once he is on your roster.

But yes, for a completely realistic recruiting experience, there should be the occasional 2 or 3 star guy that explodes into a true NFL talent, and at the same time, there should be 5 star guys that may come in with a high overall rating, but kind of stagnate and get 1 overall rating per season or whatever, and they may always be a starter on your team, but just don't improve.

But who is to say this isn't happening? I don't think the people who are testing this are testing thoroughly enough.

If 120 schools sign JUST 10 players each, that's 1200 players per year. Are you keeping track of ALL 1200 players, and not just where they end up, but where they started? What star rating they were, what their initial overall rating was, and what their improvement was each season?

Moreover, are the tests simply being stopped after 5 seasons when the first recruiting class becomes seniors? Or are we going to EIGHT SEASONS, the point at which the SENIORS were recruited during the last year than any of the initial (overrated) default players were on the teams, and therefore only competing with playing time against other randomly generated recruited players?

Obviously, if the initial set of rosters is overrated, then a 5* recruit may never see playing time because he's setting behind some Freshmen that EA overrated on the default roster. But assuming that a the recruits are pretty balanced every season, then a 5* year 5 should come in at approximately the same overall as a 5* did back in year 1, and therefore would have a real shot at playing time earlier in his career, especially if you didn't manage to get a 5* in that position in the first 4 years. And playing time should equate to better improvement in the offseason, at least I would hope.


I just have a hard time believing that the game has been out for barely a week and the amount of thorough testing truly needed for what we're talking about here has been done.