Is Dynasty ruined down the road?

[joejccva71]

Quote: Originally Posted by Michgantown

2018 A+: 0 A: 0 A-: 0 B+: 4 B: 8 B-: 11 C+: 15 C: 15 C-: 10 D+: 12 D: 17 D-: 28

I'm sorry but THIS is a problem. This kills it for me to be honest. Absolutely zero A teams at all? Alabama, Texas, OU, OSU, Florida? Hello? A teams every year.

Can you sim another 10 years and post your results please? Post results for 2028.

[Whoman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Michgantown

2018 A+: 0 A: 0 A-: 0 B+: 4 B: 8 B-: 11 C+: 15 C: 15 C-: 10 D+: 12 D: 17 D-: 28

so again,

that´s 0% in the upper 4th of the scale, 20% in the 2/4, 30% in the 3/4 and 50% in the 4/4.

Come on, that´s absurd ... Show this to any developer of a sports game with a player database and he´ll be shocked.
I am fine with less great teams, but it should be gradual. Less great teams but more good teams, more decent teams. Not less great teams and a ton more terrible teams.

Quote:

What i´d like to see from a competitivness standpoint is sth like this A+: 1 A: 2 A-: 3 B+: 10 B: 10 B-: 15 C+: 20 C: 20 C-: 20 D+: 15 D: 10 D-: 5

[joejccva71]

Exactly. It's absurd. Teams don't just get worse over time. According to this game, by the year 2040...there won't be any A or B teams, hell maybe not even any C teams.

And there are still some people on this forum that think this is ok. Seriously?

[tylerd02]

I think the bell curve idea is just not realistic. In reality there are alot of bad teams to average teams and life doesn't follow any curve. Some years there are a ton of bad teams and some years there are a bunch of good teams.

Also this complaining that the bad teams don't have a chance to get better is rediculus. That's how it is, the bad teams in college football usually stay bad. You guys need to get over this idea that every team should have a chance, in reality only certain programs have a chance to win every year and that is what should be shown in the game.

[joejccva71]

Quote: Originally Posted by tylerd02

I think the bell curve idea is just not realistic. In reality there are alot of bad teams to average teams and life doesn't follow any curve. Some years there are a ton of bad teams and some years there are a bunch of good teams. Also this complaining that the bad teams don't have a chance to get better is rediculus. That's how it is, the bad teams in college football usually stay bad. You guys need to get over this idea that every team should have a chance, in reality only certain programs have a chance to win every year and that is what should be shown in the game.

Tell that to teams like Baylor which were horrible at one point. College teams DO get better. Colleges getting invited to higher tiered conferences are PROOF of that.

Still, by 2018 there are no A teams ..but yet there were 8 years before that. I doubt seriously that all your real life A teams today would ALL get worse in 8 years to the point of where the mass didn't consider them to be a top team anymore.

If people truely think that, then they have more issues to worry about than following College Football to be honest.

[hazey]

3 things I think would change the progression of this game.

1) a stricter in season progression that would be contingent on stats only.

2)I love the idea of seniors experienceing a progression increase in awareness, maybe the older they are the higher they progress with awareness. senior progress higher than Juniors, who progress higher than sophomores, etc...

3) I would love to see random players throughout the game have like a mass increase every year to incorporate the small school players who develop into potential NFL stars.

I actually like how low the recruits come in, but I do wish there were more significant diamonds in the rough.

[dalecooper]

Quote: Originally Posted by joejccva71

I'm sorry but THIS is a problem. This kills it for me to be honest. Absolutely zero A teams at all? Alabama, Texas, OU, OSU, Florida? Hello? A teams every year. Can you sim another 10 years and post your results please? Post results for 2028.

It shouldn't make a difference. In fact every year after the first four should be roughly the same, since it's all CPU-generated and CPU-progressed players at that point.

[dalecooper]

I did a couple charts in Excel based off of the IGN guy's sim stats. Just a visual representation for those who aren't impressed by the raw numbers.



The first one isn't too impactful at a glance, but if you compare 2010's line (dark blue) to 2014's (purple) you can see that 2010 is more or less a bell curve, with not a lot of teams at either extreme end (just one A+ and no D- teams). The curve shifts over each year until we get to 2014. What looks to be happening there is basically that the high end is now B+/A-, not A+ (there are zero A+ and A teams); the meat of the curve has drastically moved to the C and D range; and the bottom end of the curve disappears into a glut of D- teams, because EA doesn't rate below that. Presumably if there were F+, F, and F- ratings, the curve might taper off a little more.

The second one has been simplified (each letter grade consolidated, though I kept D- separated from the D+/D aggregate to focus on the increase in the worst possible rated teams). It shows the radical dropoff in A and B teams, the somewhat less but still noticeable increase in C and D teams, and the extreme increase in D- teams.