More Links

claystone · 07-26-2010, 07:59 PM

I know a lot of people don't like how progession was done this year, but I for one like it a lot. I like that fact that I dont have a team of players in the 90's or even in the 80's. They way EA did NCAA 11, reminded me of "Front Office Football". Thoses of you who played or still play this game know what i'm talking about.

In "Front Office Football" NFL Players ratings are in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's. Only "Superstar" players are in the 80's and you rarely get anyone in the 90's. That's how this game should be. Only really talented players should be in the high 80's, and maybe, maybe in the 90's. That should be a handful only, like #1 picks for the NFL.

I think EA did this right. I want to build my team from scubs to average players, to good players, to very good players, to superstars. If most of my recruits are low to high 80's and 90's, it makes the game no fun. I was so happy to see my 3 star recruits coming in the 50's range.

If "Front Office Football" can do it, and be done right, then so can EA.

kingkilla56 · 07-26-2010, 08:06 PM

so how do you feel about the initial rosters of what would be all time superstars compared to the future players in the league. Obviously they didnt intend for the players to be so terribly rated. If the initial rosters were low i could understand.

mgoblue678 · 07-26-2010, 08:07 PM

The progression is fine, nobody is really complaining about that. So you like the majority of 2* and 3* players being worthless with how low they come in? You like the fact that CPU teams sign a ton of 1* players when those guys don't even play D1 football in real life?

Roggie · 07-26-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingkilla56


	so how do you feel about the initial rosters of what would be all time superstars compared to the future players in the league. Obviously they didnt intend for the players to be so terribly rated. If the initial rosters were low i could understand.

Yep. I love the recruits and progression. If the initial roster went along with this, it would be perfect. But the first 3-4 years of a dynasty are jacked.

Solidice · 07-26-2010, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingkilla56


	so how do you feel about the initial rosters of what would be all time superstars compared to the future players in the league. Obviously they didnt intend for the players to be so terribly rated. If the initial rosters were low i could understand.

the roster guy apparently didn't get the memo on the stretched ratings so he maintained the overrated rating method of old. not sure what else the reason could be. in the dynasty blogs, they mentioned that rating were getting stretched.

TracerBullet · 07-26-2010, 08:13 PM

If the players actually had some skill ratings and low overalls I wouldn't mind. However having kickers who can't kick 35 yd field goals, running backs who can't juke, wide recievers who can't catch, and stupid players at every posistion is not my idea of good or fun. Progressionis fine, but the player suck so bad coming in it doesn't matter. 3 star players in the 50s and 2 star players in the 40s is not right.

claystone · 07-26-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgoblue678


	The progression is fine, nobody is really complaining about that. So you like the majority of 2* and 3* players being worthless with how low they come in? You like the fact that CPU teams sign a ton of 1* players when those guys don't even play D1 football in real life?

What I like is players aren't rated "High" like past years. ie, high 80' and 90's. Even if i had a great team, i should have maybe (2) 90 rated players, not 10 or more.

If EA can follow what "Front Office Football" did for ratings, it will be Gold. Same holds true for Madden.

kingkilla56 · 07-26-2010, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solidice


	the roster guy apparently didn't get the memo on the stretched ratings so he maintained the overrated rating method of old. not sure what else the reason could be. in the dynasty blogs, they mentioned that rating were getting stretched.

this was my thinking too. when the ratings first leaked and the Bama haters lol started to complain i figured they threw stretched ratings out the window.

my only explanation for that mixup is online games. They left rosters jacked so people could actually have fun playing pick up games lol

07-26-2010, 08:06 PM	#2
kingkilla56 Hall Of Fame OVR: 31 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Syracuse University Blog Entries: 1	Re: I Love How Progression Is Done so how do you feel about the initial rosters of what would be all time superstars compared to the future players in the league. Obviously they didnt intend for the players to be so terribly rated. If the initial rosters were low i could understand. __________________ Tweet Tweet

07-26-2010, 08:07 PM	#3
mgoblue678 MVP OVR: 20 Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: I Love How Progression Is Done The progression is fine, nobody is really complaining about that. So you like the majority of 2* and 3* players being worthless with how low they come in? You like the fact that CPU teams sign a ton of 1* players when those guys don't even play D1 football in real life? __________________ My Teams College: Michigan Wolverines NHL: Detroit Red Wings NBA:Detroit Pistons MLB: Detroit Tigers

	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?

07-26-2010, 07:59 PM	#1
claystone Banned OVR: 12 Join Date: Jun 2008	I Love How Progression Is Done I know a lot of people don't like how progession was done this year, but I for one like it a lot. I like that fact that I dont have a team of players in the 90's or even in the 80's. They way EA did NCAA 11, reminded me of "Front Office Football". Thoses of you who played or still play this game know what i'm talking about. In "Front Office Football" NFL Players ratings are in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's. Only "Superstar" players are in the 80's and you rarely get anyone in the 90's. That's how this game should be. Only really talented players should be in the high 80's, and maybe, maybe in the 90's. That should be a handful only, like #1 picks for the NFL. I think EA did this right. I want to build my team from scubs to average players, to good players, to very good players, to superstars. If most of my recruits are low to high 80's and 90's, it makes the game no fun. I was so happy to see my 3 star recruits coming in the 50's range. If "Front Office Football" can do it, and be done right, then so can EA.

More Links

I Love How Progression Is Done