End Of Year One question regarding progression tuning!

[Solidice]

the progression is not where the bulk of the issue is at, it's what the recruits are rated when they come in.

[LambertandHam]

Quote: Originally Posted by JRthaTruth

So basically my 1t year recuits by the time they are juniors and seniors they will hve not progressed much at all...so is they a shot that the tuning or patch...affects my 1st year recruits and cause them to progress well?

That's actually a really good question that I hadn't thought of. I'm going to have two years of bum recruits, while I know that their attributes won't be changed, will their progression be changed?

[JRthaTruth]

I wonder by chance if te patch could correc our first year recruits...

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by Solidice

the progression is not where the bulk of the issue is at, it's what the recruits are rated when they come in.

I simed 3 years ahead before I found out about how crappy some of the ratings are and found this. I looked at the first class and followed the top 10 players per star rating.

5*= 78-81 (all but one was rated 80 or 81) AWR= 40-69
5* by year 3= 88-96 (went to schools like Texas, UF, Bama, and Mich) AWR=50-77

4*= 74-81 (all went to 5 & 6 star schools) AWR= 40-57
4* by year 3= 83-90 AWR= 47-63

3*= 64-71 (all went to 4 & 5 star schools) AWR= 40-48
3* by year 3= 72-80 AWR= 47-53

2*= 50-61 (all went to 3 star or lower schools) AWR= 40-45
2* by year 3= 54-66 AWR= 43-49

1*= 40-50 (1 K was a 69 at went to Miss St. 3 were cut) AWR= 40-45 (K had 45 rest were 40)
1* by year 3= 42-53 (K was a 76ovr) AWR= 43-48

The AWR was real low on all most all players. The 3 star and lower schools had a roster full of walk-ons. I remember one of the players went to Rice and the best player they had by year 3 was a HB rated 55 ovr with 76spd and 84acc. It was bad. Hope they fix it where the overalls stay close to the same but up the key position ratings that are effecting game play.

[JRthaTruth]

so the awarness and elusivness are the real problems?

[cha0ss0ldier]

The progression of the recruits really isn't a problem. I have plenty of 90+ players on my team that started out as 4-5* freshman. I even have a 99ovr LT and QB. The problem is the low awareness ratings and the low juke/spin for WRs.

That and their needs to be more good 2-3* players so that the lower tier teams can get good players.

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by cha0ss0ldier

The progression of the recruits really isn't a problem. I have plenty of 90+ players on my team that started out as 4-5* freshman. I even have a 99ovr LT and QB. The problem is the low awareness ratings and the low juke/spin for WRs. That and their needs to be more good 2-3* players so that the lower tier teams can get good players.

Forgot about the kickers/punters. In my 3 year sim I only saw a small handful of kickers that should be in the game. The best was a 4* punter who after 3 years was a 83ovr w/ 77kpw & 79kac. He was a junior so he would have not got much better. That was the best kicker/punter that was not on the original roster file.

[LambertandHam]

Quote: Originally Posted by jbrew2411

Forgot about the kickers/punters. In my 3 year sim I only saw a small handful of kickers that should be in the game. The best was a 4* punter who after 3 years was a 83ovr w/ 77kpw & 79kac. He was a junior so he would have not got much better. That was the best kicker/punter that was not on the original roster file.

Even in year one I'm left looking at a bunch of 1-3 star punters/kickers with C- kicking power at best. It makes no sense to spend time recruiting a kicker/punter who has D and D in kicking and accuracy.