Talent Level Declines Post Patch 3

[eraserx13]

The goal of the progression tweak in the latest patch is to have a similar amount of high quality players and talent level of the default rosters. Following what Block-O did earlier, I simmed to the beginning of season 2015 in order to clear out all the players from the original roster. So the only thing left are game generated recruits. The only thing differently is that I monitored the amount of 5 star players that went into the recruiting pool at the beginning of each season and made sure I got the maximum amount of high quality players in each season. So by making sure I am close to the maximum amount, any shortfall in quality players stems from lack of progression.

Prior to my test, I ran 10 recruiting batches. I saved a dynasty file at the beginning of the season and hit "skip to recruiting" in the preseason menu. From there, I counted the number of star players. On average there are about 28 5 star players and about 228 4 star recruits. The range on 5 star were 18-39 while the range on the number of 4 star players were at 220-234. So the goal was to establish the high end and shoot for that in each and every season leading upto 2015. This could also serve as a way of establishing a benchmark for doing a dynasty assuming EA doesn't patch their patch.

So in the first year of my simulation, there were 233 and 39 number of 4 and 5 star players, respectively. In the second year, there were 236 and 35. In the third year, there were 39 and 222 players. In the fourth year, I added 235 and 37 players with 4 and 5 star ratings, respectively. Then I simmed to the beginnng of 2015 and here is what I came up in terms of number of players with 90+ ratings in comparison to the default roster.

90+ Players: 2015 vs Original (Change in Parenthesis)

QB: 17 vs 19 (Change of -2)
HB: 10 vs 28 (-18)
FB: 6 vs 3 (+3)
WR: 10 vs 31 (-21)
TE: 1 vs 3 (-2)
T: 14 vs 25 (-11)
G: 14 vs 15 (-1)
C: 12 vs 16 (-4)

DE: 18 vs 25 (-7)
DT: 15 vs 20 (-5)
OLB: 12 vs 14 (-2)
MLB: 6 vs 15 (-9)
CB: 7 vs 15 (-8)
FS: 5 vs 5 (+0)
SS: 6 vs 11 (-5)
K: 6 vs 13 (-7)
P: 1 vs 4 (-3)

Total: 160 vs 262 (-102)


# of 99 OVR: 8

# of Players with 90+ AWR: 60

Teams: 2015 vs Original (Difference)

A+: 1 vs 1 (+0)
A: 0 vs 2 (-2)
A-: 5 vs 9 (-4)
B+: 3 vs 17 (-14)
B: 14 vs 14 (+0)
B-: 11 vs 19 (-8)
C+: 18 vs 19 (-1)
C: 16 vs 12 (+4)
C-: 13 vs 7 (+6)
D+: 17 vs 7 (+10)
D: 12 vs 12 (+0)
D-: 10 vs 1 (+9)
F: 0 vs 0 (+0)

So as you can see, there is some massive degredation in talent level. The number of elite players decline, especially at RB, WR, T. Furthermore, on a team level it seems that the talent level with the exception of Alabama drops down a full letter grade.

To sum up and even with attemping to get the maximum number of high quality players in the game, the overall talent level STILL declines. This speaks of either the latest patch on progression is either not working as intended or if it is, does not come anywhere close to the stated goals of EA. In either case, EA needs to get their act together since they say one thing and do something that is completely different.

[mcpheje]

Good research. But I have to put it out there...almost everyone agrees year in and year out that the default rosters are over-rated. So is this slip necessarily a bad thing?

[Mtneer08]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcpheje

Good research. But I have to put it out there...almost everyone agrees year in and year out that the default rosters are over-rated. So is this slip necessarily a bad thing?

I think players are actually rated too high after 3rd patch.

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcpheje

Good research. But I have to put it out there...almost everyone agrees year in and year out that the default rosters are over-rated. So is this slip necessarily a bad thing?

When the talent degradation is due to recruits having attributes that don't make sense, teams using poor recruiting tactics and handling their depth charts poorly then yes its a bad thing.

[mcpheje]

Ultimately, the only thing that matters is how does the game play for the user and do the sim results still make sense.

[ucas005]

I've always thought the default roster was overrated. I came up with own scaling system and have edited the default roster player ratings mostly down (some guys went up) In the end I ended up with about 40-50 less players rated in the 90s on the default roster.

But by the looks of this research with -102 less players in their 90s I may have some more editing to do on the default roster.

In the end I can't say I'm happy with the sudden degradation of players, but I think that it's a little more realistic and not so overrated. Take a look at the overall player ratings in NHL11. At most their are 5 guys TOTAL rated in their 90s with Ovi and Crosby (best players in the league) topping out at 94 and 93. I personally don't think that the Jake Lockers and Andrew Lucks of the college football world should be starting at 98/97. Both very solid players, but nowhere near the 99 talent level of say a Peyton Manning in college. My scaling system is set so that a 97-99 rated player is considered an elite, once every 15 years type of athlete.

[thelasthurtknee]

this is good news. so many guys overrated on default rosters. this will make it more realistic and go more in line with my lower rated custom rosters. good job ea

[mjarz02]

I completely agree that the default rosters are overated and we should see some decline. However mid level teams are really suffering. For example Oregon state highest rated recruit was 70 and had 9 recruits rated below sixty. This seems like a dramatic drop instead of a gradual one.