Recruits have to be A LOT Deeper

[UniversityofArizona]

Quote: Originally Posted by franko3219

I agree with your points. I was in an online dynasty where most of us took mid level teams from the major conferences, but one guy took one of the teams you mentioned and by the 4th or 5th season we could not even compete because they would be A+ in everything and this happened year after year because I would say 85 - 90% of the recruits had his team as their top 3 schools at the beginning of recruiting. Another thing that annoys me is that I will use my time the first week of recruiting and get some lows and very lows, and tell myself that means the next week of recruiting for that player should be a good week because I should have most, if not all of the low's out of the way. Not so much because then the next week, rather than giving you the 10 pitches you have not opened yet, they give you the pitches you have already opened which are lows and very lows. It gets frustrating.

i agree about the recruiting thing. i feel like all of the pitches picked should mostly be things the recruit is interested in.
coaches choice should stay so you can force some topics and try to change recruits low interest topics that your school might be strong in
mom's choice should also be introduced allowing topics the recruit and possibly even the school have no interest in talking about just to add that randomness but should be just as common as coaches choice

having reasonable parity at least among starters should be the objective with the issues being depth between teams

@ 89onehanded you flatter me! but i don't know the first thing about programming x_x i would probably say something like "this would be cool!" and the programmers would roll their eyes and talk about having to redo a whole something or other and that it would take forever. i too would spend hours customizing that stuff as well. it would also enable custom rosters to last a whole dynasty if they gave themselves certain guidelines which they normally seem to do anyways. they could post settings with their custom rosters and it would be as if the original rosters never existed if a user wants it that way.

[Dr Death]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigDuke

You're right in believing the Russian Roulette isn't going away. Every time I call recruits now I'm reminded of the Deer Hunter. I'm sitting there with my recruit while the cursed CPU spins a revolver on the table. Enough people complained about the old point-based system recruiting being boring (which it was to a degree), so EA decided to make it fun by creating a mini-game of sorts. I don't mind it for the first 2-3 weeks when I'm learning about a recruit's likes/dislikes. But come week 8, when I've unlocked every pitch, why should I be forced to talk about his least favorite topic? Then I spin it again and I get his very low topic. It's totally unrealistic and doesn't make any sense. By week 8, I should be driving home a recruit's highs/most if I'm a B or better. I know it's difficult to make video game recruiting fun, while being as realistic as possible, especially for the casual fan. But I don't think season-long roulette is the answer.

This is a great post and reminds me why NCAA 2008 recruiting was so much more fun. I was Hawaii in that game... decent school but mostly 2 and 3 star players. I took a chance on a 5-star WR and recruited him before the first game was played. That way, back then, you could recruit a guy who didn't have you in his top ten and you wouldn't get that scowling football face, he would, in fact, be happy you called. Once the season started you were kind of screwed though.

Anyway, I unlocked his MOST and two VERY HIGH points right off the bat. So... the rest of the year I kept hammering away at those three points. He would always end the call with a huge smile and eventually I won him as he chose Hawaii over USC.

He then went on to become a star WR for the Warriors but the point is... like you said, this Russian Roulette in week 8 is absurd.

Also... another thing that MUST be changed in recruiting is Playing Time. So what if I have 9 WR's, if I am recruiting a guy w/ A+ speed and B+ hands I should be able to tell him he is going to play and even start if I so desire. The depth chart should not matter. In real life, a coach recruits a guy who is a stud he does not worry about the depth chart. He'll tell the kid, 'Look, you will play and in all likelihood, start.'

EA needs to change both of these things!

[UniversityofArizona]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dr Death

Also... another thing that MUST be changed in recruiting is Playing Time. So what if I have 9 WR's, if I am recruiting a guy w/ A+ speed and B+ hands I should be able to tell him he is going to play and even start if I so desire. The depth chart should not matter. In real life, a coach recruits a guy who is a stud he does not worry about the depth chart. He'll tell the kid, 'Look, you will play and in all likelihood, start.' EA needs to change both of these things!

much stronger promises would really help with this, or even a revamped promise system. maybe offer once for the current number of points for a low transfer rate, but be able to keep pitching him that same promise over time greatly increasing the chance of transferring over time if the promise is not kept, but providing a strong pitch opportunity that would really help smaller schools compete with bigger schools over individual recruits.

also additional realistic promises would be nice. promising time or no redshirt are great. separating promising playing time from promising a starting job would also be great. many small schools can't offer many of the promises because they are things only schools like USC can offer like championships which likewise should also be a very powerful promise as well though i feel it should be somewhat more leniant and be "championship while at school".

promises should play a larger role in recruiting is basically what i am going for i guess. oh and cpu schools should actually use them too x_x

[89OneHanded]

The funny thing to me is recruiting was supposed to be EA's big change this year, but it's still the same old broken system with a few things to make it look prettier and go a little faster. The whole thing needs to be revamped completely.

[foo55]

sounds like a lot of complaining about not being able to find stud 3* players because they cant recruit top tier guys.

3* players still serve their purpose on 6* teams filling in gaps for me when i have players leave by surprise. just like in real life, these guys shouldnt be playing until theyre upper classmen on big programs if at all serving mainly as depth. i have had several 3* start for me as seniors while i waited for some guys to mature.

and on the point about players developing from 70s to 80s or even 90s, youve never seen this happen? youve never ended up with a 91 (rs)so because he had a huge freshman season? the inseason progression already helps this along. players that are meant to explode always gain several points over the course of the season and then develop again in the offseason.

i play in a 2* OD and a few of us have driven our programs to 6* prestige and to blame poor recruiting on a 'russian roulette' system would be completely different than what my league has shown me

[Dr Death]

Quote: Originally Posted by foo55

i play in a 2* OD and a few of us have driven our programs to 6* prestige and to blame poor recruiting on a 'russian roulette' system would be completely different than what my league has shown me

Not trying to argue your points, but in all reality, if you knew a kid could give a crap about... say... Coach Prestige... would you bring it up w/ him over and over? No. You wouldn't. Yet w/ Russian Roulette, that's exactly what happens and it is maddening.

I also miss the mad football face. That thing let you know how a conversation was going and you could get out of a topic quickly, or... stay on one and keep pounding at it when the face was smiling. This new system has taken all that away and that was one of the few reality things about recruiting.

[UniversityofArizona]

believe me i found plenty of stud 3* players and even a pair of stud 2* linebackers i still remember while moving WKU to a 6 star prestige, but more than anything we are "complaining" because we see certain things within the game that we would love to see changed for the better in our own point of view. personally i want more customization options which would allow me to tailor the game more to what i want without making you have to live with those changes.

for instance i want more decent kickers that are designated as kickers in the recruiting classes and not designated as athletes. i have no problem finding those athletes with amazing kicking skills by just looking for high star guys with awful rating shown down the limited list of ratings during recruiting but the computer is having an awful time, and messing with the kicking slider has only helped so much

[devinewon]

I guess I have to re-clarify for some people who don't understand my original post.

This discussion has been diluted by some people who counter talking about dynasties that are:

A) Offline (What you do with the computer in your own dynasty is none of my business)

B) Talking about a Dynasty thats not at least 3/4 full. (People in Online Dynasties should be the majority of your competition in recruiting and in your games.)

C) If no one in your Dynasty has a big boy school. (If they did it wouldn't be close. All it takes is someone to get Oklahoma in your dynasty to destroy the whole balance of it believe me.)

Now I believe that in a full Online dynasty the recruiting is off when it comes to depth.

But the LOGIC of the entire system is way off.

From calling someone and asking them what they want to talk about
The C+ speed Strong Safeties
#1 and #2 QB going to the same school
Minimal recruit weight gain

I could go on and on.

I feel like the recruiting took a step back this year but this game was rated so highly I feel like they won't change a thing.