Question for "gamers"

[Cubone_Jones]

Quote: Originally Posted by micksharp

Has anyone ever read a post on here about someones dynasty where they went 4-8? No. Every one says "I'm FIU and I'm in year 2021 and I just won my 10th national title. Can someone explain to me how that is fun at all?

I'd just say this. Sure people have their own tastes, but the majority of us are trying to play as "sim" as possible. Sim being realistic. This requires updated rosters, continuously tweaking sliders/difficulty, and even giving ourselves our own rules to limit the potential (like in recruiting).

EA cannot make NCAA as hard as some of us make it, because it would ruin it for the casual gamers. I don't expect EA to help us with all the limits and everything, either, because when we make our own it gives us freedom. That being said some people do find it fun to just dominate with crappy schools. What I say is more power to them. They are generally the ones who talk about it because they are having success. I'm sorry but in my first four seasons with North Texas I had a losing record every year, but I established pipelines and put together a team that fit my system.

It isn't unheard of to turn crappy teams around quick either. Look at Cincinatti's team under Brian Kelly two years ago or consider that 10 years ago Boise State was division I-AA. As long as the people are having fun why does it matter? I just love making it as real as possible!

[Cubone_Jones]

Quote: Originally Posted by waytofailself

I used to be one of those gamers, but I changed over time. Maybe it comes from growing up playing Techmo Super Bowl all time to compete and see if I could beat teams by over 100 (and even shut them out in the process). I had a similar view when I started playing NCAA back on the PS2 ('04? '05? back when they had licensed soundtracks instead of just generic/school music?). If I was winning 100% of my games and piling up massive stats I wasn't doing it right. What changed? I don't know -- I went away from sports games for awhile until NBA 2k10. I'm in a different place in my life now. Losing helps me get better, and usually when I lose it's my own fault. I used to really like recruiting little schools and simming to build them up. Now I like playing through the games in the process. I'm no max difficulty player or anything, but bumping the difficulty to all-american has really pumped new life into NCAA 10 for me (waiting for 12). I had a VERY entertaining game where I lost to BYU as SDSU 3-10 on a last second hail mary with an amazing freak tipped ball catch by the CPU. I don't really get mad -- how could I get mad, I threw four picks in that game including 2 in the red zone and one on the 30 driving for the game winning field goal with 30 seconds left. Different people like different things. So it goes. I've still got a lot to learn with this game.

Bro, that's criminal. 11 is light years ahead of 10.

[Cardot]

Quote: Originally Posted by Special27K

I love losing more than winning, I despise winning NC's with Toledo or whoever I pick. I very well am capable of turning that into certainty after 2-3 seasons of building.

LOL, yeah, I am in the same boat. With both NCAA football and basketball games, I like to mix it up. Play a season with an NC contender, then play a season in a conference like the Sun Belt. With the weaker teams, it is a very fine line as I want to challenge for the conference title, but I don't want to find myself in a BCS bowl.

I have always felt that the dynasty mode is designed for people to build up a powerhouse in a few years. College programs can certainly be built up, but realistically, the great majority of teams pretty much stay where they are. I am guessing that most of us here would prefer a dynasty mode where great recruiting over several years will gradually add a few wins per season...but we are in the minority.

[micksharp]

Wow. I wasn't expecting anyone to give actual well thought out responses. I was really just trying to see how many dumb things people would get all wound up and say. I am surprised there are so many guys like me out there. How come I can't find guys like these for my OD? I have come up with a "never run the same play more than once per drive rule" to keep myself mixing it up and it works great for me. Makes games much funner. I disagree that the CPU always runs the same plays on D but I do agree that sometimes their logic seems pretty jacked (runs on 3rd and 12 down 12 late in the 4th and blitzing too much on 3rd downs.) I hadn't really even thought of the fact that if they made it too hard the "gamers" wouldn't even buy it. That makes a ton of sense. That's pretty much the same theory as everyone turning the speed threshold to zero so that the fast guys are waaaay faster than the slower guys. I tried a bunch of slider sets and thought they all screwed up the game. I am now back to default heisman and really enjoying the game. I dig the comments and am patiently waiting for 2012.

[devinewon]

Quote: Originally Posted by micksharp

Wow. I wasn't expecting anyone to give actual well thought out responses. I was really just trying to see how many dumb things people would get all wound up and say. I am surprised there are so many guys like me out there. How come I can't find guys like these for my OD? I have come up with a "never run the same play more than once per drive rule" to keep myself mixing it up and it works great for me. Makes games much funner. I disagree that the CPU always runs the same plays on D but I do agree that sometimes their logic seems pretty jacked (runs on 3rd and 12 down 12 late in the 4th and blitzing too much on 3rd downs.) I hadn't really even thought of the fact that if they made it too hard the "gamers" wouldn't even buy it. That makes a ton of sense. That's pretty much the same theory as everyone turning the speed threshold to zero so that the fast guys are waaaay faster than the slower guys. I tried a bunch of slider sets and thought they all screwed up the game. I am now back to default heisman and really enjoying the game. I dig the comments and am patiently waiting for 2012.

I talked about the guy who only runs seven plays in one of my post.

I have played in games where I have not ran the same play in one half.
I have spent literally hundreds of hours on the practice field learning how to run every play I can.

I never loose to the computer but when you transcend the computer you look for good people to play against, thats always been my objective. The computer is just practice.

[Cubone_Jones]

Something I also do to make it more difficult, or atleast give it a unique feel to me, is ignore OVR completely and put the depth chart in order based on how my system is run. This is why a custom playbook would be so helpful for me. I have 65 OVR receiver starting over a 75 because I love his height mismatch and he is great with jump balls (converted receiving TE), but also I have blitzing down linebackers that are in the 50s but excellent DEs. Just things like that!

[poopoop]

How does subbing in players who have a worse OVR, but are better at specific roles make the game more difficult?

Honestly EA should get rid of stats like OVR completely.

[waytofailself]

Quote: Originally Posted by Survivor

Bro, that's criminal. 11 is light years ahead of 10.

I would have bought 11 if it wasn't $46 used. I got 10 for $14. Easy choice to get back into the game when I know I'll be picking up 12.