Player Progression in NCAA Football 12

[Thinking Out Loud]

Quote: Originally Posted by Baughn3

I think what they're trying to say is that it would take a ton of time to manually evaluate every recruit in the game in order to figure out who is good or not. I like the idea of hiding overall ratings, but I agree with the two posters you quoted in that I don't want all ratings hidden. While you might be able to tell someone's jumping ability from their vertical, how do you figure out some other rating that can't be objectively measured? I don't think it is possible for the guys at EA to give you a way to play with every recruit they generate or give you highlights of them so you can evaluate them yourself. I completely agree with giving gamers more options and control, but I just don't see this as feasible to implement.

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

I don't have time to sit there and watch my guys practice and run wind sprints. Sometimes I want to sit down and just play a game.

Maybe I am having a hard time articulating what I am suggesting in a internet forum but let me state it like this.

First off, I want it to be an OPTION, meaning if people want to use it they can, if not, they don't.

Secondly, it does NOT have to change ANYTHING else in the game, just provide a "?" for ALL ratings, ALL the time or disable displaying the ratings page, if turned on.

So, when recruiting for example, users would do just like they do now, going after the nations top recruits and playing their weekly games. However, in the course of a season, users would be evaluating their current players based on how they are actually performing on the field and paying more attention to what stats potential recruits are posting/have posted in HS.

This wouldn't affect the playing time users need to put in a dynasty for player evaluations, just make focusing on how your players actually perform during that same play time, essential!

Right now a user can have a star WR go on the field and perform poorly but they will never bench him because of his displayed numeric ratings. Or have a great freshmen RB come in and immediately start him because they know he is their best RB because of his displayed numeric ratings.

Take those same scenarios and hide numeric ratings, now users have realistic decisions to make, about those same players. Maybe that star WR isn't as good as YOU THOUGHT he was and you bench him. Maybe your returning RB depth seems solid after last years performance and YOU FEEL that highly recruited freshmen RB should redshirt to have another year to develop.

I don't see how that is anymore time consuming than what users do now. It probably saves time by having users making quick, more decisive choices, without factoring in numerical ratings and having those numerical ratings, eventually reveal, if they made the right choices.

With ratings hidden, good or bad choices are determined by routine numerical wins/losses and individual player performance, not numerical rating progression.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by Thinking Out Loud

Maybe I am having a hard time articulating what I am suggesting in a internet forum but let me state it like this. First off, I want it to be an OPTION, meaning if people want to use it they can, if not, they don't. Secondly, it does NOT have to change ANYTHING else in the game, just provide a "?" for ALL ratings, ALL the time or disable displaying the ratings page, if turned on. So, when recruiting for example, users would do just like they do now, going after the nations top recruits and playing their weekly games. However, in the course of a season, users would be evaluating their current players based on how they are actually performing on the field and paying more attention to what stats potential recruits are posting/have posted in HS. This wouldn't affect the playing time users need to put in a dynasty for player evaluations, just make focusing on how your players actually perform during that same play time, essential! Right now a user can have a star WR go on the field and perform poorly but they will never bench him because of his displayed numeric ratings. Or have a great freshmen RB come in and immediately start him because they know he is their best RB because of his displayed numeric ratings. Take those same scenarios and hide numeric ratings, now users have realistic decisions to make, about those same players. Maybe that star WR isn't as good as YOU THOUGHT he was and you bench him. Maybe your returning RB depth seems solid after last years performance and YOU FEEL that highly recruited freshmen RB should redshirt to have another year to develop. I don't see how that is anymore time consuming than what users do now. It probably saves time by having users making quick, more decisive choices, without factoring in numerical ratings and having those numerical ratings, eventually reveal, if they made the right choices. With ratings hidden, good or bad choices are determined by routine numerical wins/losses and individual player performance, not numerical rating progression.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't need to hide ratings to evaluate your players based on performance. If you have a highly rated WR that isn't performing, why wouldn't you sit him on your own regardless of what he's rated? I get the concept but I think you can do this on your own if you want, just ignore the ratings

[Thinking Out Loud]

Quote: Originally Posted by Baughn3

I understand what you're saying, but you don't need to hide ratings to evaluate your players based on performance. If you have a highly rated WR that isn't performing, why wouldn't you sit him on your own regardless of what he's rated? I get the concept but I think you can do this on your own if you want, just ignore the ratings

Not to be funny but I want this option for the same reason the majority of options are placed in games, choices.

Having a "choice" to hide player ratings automatically makes it much easier to "just ignore the ratings" than not having one.

[Black4track]

As Someone mentioned earlier, unless you have a high overall, players arent good like they were in the old gen games unless played by the user. The CPU can have a QB overall at 80 and can lead his division in Passing, yet you will play this same QB and will murder him.

Player progression needs to be tweaked. Recruiting needs to be tweaked as well. Small schools can get a 5* player every now and then. Also the developers need to add DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH PLAYERS!!!! Imagine if you were a school like Louisana Tech and you recruit a 3* RB who later carries them to a big bowl game. I hope to see this in this years game.

[kingkilla56]

I hate when stats based vs non stats based arguments about progressions rise. Especially when they say hard work, discipline and practice raise attributes, not stats. How can you account for hard work, discipline and stats in a video game that doesnt allow for it. Random progression is the worst. I say keep a modest random progression and bring back training camps.

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by mmorg

No it should not be tied to performance at all. Players in every sport do not get better by performing better. They get better through talent, practice, hard work, and coaching. If people got better in real life by putting up huge numbers then every Texas Tech QB would be winning Super Bowls in the NFL every year.

But just like in the game from year to year if you perform on the field you rating goes up. I bet if u looked at Tom Brady's rating before he won a super bowl and the year after u will see a major spike because of his performance.

[PaperBoyx703]

I beilve it was NCAA Basketball 10 or 09 where the recruits rankings constanly changed they could be the #1 SG in the nation but then a week late be #16 and then it showed their stats from each game and then showed their averages and and accomplishments like awards and stuff. It really helped and even then I think scouting unlocked grades.

But if dynamic player progression in Madden is implemented here ratings wont account for too much bc a 96OVR can be like a 76 the next game if he hits a slump/cold streak or doesnt have a good game. Plus the with that new progression players also regress so I hope this is implemented in Ncaa 12 aswell. I personally dont have a problem with OVR bc i have ones who are like a 82 RB compared to a 87 RB who runs better Like #28 RB Fitzgerald Toussaint on Michigan although lower in his rating he ran way better than both #2 RB and #20 ( i dont feel like typing their names) So Whoever I come across through prac or injuries or subs bc of fatigue and they play better I use them.

[blkrptnt819]

Quote: Originally Posted by l_XaVo7o3_l

I beilve it was NCAA Basketball 10 or 09 where the recruits rankings constanly changed they could be the #1 SG in the nation but then a week late be #16 and then it showed their stats from each game and then showed their averages and and accomplishments like awards and stuff. It really helped and even then I think scouting unlocked grades. But if dynamic player progression in Madden is implemented here ratings wont account for too much bc a 96OVR can be like a 76 the next game if he hits a slump/cold streak or doesnt have a good game. Plus the with that new progression players also regress so I hope this is implemented in Ncaa 12 aswell. I personally dont have a problem with OVR bc i have ones who are like a 82 RB compared to a 87 RB who runs better Like #28 RB Fitzgerald Toussaint on Michigan although lower in his rating he ran way better than both #2 RB and #20 ( i dont feel like typing their names) So Whoever I come across through prac or injuries or subs bc of fatigue and they play better I use them.

The Madden swings are based on a consistency rating. The most a player can swing is 10pts and that's if they are the most incosistent.