Any CPU generated Recruit Ratings yet?

[Roggie]

Quote: Originally Posted by aerovt

I would love to see random players very rarely get something as high as +10 or so during off season, with a few more +6 ratings than what we see now. But I would also like to see recruits flop, and get -4. Of course it would all be best if it was somehow related to stats, or if there was a 'work ethic' rating Of course the best situation would involve the work ethic rating, which could be hidden during recruiting, so it could be possible to pick up a 5* bust that never amounts to anything, while you could still find a 2* gem that works really hard. That stuff happens in real life, it could help keep Alabama from winning 12 NCs in 15 years if it was in the game as it would add some unpredictability to the recruiting.

Or, for the negative progression, have that based on injury. Guy tears his ACL? Could be possible he doesn't get back to previous form and lose some athleticism. Same if a guy breaks a leg or tears a hamstring. Running back breaks his wrist? Could affect his carrying ability if it doesn't heal 100% correctly. Concussions could affect awareness. Turf toe could hamper explosiveness, as sometimes the injury never truly goes away.

And you'd have the guy (1 out of 500 or so) that just flops and doesn't get any better at all.

[DorianDonP]

The Dev team said they would look into player editing in dynasty. I hope they add that when the retail is released via patch.

[K0ZZ]

I see a lot of people content with a talent drop but the issue is, is it realistic to have to recruit way out of place to make a small jump? At San Jose State I had to try and pull in 4*'s just to be competitive with the top of the conference early on. It's also not realistic to have the same teams winning the NC every year, or the talent pool to drop. Players are coming in more athletic and more talented as the years go on. (Not that I wan't a bunch of A+'s.) If they at least made it so 3*'s are low to mid 70's, 4*'s are solid mid 70's and 5*'s are high 70's very low 80's (ceiling of 81 or 82?) with 2 and 1*'s coming in 50's and 60's.

I recruited a 3* player (can't remember what position) and he came in as a 50. He would have to get +6 progression every year just to be a below average starter. 3* players shouldn't be so bad, they should be average which the 3* rating implies. It broke the game last year for me (I pretty much only play dynasty) when you have to recruit unrealisticly to move up in a mid major conference.

[nolesfan3]

I was going to say I can't believe this question hasn't been answered yet, but then again I'm not that surprised. This and the depth chart was the two biggest problems I had with last years game and the depth chart has already been proven to not be fixed.

[RynoAid]

ok, working on this vid now. I'll post link here when it's up.

[Gosens6]

Quote: Originally Posted by RynoAid

ok, working on this vid now. I'll post link here when it's up.

You sir, are a godsend

[Roggie]

Quote: Originally Posted by chicagopax

I see a lot of people content with a talent drop but the issue is, is it realistic to have to recruit way out of place to make a small jump? At San Jose State I had to try and pull in 4*'s just to be competitive with the top of the conference early on. It's also not realistic to have the same teams winning the NC every year, or the talent pool to drop. Players are coming in more athletic and more talented as the years go on. (Not that I wan't a bunch of A+'s.) If they at least made it so 3*'s are low to mid 70's, 4*'s are solid mid 70's and 5*'s are high 70's very low 80's (ceiling of 81 or 82?) with 2 and 1*'s coming in 50's and 60's. I recruited a 3* player (can't remember what position) and he came in as a 50. He would have to get +6 progression every year just to be a below average starter. 3* players shouldn't be so bad, they should be average which the 3* rating implies. It broke the game last year for me (I pretty much only play dynasty) when you have to recruit unrealisticly to move up in a mid major conference.

Pretty much exactly how I feel. I lucked out as Ohio and signed a 4 star top 150 recruit week 1 when a 4 star WR from Athens, OH had me number 1. Only 4 star who ever had interest in me, and dude came in at 71 overall. (Yep, sounds awful, but dude was a godsend. Scott Beck. Had +5 or +6 progression every year. Graduated as a 95 overall true Senior.) Next best player on my team? 87 RS Senior who was a 3 star. Nobody else on my team was over 82.

I mean, I'm not expecting a team of 10 90 overalls as Ohio. But at least have a few recruits come in higher than expected. Some come in worse than expected. Some go nuts in getting better, others flatten out. Those that flatten out may make us mad, but it happens in real life.

[DorianDonP]

One issue with progression is it's completely random. We don't have any say so on how recruits progress. They should bring back minicamps or spring games or something so that we can "coach up" specific players and get a small ratings boost to certain attributes. At least it would feel like we had a small bit of say-so in the development of the prospects we are recruiting.

How fun would it be to sign a 6'5 225 pound DE, and in the off-season be allowed to do strength training and watch that player gain strength and tackle points. If we work on that prospect for 5 years he could grow into a 6'5 265 pound monster.

Or bringing in a ATH to play QB who is fast but has terrible accuracy and redshirting and then working on accuracy related drills in the off-season/spring for 5 years and then as a senior he has a decent accuracy rating and is a big time QB for you that you developed.