Any news on progression?

[booker21]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mtneer08

Yep, too many people complained last year about the ratings being too low (I actually liked it for the most part) so EA goes overboard with progression this year. Typical EA

Black or white. Never a happy medium.

unbelievable.

[87Birdman]

Just a question, but has any checked out the other ratings to see what is making them so high. Because I for one could live with it if the ratings all seemed normal but awarness was higher than normal causing the overall to be higher. This by no means a reason for EA not to get this right, but I know awarness tends to have more of an effect on the overall. And a high awarness makes the computer play better so if this is the reason I all for these "higher" ratings, but if this isn't the case this could put a huge damper on doing a dynasty.

[Mtneer08]

Quote: Originally Posted by 87Birdman

Just a question, but has any checked out the other ratings to see what is making them so high. Because I for one could live with it if the ratings all seemed normal but awarness was higher than normal causing the overall to be higher. This by no means a reason for EA not to get this right, but I know awarness tends to have more of an effect on the overall. And a high awarness makes the computer play better so if this is the reason I all for these "higher" ratings, but if this isn't the case this could put a huge damper on doing a dynasty.

Good question. I'll check later

[aarontab]

Isn't this better still though? As long as this is across the board, everybody gets the same advantage type of thing, it shouldn't hurt gameplay. Last year was different because lower ratings lead to fumbles and other aggravations, but if everybody gets better equally, not a problem.

[mavfan21]

62 at 95 OVR or higher in the WHOLE NCAA? There's over 8,000 players. Why would 62 elite players be unrealisitic? That's 2 rounds of the NFL Draft. That's ONE 95 or higher player for every 130 players. So it averages out to LESS THAN ONE A TEAM.

Alabama, OU, Oregon, Auburn and the other top teams should have 4-5 90 and above players each. Akron, UNT, and teams like them should never/rarely have ANY. The game replicates this. Last year by year 5 there might be ONE elite player on Alabama, is that realisitic?

As long as the OVR's are balanced and spread across the NCAA what difference does it make? I have yet to see anyone make a good argument as to how it actually affects gameplay. For those that import into Madden there needs to be a good crop of elite players or the talent level drops unrealistically.

[mavfan21]

Quote: Originally Posted by aarontab

Isn't this better still though? As long as this is across the board, everybody gets the same advantage type of thing, it shouldn't hurt gameplay. Last year was different because lower ratings lead to fumbles and other aggravations, but if everybody gets better equally, not a problem.

Exactly, my friend. Last year sucked. The nerfed WR recruits were a mess.

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by FOREST007

After 2 seasons, Memphis has gone from a D offense/defense to a B/B- Offense/Defense.

The question I have is how many teams are seeing this drastic an improvement. If it's just Memphis in this example, then it's not a problem.

But if B/B- becomes the new D/D, it's a problem.

Why? Because there are already A+/A+ teams in the games. The gap between A+/A+ and D/D is not the same as the gap between A+/A+ and B/B-.

Just like last year when the best teams were B/B after 5+ years and that was a problem. The problem isn't the worst teams getting better or the best teams getting worse.

The problem is the worse teams getting better and the best teams not having room to also get better at the same rate because they're already at the ceiling. The overprogression narrows the gap between the 1st and 120th team, and while this makes for a more competitive game as your dynasty progresses, it doesn't make for a very realistic one (and with the right difficulty settings, it's already competitive enough).

[aarontab]

Quote: Originally Posted by Pogo27

The question I have is how many teams are seeing this drastic an improvement. If it's just Memphis in this example, then it's not a problem. But if B/B- becomes the new D/D, it's a problem. Why? Because there are already A+/A+ teams in the games. The gap between A+/A+ and D/D is not the same as the gap between A+/A+ and B/B-. Just like last year when the best teams were B/B after 5+ years and that was a problem. The problem isn't the worst teams getting better or the best teams getting worse. The problem is the worse teams getting better and the best teams not having room to also get better at the same rate because they're already at the ceiling. The overprogression narrows the gap between the 1st and 120th team, and while this makes for a more competitive game as your dynasty progresses, it doesn't make for a very realistic one (and with the right difficulty settings, it's already competitive enough).

It's still better, and i for one am not upset if the letter grades of teams are all closer together. As long as the WRs can catch and RBs dont fumble like pop warner players, it's not going to affect your play as much as you think.