Fixing Progression via Coaching Prestige

[okstate123]

Here are the breakdowns of elite players by positions.

The first number is how many 90+ overall players there were at that position at that year. The second number is how many 95+ OVR players there were.

QB
Base- 23 4
Year 1- 29 6
Year 2- 31 8
Year 3-17 6
Year 4 23 6

RB
32 3
43 12
41 12
26 2
29 4

FB
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
6 1

WR
28 4
18 4
20 2
7 1
21 2

TE
3 0
6 1
3 0
4 0
13 2

LT
12 2
9 3
9 0
6 1
2 0

LG
4 0
10 1
16 3
7 1
9 1

C
8 1
16 3
14 2
9 2
15 2

RG
4 0
10 1
18 3
9 2
10 1

RT
5 0
3 0
9 1
6 2
3 0

LE
6 0
8 1
6 1
4 1
6 1

RE
6 0
7 2
7 0
3 0
3 0

DT
10 0
14 3
18 3
12 1
17 2

LOLB
2 0
3 1
5 0
4 0
9 1

MLB
17 3
18 6
6 2
5 0
5 0

ROLB
9 1
10 0
4 1
4 0
3 0

CB
9 0
20 1
16 1
7 0
19 1

FS
7 0
15 2
10 1
4 0
7 1

SS
6 0
10 2
8 1
2 0
6 0

K
4 0
12 2
9 1
18 3
14 8

P
1 0
7 1
19 1
18 6
15 6

[okstate123]

Quote: Originally Posted by khaliib

I was just testing out the same thing. I'm probably going to go lower as I re-rated Alabama's #10 QB to 83 OVR w/70 AWR and 80 Accuracy. HC Saban was 88 OVR, while OC was 75. After simming one year, #10 was a 94 OVR w/95 AWR and 96 Accuracy. Too big of a jump!!! In reality, player's physical attributes change very little. It's their AWR/understanding that increases. I'm going to re-rate coach's so that they have only a slight effect on player progression. It will be much easier to adjust a couple of guys vs 100's every year.

Unfortunately, I think this is a problem that rerating coaches beforehand won't fix. It doesn't really matter how low you put Saban, his team is going to have a great year which will jack up his prestige to an A+ within a year or two.

This is one of the biggest issues in my opinion. In this game, every OC at, say, Oklahoma, is going to be an A+ after just a couple of years because of how good the team already is. This will lead to that A+ coordinator going to another team, and some other lower prestige coordinator taking his spot and becoming an A+.

It's a cycle that is unrealistic and will undoubtedly lead to a bunch of A+ coaches.

Though, with these adjustments, you can get a very realistic 4 years (in terms of player progression) into your dynasty. Surely by that time EA will have a fix.

[voodoo_magic]

Quote: Originally Posted by okstate123

Unfortunately, I think this is a problem that rerating coaches beforehand won't fix. It doesn't really matter how low you put Saban, his team is going to have a great year which will jack up his prestige to an A+ within a year or two. This is one of the biggest issues in my opinion. In this game, every OC at, say, Oklahoma, is going to be an A+ after just a couple of years because of how good the team already is. This will lead to that A+ coordinator going to another team, and some other lower prestige coordinator taking his spot and becoming an A+. It's a cycle that is unrealistic and will undoubtedly lead to a bunch of A+ coaches. Though, with these adjustments, you can get a very realistic 4 years (in terms of player progression) into your dynasty. Surely by that time EA will have a fix.

Thanks for doing this.

Your analysis of the cycle of coaches and how things can quickly spiral out of control is good, and put in a easy to understand example.

Using your settings as a start I decided to go just a bit lower but I wouldn't have decided to do that without the results of your test.

[voodoo_magic]

Using okstate's info here I decided to try a test with a more extreme reduction.

I edited all Head Coaches prestige so that the highest was 61 (C rating) and lowest 15. I didn't do an exact edit, like 40 from all coaches so some of the D teams are bunched up at the bottom. I did try to maintain some order with regards to ranking of coaches though.
I also edited all co ordinators highest 34 lowest 1.

Don't know what happened in yr 4 with only 102 of 90+rated players but then it went back up in yr 5+6.
Year 6 there is a jump in A+ coaches but not bad overall in every other grade.
Looks like things at this point are going to start getting crazy like with the base set of coach prestige.

I'm quite happy with the results up to this point. The amount of 90+rated players is really close to the base roster and it feels like getting a 95+ rated player is special.

Team ratings
Start of year 5, A+ 5 teams A,A- 9 teams
Start of year 6, A+ 5 teams A,A- 10 teams

Rating						
	base	yr2	yr3	yr4	yr5	yr6
99	1	5	2	0	1	2
98	1	0	3	2	1	5
97	3	7	3	4	4	5
96	5	8	7	2	6	13
95	8	15	12	9	6	17
94	15	23	23	8	12	24
93	12	22	32	9	12	31
92	40	29	45	14	28	38
91	46	52	40	21	37	48
90	59	63	64	33	55	63
90+	190	224	231	102	162	246
total						
						
HC Prestige	A+	A	B+	B	C+	C
start 2nd year	1	1	2	0	4	7
start 3rd year	3	1	0	2	2	7
start 4th year	7	0	3	3	1	17
start 5th year	8	4	7	2	5	11
start 6th year	16	5	7	5	6	15
						
						
						
Co ordinators	A+	A	B+	B	C+	C
start 2nd year	1	0	0	0	0	7
start 3rd year	4	0	1	2	1	6
start 4th year	2	2	2	2	5	8
start 5th year	7	2	8	4	5	20
start 6th year	13	3	4	5	13	22

Here's another thread where EvanRG did a test of base prestige, shows the staggering numbers of 99 rated players and basicly double the amount of 90 rated players.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...n-ongoing.html

[Chedapalooza]

Quote: Originally Posted by okstate123

So, one of the biggest problems out of the box this year is obvious: coaching prestige progression. Coaches progress very easily and it can lead to an incredible amount of A+ coaches. On its own, it wouldn’t be a big issue, but since it is tied to player progression, the talent inflation from the default roster becomes problem. In hopes to solve this issue, I’ve rerated every coach’s prestige. I subtracted 25 from all head coach’s prestige, and 50 from all coordinator’s prestige (the best HC started at 74, best coordinator started at 49). So far I’ve simmed 4 years (first year of all generated players) and recorded both HC prestige, and team overalls to compare to the base roster to see if there is a significant increase. I’ve saved each season as a separate dynasty, so if a lot of people want to see more data, I can look at each season retroactively to collect it.

Seemsl like a good idea with the stats to back it up. Where do u make this edit? In dynasty or edit coaches in main menu? I'm assuming we have to go thru 1 by 1? Do you think it woul be beneficial to take more off? Like 30 and 55 from hc and coord respectively ?

Thanks!

[Rendezvous]

What if you edited down all the ratings, and turned off coaching contracts so that coaches didn't progress? Then there would stay the same about of A+ coaches and the recruits wouldn't progress as much.

[okstate123]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chedapalooza

Seemsl like a good idea with the stats to back it up. Where do u make this edit? In dynasty or edit coaches in main menu? I'm assuming we have to go thru 1 by 1? Do you think it woul be beneficial to take more off? Like 30 and 55 from hc and coord respectively ? Thanks!

Make the edits out of dynasty under edit coaches. Took me about 2 hours total (off an on) to edit them all, but it seems worth it to get a better dynasty.

Taking more off might produce better results, as the guy above me showed. But I think no matter how much you take off, by year 6, you'll end up with talent inflation.

I might try to start every coach at 0 to see how that affects dynasty.

Another thing I'm going to do is find out which positions are seeing the most inflation (QB, is one I've noticed) and just decrease the attributes of incoming recruits at that position.

[okstate123]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rendezvous

What if you edited down all the ratings, and turned off coaching contracts so that coaches didn't progress? Then there would stay the same about of A+ coaches and the recruits wouldn't progress as much.

It would probably solve any progression issues, but I'm a big fan of the carousal and want to keep it on.

If you don't really care about it, then yeah, your dynasty would stay consistent with your edits and would produce very realistic results.