The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

[BleedGreen710]

So I purchased the dynasty time savers pack and now I can view how many points the CPU is putting into all their players on their recruiting board. I can confirm that that one recruiting guide that was posted shortly after release is indeed correct, the CPU only gives the max points value to their recruits, never less. So what happens is.. for example.. Its week 10 and theres a 78ovr WR 4 stars who has only 20% lock. I looked and saw Nebraska is leading so I checked Nebraska's point distribution. They have 11 guys on their board with 500 points and 20 with 0 points. That WR is one of the 20. It was like this for all the teams in his top 10. The problem isn't that the CPU doesn't go after the recruits (as evidenced by the fact they put them on their recruiting board) the problem is that EA made it so the CPU cannot distribute points properly, like human players can. After a few weeks I have a huge lead on the WR now. The only chance the CPU has, is if they get some of their players to commit, and thus move the 500 points to another player (in this case the WR) and hope to catch up to me. If that doesn't happen, he's going to Wyoming.

Please fix this! Totally unrealistic and feels cheap..

[patsfan1993]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Do you think maxing out some of the best coaches would help make it harder to get these recruits?

I was thinking about editing the 15-20 coaches to max the recruiting. I figured the additional points along with the insta commit attribute would help them sign players quicker and thus recruit more of the 4 & 5 star talent.

[BleedGreen710]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Do you think maxing out some of the best coaches would help make it harder to get these recruits?

I was thinking about editing the 15-20 coaches to max the recruiting. I figured the additional points along with the insta commit attribute would help them sign players quicker and thus recruit more of the 4 & 5 star talent.

That could help maybe..

[Dogslax41]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Problem is that there are too many 4 and 5 star players.

The CPU's strategy for high level programs is sound because theoretically they already have a full roster of players ready to step in to departing players and only need to replace with guys that the really want and can rely on the name of the school (bonus points) to recruit the players outside their to top 10.

After they fill their top players they could then be able to move on to the average players and steal some of those from smaller schools, some would still go to the smaller schools based on proximity and playing time.

IMO there should only be 100 4 and 5 star players available. There should be enough for each top 25 program to get 4 every year and it should be a big impact on teams if some are able to out recruit others for those top 100. That would leave anyone outside the top 25 basically fighting for scraps that the big programs would then be able to pick through once they got their top 10. This would also make Saban's instacommit trait more powerful like it seems the devs intended it because he could get that insta commit in week 1 and that 500 could then be put toward eating up another top 100 player.

[BleedGreen710]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Problem is that there are too many 4 and 5 star players.

The CPU's strategy for high level programs is sound

No.. just no. You cant be serious. You dont think its the problem that ALL CPU TEAMS (even small schools) are ONLY able to offer max points to recruits, instead of spreading out the points, while users are able to? Do you think in real life teams recruit by selecting 11 recruits and going all out on them and neglecting all the others completely? Absolutely not!

[Timeetyo]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Problem is that there are too many 4 and 5 star players.

The CPU's strategy for high level programs is sound because theoretically they already have a full roster of players ready to step in to departing players and only need to replace with guys that the really want and can rely on the name of the school (bonus points) to recruit the players outside their to top 10.

After they fill their top players they could then be able to move on to the average players and steal some of those from smaller schools, some would still go to the smaller schools based on proximity and playing time.

IMO there should only be 100 4 and 5 star players available. There should be enough for each top 25 program to get 4 every year and it should be a big impact on teams if some are able to out recruit others for those top 100. That would leave anyone outside the top 25 basically fighting for scraps that the big programs would then be able to pick through once they got their top 10. This would also make Saban's instacommit trait more powerful like it seems the devs intended it because he could get that insta commit in week 1 and that 500 could then be put toward eating up another top 100 player.

This x 1000.

I really love how they did recruiting battles this year - it is the best iteration i've seen to date for this piece. The problem is - why bother fighting for a 4* 77 OVR all year long to maybe get him when with the same points I can get 2 4* 76 OVR guys who nobody touched. What would be best for the game would be a significant reduction in the number of 4 & 5 * players. This would make the bulk of your 2-4* teams fill the majority of their rosters with 3* players that fit their system and then FIGHT for the few 4* they have a shot at. Signing a 4* player should always take some effort. Signing a 5* should always be a game changer for your program.

[Dogslax41]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

No.. just no. You cant be serious. You dont think its the problem that ALL CPU TEAMS (even small schools) are ONLY able to offer max points to recruits, instead of spreading out the points, while users are able to? Do you think in real life teams recruit by selecting 11 recruits and going all out on them and neglecting all the others completely? Absolutely not!

ITS A VIDEO GAME. Unless you are asking EA to program the lawnmower man into the game then the CPU is never going to be capabale of emperical thinking. EA makes it where the CPU spreads its points and there has to be some logic behind the spread. Then tomorrow someone else comes on here screaming that the CPU spreads itself too thin BECAUSE THATS BEEN THE EXACT PROBLEM IN YEARS PAST. The code necessary to have the CPU value all necessary components would not work on current consoles. Its a much easier fix to get usable recruiting by just limiting the number of top recruits.

[Strategizer]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

There is definitely a problem with recruits not going on anyone's boards at all as well. I've got an 81 ovr olb in my mizzou dynasty who is only on my board, and I can tell because the other teams are all dropping by the same amount of points. And he is just one example.

[BleedGreen710]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

I don't think you guys are understanding. The reason theres so many 'untouched' 4 star recruits is because of what I said in my 1st post. EA didn't give the CPU the ability to distribute their points properly, which leaves tons of 4 star players unrecruited. If it weren't for that, they would be recruited as normal and there wouldn't need to be less 4 star players.

And don't give me that BS that the system isn't capable of giving the CPU the ability to spread out points or I will fire up my NCAA 09 for PS2 and show you how the CPU is able to properly distribute their points in last gen.

[Timeetyo]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

So I purchased the dynasty time savers pack and now I can view how many points the CPU is putting into all their players on their recruiting board. I can confirm that that one recruiting guide that was posted shortly after release is indeed correct, the CPU only gives the max points value to their recruits, never less. So what happens is.. for example.. Its week 10 and theres a 78ovr WR 4 stars who has only 20% lock. I looked and saw Nebraska is leading so I checked Nebraska's point distribution. They have 11 guys on their board with 500 points and 20 with 0 points. That WR is one of the 20. It was like this for all the teams in his top 10. The problem isn't that the CPU doesn't go after the recruits (as evidenced by the fact they put them on their recruiting board) the problem is that EA made it so the CPU cannot distribute points properly, like human players can. After a few weeks I have a huge lead on the WR now. The only chance the CPU has, is if they get some of their players to commit, and thus move the 500 points to another player (in this case the WR) and hope to catch up to me. If that doesn't happen, he's going to Wyoming.

Please fix this! Totally unrealistic and feels cheap..

While this doesn't help the situation - it isn't the root of the problem and isn't completely unrealistic. I am finding with 6500 points and a 3* team with a 3 balanced classes signed I am typically only putting points into 13-15 guys. Only the first year did i spread out my points but that was because Ga State roster was absolute crap so i needed to sign as many as I could. Now I am aiming for a class of 15-17 each year (i love to redshirt as much as possible).

I have a bad feeling if we have EA change the logic to spread the points they will spread it to 35 and we'll be worse off from where we are.

[Timeetyo]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Silly question - but is anyone at their console and can do a quick check to see how many 3, 4, and 5 star players are in a given class?

[BleedGreen710]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

While this doesn't help the situation - it isn't the root of the problem and isn't completely unrealistic. I am finding with 6500 points and a 3* team with a 3 balanced classes signed I am typically only putting points into 13-15 guys. Only the first year did i spread out my points but that was because Ga State roster was absolute crap so i needed to sign as many as I could. Now I am aiming for a class of 15-17 each year (i love to redshirt as much as possible).

I have a bad feeling if we have EA change the logic to spread the points they will spread it to 35 and we'll be worse off from where we are.

Yea you may start out with 13-15 guys, but I bet once you have some guys with huge leads you start giving the points out to other recruits.. something the CPU is completely unable to do. Also, agreed, it is always a fear that when EA will fix something they will mess it up even more by going from 1 extreme to the other, I feel you there.

[BleedGreen710]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Silly question - but is anyone at their console and can do a quick check to see how many 3, 4, and 5 star players are in a given class?

Heres my current class

5 stars: 22
4 stars: 273
3 stars: 1,480
2 stars: 2,117
1 stars: 2,710

[Strategizer]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

Yea you may start out with 13-15 guys, but I bet once you have some guys with huge leads you start giving the points out to other recruits.. something the CPU is completely unable to do. Also, agreed, it is always a fear that when EA will fix something they will mess it up even more by going from 1 extreme to the other, I feel you there.

When I have huge leads and start to spread out my points, it's typically because no one else is recruiting that player, which is the problem in the first place.

[BleedGreen710]

Re: The root of the 'too many good players get unrecruited' problem

When I have huge leads and start to spread out my points, it's typically because no one else is recruiting that player, which is the problem in the first place.

True ... very true..