A Few TCY Tweaks (Recommendations)

[Abe Sargent]

With me playing the EMU dynasty again a bit, I am reminded about some tweaks that I would make to the game. Nothing major, because those sorts of things usually derive from the creator's vision. Additionally, these are the sorts of things that I imagine could be easily added to the current game, and do not require a major investment of time or rehauling the code. So then, I have a few tweaks in mind:

Recruiting and Scheduling:

In order to make scheduling more important and to resemble the reality of scheduling a bit more, I'd like to see two changes here. First of all, during any Bye week, I think a coach should get twice as many contacts. That makes scheduling bye weeks important for more than player rest.

Secondly, I'd like to see the travel fee reduced that week if I am playing in that state. So, if my Eastern Michigan Eagles travel to, say, Virginia Tech for a ball game, then that week I should be able to visit recruits in Virginia at the same cost as if they were in Michigan. Again, this would help teams that go on the road, and might make you want to actually try and schedule a road game somehwere like California, Texas or New York on a critical week.


The Regions:

To be honest, I don't like the idea of the regions, but even more than that, I dislike the poor implementation. Take the Mid-Atlanic Region, for example, possibly the biggest laugh of a region. Only five states, and Delaware and West Virginia have small numbers of recruits - leaving NJ, VA and MD to share a small load. Sitting right beside this region are three states which would provide a bit more space, and also seem a bit out of the way for their region - Kentucky, removed from the SE Region (the super region) might be nice. The SE has six states, all with good recruiting. Another possibility might be North Carolina, also from the SE. Or, you could take Pennsylvania from the GL region, it being the case that PA barely even touches Erie anyway.

Or, take the NW. Considering that it has six states, this is a sparse region. Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have hardly any people. And it's not like Oregon has this saving number of recruits, either. So Washington, decently populated, is the only major state?

Have about these regions:

West Coast:

WA, OR, CA, HI, AL (Throw in four unpopulated states with CA)


Mid West:

ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, CO (Exchanges populated MN and MO for CO and the three smaller states)


Great Lakes:

MN, WI, MI, OH, IL, IN, IA (Lose Pennsylvania, region is big enough without it. Gain Minnesota and Iowa, which are about even in size to PA.)


Former Mexico and Stuff:

NV, UT, AZ, NM, TX, OK (Toss in Texas with some smaller states, and not the big south states)


The Old South:

AR, LA, MS, MO, KY, TN (A new region formed out of parts of the Deep South and South East regions. All of these states are well populated but there is no marqueee state.)


Mid-Atlantic:

PA, WV, VA, MD, NJ, DE (Like in TCY, only adding PA to the mix, a strong addition.)


New England:

NY, MA, CT, NH, VT, ME (Another bunch of small states in with the large NY. This is identical to the current region)


South Atlantic:

NC, SC, GA, FL, AL (Add Alabama and deduct KY and TN from the previous Floridian conference. Honestly, I think you could arguably move Alabama into the Old South conference if you still feel that this is too much.)


Now the classic powerhouse recruiting states of Texas, California, New York and Florida are in weaker regions, and weaker regions like the Mid-Atlantic and Mis West have been strengthened.

I drew each on a map. I have a pad of note paper that has a political map of the US drawn on it, so I just broke it down. When you look at the current TCY regions, you see some awkward regional drawing. With my regions, they look much nicer.

Anyways, just a few comments. Feel feel to add your owns or disagree with me.


-Anxiety

[Passacaglia]

One thing I always thought is that if your team is playing in a certain place, you should be able to recruit in that place like it's your home. I mean, if you're EMU, and you play San Jose State, you shouldn't have to *also* pay over 1000 to recruit out there.

Also, bowl matchups. Why does BCS No. 8 get more money than BCS No. 6 and 7? And why does the Big Ten runner-up play the Big Twelve runner-up? Or is there a utility that lets you change bowl matchups that I don't know about?

Just a couple things off the top of my head.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Editable bowl matchups is definitely a must for TCY2...

[WSUCougar]

I should preface these comments by stating that I am an absolute TCY nut. I simply can’t get enough of the game, and it swallows up even more and more of my gaming hours as time goes by. “I love TCY Piccolo.” The thought of TCY2 makes me slobber like Pavlov’s dog.

I should also note that there are several other TCY Enhancement threads that have made the rounds over the past months/years (do a search, there is some great stuff out there). Here's one: TCY2 Suggestions

But here goes:

1) Playing time is too nebulous.
The college game is particularly dependent upon developing players (due to the maximum 4-5 year window). On the flip-side, it’s too easy to get an undesired red-shirt from a player that rides the pine; in other words, they don’t see the field even though it was not your intention to red-shirt them (this is especially evil & wicked when they are academic liabilities and/or they are marginal players with terrific popularity burning up one of your 60 scholies).

Realizing that these are distinctly textual distinctions (as opposed to numbers 1-10), here is a suggested “check box” for each player’s PT:

Vast majority of the plays at his position
Majority of the plays
Slight majority of the plays (60/40)
Platoon (even split of plays)
Slight minority of the plays (40/60)
Minority of the plays
A few plays

The latter is particularly appealing for greenhorns that need to get their feet wet, and developing players can slowly work their way up the PT ladder.

2) Enhance the recruiting interaction.
Since recruiting is the heart of the game, let’s enhance it! Perhaps a level-of-interest indicator from recruits (high/med/low/none), along with verbal commits prior to signing day. The current text descriptions are a good starting point, but are rather limited and vague (overjoyed, pleased, unhappy, exhilarated, etc.). There are some messages that really cause a thrill – “Very likely to attend if asked!” – because they are more clear. I realize that a recruit’s level of interest should be hard to gauge, but it often feels like many of the guys I’m pursuing are all lumped in the same group. This is especially true for a low-prestige school, where almost every recruit is “surprised” and unlikely to visit. I’d like to see a broader range of replies (hell, I’d love to write ‘em up for Jim ), like a branching tree of dialog that continues from an initial response and continues based on further calls/visits. Also, what do/don’t they like? The offense? The depth chart? Chance to contribute immediately? The conference?

3) Tweak the game engine.
Have a player-defined FG/punt/go-for-it logic (please). Have a player-defined run-out-the-clock logic (run the damn ball!). Please pull the QB when he is murdering us.

4)Adjust the idolized team logic.
This is an oldie but a goodie. We all know about the UCLA factor. However, in addition to tweaking the current logic, I think it could be expanded. How about idolizing the school for its academics (in a particular major)? Or an occasional sprinkling of recruits nationwide who like your school (perhaps their parents re-located or something)? Or how about negative idolizing (hatred?)? I’d also like a one-click list of recruits that idolize the school, rather than have to hunt them down.

[Breeze]

How about some additional choices beyond Distance, Academics, and Prestige.

Like - Style of Play (offensive or defensive system used), Player Success (award winners at the same position, players going on to the NFL, etc), Campus (i.e. happiness of players and student body), Facilities, Early playing time (this one is huge in today's climate)

[Abe Sargent]

I also don't like the way the Air Force, Army and Navy recruiting works.

I'd like to see a lot more recruits across the nation idolize these three places, but then make it especially difficult for them to bring in a regular recruit. The local high school hero from New York City isn't likely to go to Westpoint simply because he wants to stay near home. People who idolize these three places should also come from every state. I never see a Michigan person idolizing any of the three right now, for example.

-Anxiety

[kingnebwsu]

I think something that will have to change is the number of undefeated teams. In my current dynasty (patched from the beginning to now), I get wayyyy too many undefeated teams. It makes it even thougher to play for the title when my SCE team goes undefeated. I'm at the point in 2047 where the SCE has 3-4 top-50 teams every year and is right in the middle as far as conference strength goes. Every year I see between 3-6 teams go undefeated, which is way too high. I know it's the future, but I think as every year passes, going undefeated is even more remarkable.

Summary of long paragraph: I dunno how this would be implemented, whether it'd be to tone down recruiting of the big guys, or a change in the gameplay code (unlikely), but I'd love for the end result of seeing less undefeated teams.

Dunno if this makes any sense, but this is something that I'd like to (somehow) happen. Also, being able to customize different settings mid-career. I.E. switching from bowl system to playoffs or vice versa.

Maybe being able to switch a "permanent opponent" would also be nice. Make it someone in the region or something. That'd be a huge addition, cuz it's rough when one of your regulars is not even in the top-100.

TCY 2 would instantly be one of my favorite games ever

[Peregrine]

I'd like to see less emphasis on recruits wanting good academics. I think we all know that this is overdone in TCY, if you're not convinced, just start a dynasty as Vanderbilt or Duke and watch as you quickly build them into powerhouses. Far too many players have academics rated as all important. In real life the quality academic schools struggle to field good teams, they won't stoop down to get lower quality academic recruits, and in real life there aren't very many star players at all who would want obscurity at Duke or other academically prestigious schools over fame at a big school.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I think you should be able to disable overtime. It would be nice to go traditional instead of having this weak-ass version of OT the the college football gods gave us (like the BCS)

[Balldog]

I just want to call my own plays.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally posted by Peregrine
I'd like to see less emphasis on recruits wanting good academics. I think we all know that this is overdone in TCY, if you're not convinced, just start a dynasty as Vanderbilt or Duke and watch as you quickly build them into powerhouses. Far too many players have academics rated as all important. In real life the quality academic schools struggle to field good teams, they won't stoop down to get lower quality academic recruits, and in real life there aren't very many star players at all who would want obscurity at Duke or other academically prestigious schools over fame at a big school.

Peregrine,

I think that's also because a lot of football powerhouses are also good schools. Take Michigan, one of the best educations in the country. And a powerhouse football program. If you are a football player and interested in academics, why would you choose Vandy over Michigan?

Certianly not every football powerhouse is good academically, but enough of them are that a good football player can usually find academics and a good football program - if that is what he desires.


-Anxiety

[Peregrine]

I agree Anxiety, there are plenty of top notch programs that provide a good education as well. For the CPU this seems to work out fine. My point is that the system becomes unbalanced when you play a low prestige, high academics college. Unlike in real life, you can have phenomenal recruiting success because in the game, you can take recruits away from Michigan or the other big programs, especially the Academic* ones. I just don't think that is very realistic. If a recruit comes down to choosing Michigan, Florida, Washington State, and Vanderbilt, that's got to be pretty rare in real life, but I see it happen in the game fairly frequently. I'm not saying the whole system needs to be changed, but a tweak or two to the academic recruiting system wouldn't hurt.

[WSUCougar]

Jim has stated that the emphasis on academics is a design issue rather than anything else. TCY is his vision of college football and not intended to be "realistic" in the sense of mirroring the NCAA. While I agree that it would be desirable to tone this down somewhat in a future version, it was an intentional design decision by the game developer.

[Buccaneer]

Anxiety, I emailed Jim a lengthy suggestion on changing recruiting to more of a location-based calculation (distance between point X and point Y) instead of regions. In other words, the cost going from Council Bluffs, IA to Omaha would be very minimal as oppose to the unrealistic cost that it is now. Since recruiting is most of the game for me, I thought this would enhance the strategy and tactics even more. His reply was that most people are used to the way it is now and wouldn't want to change.

[kingfc22]

How can a game advance if there is no change? This is the first time I've read something that has made me second guess myself in wanting to buy TCY. If academics is truly weighted very high and it makes a recruit take say Duke over FSU I think that is something that should be tweaked. Just because people might be used to something doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

[33sherman]

I think the problem that kingnebwsu(too many undefeated teams) could be lessened somewhat by a whole new scheduling system. More and more teams nowadays are playing twelve and thirteen game schedules, but in TCY you usually get stuck playing eleven games year after year. Teams who have weak permanent non-conference opponents have a better chance of going undefeated. Jim has talked about this before and apparently the scheduling is the most difficult part of the entire game in terms of the code. But deeper scheduling would be fantastic.

A larger, editable player-name list would be cool, too.

[kingnebwsu]

Yeah 33, but in 2001 when TCY was made, weren't 11-game schedules the norm? I dunno, but that's what I recall. I agree with the addition of an extra game, it'll be a necessity in TCY 2 (which will come out later this year, right around August...that's the TICKET!!!).

Also non-conference opponents on the same level would be fantastic. It's like, if I start to rock in the SCE, schedule me with good teams from the BS conferences every year. If I start to suck, then make me play UConn and Air Force (my current non-conf's with my #1 SCE team). At least I don't have Utah State anymore, they were bottom-ten every year.

Anyway, making a change like that would ensure top-50 teams are always playing an extra top-50 team or two...plus the addition of another game, that'd help the "undefeated" problem.

TCY is so awesome to me, but TCY 2 can be so much more. I can't wait for it, but I'll enjoy TCY in the meantime!

[General Mike]

Originally posted by 33sherman
I think the problem that kingnebwsu(too many undefeated teams) could be lessened somewhat by a whole new scheduling system. More and more teams nowadays are playing twelve and thirteen game schedules.

11 game schedules are still the standard in college football. Teams were allowed to schedule a 12th game the last 2 seasons because of the fact their was an extra weekend between labor day and the end of november. Teams are also allowed to schedule an extra home game if they take a road trip to Hawaii, to compensate for the cost. The 11 game schedules in TCY are accurate tho.