Alright boyz 'n' girlz... NCAA 2010 impressions thread

[RainMaker]

I don't think the rosters are a big deal. Sure for guys like us, it's a problem, but we're probably 5% of the audience they shoot for. If they had to make cutbacks because of the economy and poor sales, I'm sure the roster guy would be one of them.

Not to mention that it's real easy to download/swap rosters. Within another couple weeks there will be a set that fixes all the annoying issues. If I was EA, I'd conveniently send a Beta copy to a few of the top roster makers on the boards a couple weeks before launch.

[Captain2711]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Ugh, did you actually get points, or just an announcong glitch?

Yeah I got the 6 points but didn't realize at first. After the play I then kicked offer

[MizzouRah]

I guess I'm just an NCAA FB fanboy.. I loved 09 and 10 is really improved.

The running game has really made some strides.. best in any football game I've played.. played vs FAU and Washington ran all over them, like he should.. but I really felt ratings were a big factor here as their DL was rated low and could not tackle Washington.

Passing is improved as well - since CB's cover WR's so much better, you have to make your decisions more accurately now.

Sheldon Richardson is a Tiger in the rosters and he is a BEAST. He had some really good plays in my game - ie I could tell he was out there on the field.

I heard a few new lines by Corso and Herbstreit.. but nothing ground breaking here.

Graphics overall looked better to me.

LOVE the player lock.. it's a great feeling to rush the passer as a LB and get that sack!!!

I think the game has improved, but I just like to play on AA defaults with 8min quarters and then let the CPU do the recruiting.

Oh and there were about 10 penalties called, with the majority of them being a personal foul, defensive face mask.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I find it somewhat amusing that people want both realism and perfect pursuit angles in a college football game.

I certainly don't want perfect pursuit angles. What I want is for defensive players to not run away from the ballcarrier or run with the ballcarrier, which they often did in 09. So far, I have mostly played the Road To Glory mode with only 1 "real" game in Dynasty Mode. That one game was pretty bad (as in way too easy with default sliders on All-American), but I didn't see the broken AI that did in last year's game. I'm going to have to hold off for a week or so and see what OS comes up with sliders.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Anyway... just a lot of little slight things that annoy me. In the end, I'm not sure that it really feels that different.

Well for one my HB doesn't fumble on every possession, and my QB doesn't throw a pick everytime my HB isn't running.

I know it's low standards, but at least there seems to be some meaning to the game rather than a crazy turnover-fest like we had last year.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I certainly don't want perfect pursuit angles. What I want is for defensive players to not run away from the ballcarrier or run with the ballcarrier, which they often did in 09.

Speaking of that, a bunch of kids on my 5 year old son's soccer team play the same way as the AI in NCAA 09. When defending they run alongside the other team all the way to the net, and then play goalie. It reminds me of the game every time.

I try and tell them to attack the ball at midfield instead of giving them a free shot on net, otherwise it's artificially increasing the offensive stats. So far it's not working, I guess Soccer 10 is going to have to be the patch for these kids AI.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mota

Well for one my HB doesn't fumble on every possession, and my QB doesn't throw a pick everytime my HB isn't running.

I know it's low standards, but at least there seems to be some meaning to the game rather than a crazy turnover-fest like we had last year.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the fumbles - I didn't have that problem last year.

:shurg:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Captain2711

I had a weird glitch. I had an interception for a TD and was called for a chop block on the return, so I took the offense on the +45. I then proceeded to throw an incomplete pass and the announcers said the try for 2 was no good. Apparently I had scored, had no celebration and was penalized 42 yards. It ruined my 2 point conversion % dammit!!

There's been similar reports over on OS when a fumble was returned for a touchdown. The game logic goes wacky when a penalty occurs during a defensive return after a turnover. It counts the touchdown, but then returns the ball to where the penalty should have been enforced. It then continues as though it's a PAT attempt.

[JetsIn06]

MAde it to the Rose Bowl with Penn State in my first year, and it was such a wacky game.

I have seen one kickoff returned for a touchdown. This game had two on each side, plus one from me that made it all the way to the five yard line.

It was within one point for basically the entire game. I get the ball back down by one and two minutes left.

I drive down the field, make it to the five yard line or so and kick a field goal, putting me up two with two seconds left.

I figure that my best bet is to kick a squibber to the front line so I don't get another one returned on me. He gets it and is tackled immediately.

BUT WAIT. I get called for a facemask, moving them up to my 30-yard line. Their kicker has already made two pretty far kicks, and I'm sweating bullets. I call time to ice him.

They line up again. The snap, the hold, the kick....it's in slow motion, going right towards the inside right of the post, but it slowly starts slicing to the right, and it grazes the right side of the post. No good, PSU wins!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Some pretty bad issues with player progression that Bill Harris found. Is it that difficult for a multi-million dollar development team to sim the game for 5 years and verify stats and player progression? Maybe it is........

Dubious Quality: NCAA 10 (360): A Brown, Gelatinous Mass That Is Only Vaguely Shaped Like A Football

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

MAde it to the Rose Bowl with Penn State in my first year, and it was such a wacky game.

I have seen one kickoff returned for a touchdown. This game had two on each side, plus one from me that made it all the way to the five yard line.

It was within one point for basically the entire game. I get the ball back down by one and two minutes left.

I drive down the field, make it to the five yard line or so and kick a field goal, putting me up two with two seconds left.

I figure that my best bet is to kick a squibber to the front line so I don't get another one returned on me. He gets it and is tackled immediately.

BUT WAIT. I get called for a facemask, moving them up to my 30-yard line. Their kicker has already made two pretty far kicks, and I'm sweating bullets. I call time to ice him.

They line up again. The snap, the hold, the kick....it's in slow motion, going right towards the inside right of the post, but it slowly starts slicing to the right, and it grazes the right side of the post. No good, PSU wins!

IF that only could've been the outcome of last year's game.

[Kodos]

Patch is out for the 360.

Fixes sliders
Allows commissioners to disable the dynasty cheats
Some other crap I forgot

[wade moore]

BTW - I've played 3 or 4 games now.

I definitely notice a different feel. There are still some little things that annoy me (like the formation thing in particular that I mentioned before) - but definitely like a lot of little things that they've done. I'm having a pretty hard time passing, but that happens to me every year and improves over time.

[RainMaker]

The chart Bill Harris puts up is interesting on player progression. The weird part for me is that the number of top players goes up a ton in 2012 but then downward in 2014.

Take WR with a rating over 95. 2 in 2009, 25 in 2012, then 2 in 2014. It would be one thing if it kept going up, but I don't get why it has that up and then down curve. Perhaps the progression is fine for recruits but incoming freshman are just rated too highly or have too much hidden potential. Perhaps those 25 WR in 2012 are primarily freshman in the game. Just a thought.

Other positions though seem to just go up and it appears that players simply progress to much (or recruits are rated too high).

I think we need some more detail about it and probably more tests to see if this curve is consistent. Disappointing since I think progression can be something that is fixed with some tweaks.

[Jon]

What slider set/settings are you guys using? Are the default sets working out okay?

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The chart Bill Harris puts up is interesting on player progression. The weird part for me is that the number of top players goes up a ton in 2012 but then downward in 2014.

I'm not sure why you aren't accepting his numbers for what they are, in a nutshell:

2009
95-99: 14
90-94: 112

2012
95-99: 65 (364% increase from 2009)
90-94: 130 (16% increase from 2009)

2014
95-99: 75 (15% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 436% increase from 2009!)
90-94: 270 (108% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 141% increase from 2009!)

Tell me how it goes down? I can't for the life of me understand how the majority of the FOFC group thinks this is a good game. Its not even close to representing college football. Its buggy as hell.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Balldog

I can't for the life of me understand how the majority of the FOFC group thinks this is a good game. Its not even close to representing college football. Its buggy as hell.

All because the player universe is rated too highly? Not sure I follow how that makes sense.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Logan

All because the player universe is rated too highly? Not sure I follow how that makes sense.

There's a lot of gameplay bugs in this game. If you're bored, head over to the OS forums and read through the 50 pages or so. Timeouts, ball spotting, animations, progression.......you name it, it's there.

FWIW, I think we can officially declare the honeymoon over. That poor EA developer that drew the OS forums assignment is taking some heavy heat for the game and its issues.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Balldog

I'm not sure why you aren't accepting his numbers for what they are, in a nutshell:

2009
95-99: 14
90-94: 112

2012
95-99: 65 (364% increase from 2009)
90-94: 130 (16% increase from 2009)

2014
95-99: 75 (15% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 436% increase from 2009!)
90-94: 270 (108% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 141% increase from 2009!)

Tell me how it goes down? I can't for the life of me understand how the majority of the FOFC group thinks this is a good game. Its not even close to representing college football. Its buggy as hell.

Are we REALLY drawing conclusions on a sample size of 5 years?

I'm not saying talent distribution is good - I honestly don't know. But to draw conclusions from 5 years of classes is just ridiculous.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

But to draw conclusions from 5 years of classes is just ridiculous.

I don't know, considering that it seems likely that relatively few of the buyers get beyond five years of classes I'd say having a reasonable model in that time frame is pretty important.

Off the top of my head, it seems as though a fairly strict re-gen system for player creation might be EA's best bet.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Are we REALLY drawing conclusions on a sample size of 5 years?

I'm not saying talent distribution is good - I honestly don't know. But to draw conclusions from 5 years of classes is just ridiculous.

There is a thread was started at OS on this issue long before Bill's post that discusses the same progression issues. It's now a 50 page thread with several examples. They've been reproducing the same issues in that thread, some with longer timeframes. It's not just a one-time test result.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a lot of gameplay bugs in this game. If you're bored, head over to the OS forums and read through the 50 pages or so. Timeouts, ball spotting, animations, progression.......you name it, it's there.

That's wonderful. I was asking him if his feelings were all based on progression being messed up, but thanks.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There is a thread was started at OS on this issue long before Bill's post that discusses the same progression issues. It's now a 50 page thread with several examples. They've been reproducing the same issues in that thread, some with longer timeframes. It's not just a one-time test result.

The data posted on here is from one 5 season dynasty.

You can't draw conclusions from that.

If you have 50 5 season dynasties, ok. That's not what was presented here.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

If you have 50 5 season dynasties, ok. That's not what was presented here.

I don't know if they have 50, but they have a bigger sample for sure.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't know if they have 50, but they have a bigger sample for sure.

And does it show the exact same trend?

I'm not saying it isn't valid, I'm saying Bill Harris's "test" is not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

And does it show the exact same trend?

I'm not saying it isn't valid, I'm saying Bill Harris's "test" is not.

Yes, they have similar results.

Also, I'm not sure that Bill's test isn't valid as much as you'd just like to see more evidence or a longer timeframe before assuming it's accurate, which is definitely a good point.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, they have similar results.

Also, I'm not sure that Bill's test isn't valid as much as you'd just like to see more evidence or a longer timeframe before assuming it's accurate, which is definitely a good point.

No.

One set of 5 seasons tells you nothing. You cannot make assertions based off of 5 individual seasons, you just can't.

[Kodos]

PING: QUIKSAND

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

No.

One set of 5 seasons tells you nothing. You cannot make assertions based off of 5 individual seasons, you just can't.

Which is exactly what I said when I agreed with Wade in the post you quoted. I said asking for further validation was perfectly legitimate.

Looking for an unprovoked interstellar war today?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which is exactly what I said when I agreed with Wade in the post you quoted. I said asking for further validation was perfectly legitimate.

Looking for an unprovoked interstellar war today?

You said..

I'm not sure that Bill's test isn't valid as much as you'd just like to see more evidence or a longer timeframe before assuming it's accurate

The lack of more time is what makes it invalid. His test is not valid, period. I know you have a mancrush on the Bills, but this is an invalid test that tells us nothing by itself.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

The lack of more time is what makes it invalid. His test is not valid, period.

I guess I'll just go with what you say I was saying. At this point it's just detracting from the real issue, which is that the progression in the dynasty mode is horribly flawed.

[TargetPractice6]

Originally Posted by Balldog

I'm not sure why you aren't accepting his numbers for what they are, in a nutshell:

2009
95-99: 14
90-94: 112

2012
95-99: 65 (364% increase from 2009)
90-94: 130 (16% increase from 2009)

2014
95-99: 75 (15% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 436% increase from 2009!)
90-94: 270 (108% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 141% increase from 2009!)

Tell me how it goes down? I can't for the life of me understand how the majority of the FOFC group thinks this is a good game. Its not even close to representing college football. Its buggy as hell.

His totals only count the defense for some reason. There were actually 159 5 stars in 2012 and only 120 in 2014. Still a far cry from the initial 32 in 2009 though.

[BYU 14]

Here is what makes this 90+ ratings progression issue so ridiculous (and inexcusable) The numbers have very little variance from year to year in real life because the the major rating services (Rivals / Scout) assign stars on what basically amounts to a bell curve.

There will only be x amount of 5 Stars, 4 Stars, 3 Stars each year based on the overall rank of the player.

They determine overall rankings from camps, offers and coaches feedback. If EA approached the issue that way and only allowed players in the top 5% to be rated 5 stars, the next 10-15% 4 stars, the next 20 - 25% 3 stars and the rest 2 stars the issue would be fixed. (Note: I can't recall the exact percentages that get each star tier off the top of my head, but I think I am close.) BTW - Every kid that signs a D1 LOI is automatically bumped to a 2 star recruit.

If EA took each "star" tier and coded a ratings range (so there would be players that busted) they could alleviate this issue and keep things realistic.

Example: For a 5 Star recruit
Overall rating potential
90+ 70%
80-89 17%
70-79 9%
under 69 4%

This would also a allow a few hidden gems (2 -4 star recruits) to take the other 30% of the 90+ overall ratings, based on the assumption that you would have 30 - 50 kids potentially end up this high in each class.

I don't know, I guess it is always easier looking in from the outside, but it just seems they don't really research things like this very well. I don't know how many coaching consultants or recruiting analysts they utilize, if any at all, because issues like this should not go unnoticed.

[Balldog]

The numbers are so far off I'm not even sure how you can justify doing more studies. Is it going to correct itself over time when its clear that the players were generated in the dynasty? Maybe EA in their infinite wisdom thought it would be really cool to make almost 1000% more players 95+ in 2012 but it tapers off after that? Highly unlikely.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a lot of gameplay bugs in this game. If you're bored, head over to the OS forums and read through the 50 pages or so. Timeouts, ball spotting, animations, progression.......you name it, it's there.

FWIW, I think we can officially declare the honeymoon over. That poor EA developer that drew the OS forums assignment is taking some heavy heat for the game and its issues.

I'm noticing very few bugs, and the ones I am noticing are not detracting from my enjoyment of the game. I skipped last year's after basically hating 08, and can honestly say I do not miss the $60 I put down for the game.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by Logan

All because the player universe is rated too highly? Not sure I follow how that makes sense.

Some players still take worse pursuit angles than you see in Pee Wee football, I don't want perfect pursuit angles but I think its fair to ask for realistic ones.

I've seen a CPU player get tackled out of bounds at my 7 yard line on an interception, he was credited for a TD.

I could go on but I don't care to.


Back to NCAA 07 on the Ps2 I suppose.

[Mota]

I've already played more games than I did with 09, so I'm happy. This game is definitely a lot better than 09. Definitely not revolutionary or anything, more like a working game of 09.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

BTW.......Bill Harris is posting his updated dynasty numbers over at OS for those that are interested. He's now gone through 2019 (10 years).........

Year.... 90-94.. 95+

2009.... 112.. 14
2014.... 270.. 75
2019.... 469.. 115

So the number of players at that level has increased drastically again over the next 5 years. Some of the posters are reporting that 60-70% of all teams in the dynasty are rated A- or higher overall by 10 years out due to the bug. This is quickly becoming a disaster. Makes you wonder what hasn't been noticed yet.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

BTW.......Bill Harris is posting his updated dynasty numbers over at OS for those that are interested. He's now gone through 2019 (10 years).........

Year.... 90-94.. 95+

2009.... 112.. 14
2014.... 270.. 75
2019.... 469.. 115

So the number of players at that level has increased drastically again over the next 5 years. Some of the posters are reporting that 60-70% of all teams in the dynasty are rated A- or higher overall by 10 years out due to the bug. This is quickly becoming a disaster. Makes you wonder what hasn't been noticed yet.

Those are not encouraging numbers. I agree with several people here that the game is better than 2009 and I am enjoying it a lot. But this will kill the experience going forward. I will just play real slow and hope for a patch I guess.

[Captain2711]

Is there a gamertag with all the correct ratings and names yet? I have heard some have some holes. Was wondering if any one in particular satisfies this board

[ColtCrazy]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Those are not encouraging numbers. I agree with several people here that the game is better than 2009 and I am enjoying it a lot. But this will kill the experience going forward. I will just play real slow and hope for a patch I guess.

+1 I haven't started my dynasty yet. I'm enjoying just playing random games with the AA sliders. I'm actually getting challenged consistently by the better teams than only have a tough game 1 in 4. But I don't want to start a dynasty knowing everyone will be A- teams in 10 years. I hope they fix this. This is a good game otherwise.

[Captain2711]

I used Syde1020 for rosters. Everything seems in order to me, but if anyone's had any issues with this gamertags rosters please let me know before I get too deep into my dynasty

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by ColtCrazy

But I don't want to start a dynasty knowing everyone will be A- teams in 10 years. I hope they fix this. This is a good game otherwise.

I'm a few years into a dynasty, and my experience is that the AI is so poor at recruiting that you don't have to worry about that. Four and five star guys go without offers, particularly those added in the offseason, but the AI snaps up the 1 and 2 star guys like they're going out of style.

The bigger issue is that there's so much talent that house rules are absolutely necessary for your own team. Luckily, I'm seeing such a nice variety of QB performance that it helps that a little. For example, I had a stud team one season with a 95-rated QB. But he didn't play anywhere like the 96 I had the previous season. He threw a ton of picks and finished with a mediocre completion percentage. In turn, we had our worst season.

[Eaglesfan27]

I just had the most enjoyable single player game of NCAA in years. I'm playing with 9 minute quarters on All-American using J-Unit40's sliders and it was USC at Ohio State in our 2nd game of the season. We returned the opening kickoff for a TD. They ran the ball very well in the first half, but we kept them to FG's on each of their drives. They knocked out Corp early in the 2nd, so I went very conservative with Barkley in there. Ended up being up 10-9 at the half.

Corp came back in the 2nd half (risking further injury) and caught them on a blitz for a 28 yard passing TD to Damien Williams to make it 17-9. Pryor then had a beautiful drive in which he scrambled effectively as I dropped my spy for the first time all day. After that play, I put it back, but he made a few good throws and tied it at 17 midway through the 4th. I turned on the chew clock and we ran a 14 play 62 yard drive before settling for a short FG with just under a minute left.

Pryor, who had been very inaccurate most of the day, ran a very good 2 minute drill but they missed a 45 yard FG (after hitting 3 shorter field goals earlier in the game) as time expired and we won 20-17. I like that they have taken a step towards a realistic amount of injuries even though it cost me Christian Tupou for the next 7 weeks.

[cartman]

I picked this up on Friday, and have been having a blast with it so far.

I had a game similar to EF27's, in the Red River Shootout. OU took the lead with a little time left, but I got a big kick return with just a few seconds remaining. I was able to beat the "ice the kicker" and get off a 49 yard game winning field goal as time expired to give the 'Horns the win. Good stuff!

[Mike Lowe]

I had a game earlier, Tennessee @ PSU (I was Tennessee) in which they lead most of the game. We tied it in the 4th only to give the lead back with under 30 seconds to play. My 2nd play from scrimmage I throw in a pump fake at the LCB totally bites on it (they are not overdone this year so it was a rare thing to see happen) as I had been throwing underneath all game (rain). I see that my FL is WIDE FREAKING OPEN and launch it. He catches it in stride and scores with about 13 seconds left to win the game on the road.

It was one of those rare video game moments when I saw the opening I was like "oh crap, no way now throw it!" As I threw the ball my stomach was literally in knots. Then I just prayed that he caught it! Luckily, he did!

[MizzouRah]

Hmmm... making me want to start my season today..

[ColtCrazy]

Had a great game this morning, a game I don't think I ever had in 09.

I'm playing my created team (a B rated team) I'm playing against LSU in Baton Rouge and I'm up 23-7 at halftime. LSU comes out and scores quickly. My offense completely falls apart and I throw 2 INTs and by the time the 4th quarter starts I'm down 24-23. They score again and go up 31-23 with about 3 mins. left. I finally put together a drive and score with a minute to go, but I don't get the 2 pt so I stay behind 31-29.

I kick off with my 3 time outs hoping to stop them. I do and get the ball with about 40 second left. I run a slot ace formation where the TE runs a corner route. The safety is on him man to man. He gets space, catches it, and the safety misses the tackle. He rumbles 60 yards for the TD and I hold them off for a 36-31 win. Amazing game. It ends up being the #1 game by 800 pts over the 2nd.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Balldog

I'm not sure why you aren't accepting his numbers for what they are, in a nutshell:

2009
95-99: 14
90-94: 112

2012
95-99: 65 (364% increase from 2009)
90-94: 130 (16% increase from 2009)

2014
95-99: 75 (15% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 436% increase from 2009!)
90-94: 270 (108% increase from 2012, can't blame this on the default rosters...that's a 141% increase from 2009!)

Tell me how it goes down? I can't for the life of me understand how the majority of the FOFC group thinks this is a good game. Its not even close to representing college football. Its buggy as hell.

I was looking at Wide Receivers, not all the players. I just didn't get why that would go up and then back down. It made me wonder if progression is messed up as a whole or if the 5 year cycle was just one that saw better players and would fluctuate up and down if you kept simulating.

I'm not saying it's good, just think it needs more data to figure out what and why it's happening. Is it position based or all players as a whole that go up? I still think progression is fucked up on purpose by them. They probably think it's more enjoyable for the average player to be able to build up a bunch of 95+ rated guys.

[INDalltheway]

So tired of crossing routes across the middle on Xbox Live.. Hopefully the single player can keep me playing this game or a trade in is on the agenda.