NCAA Football 11 Live Tuning Pack 1, Available Now

[Bears_16_and_0]

you know, in order to make the graphs that they put up on their blog, they probably ran the simulations 100's or 1000's of times. Simming one season one time is really not a big enough sample size.

[chapmanosu1]

The reason the team grades are skewed later in dynasties is the influx of guys rated 40-50. Even if they're career backups that never see the field, they bring down the team's overall. So 6 years into a dynasty if the CPU has 5 backups at QB ranked 45-55, we're going to see a drop from say maybe a D+ to a D-, even though those players have no affect on the outcome of a game.

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

Would love an amswer as well. I still won't start a dynasty of my WR's are all going to feel like Roy Williams.

Here I'll give you the top 5 in each category. This is from year 6 all CPU generated players.

Top 5 Wr Elusiveness ratings: 79, 78, 77, 77, 76
Top 5 Wr Juke ratings: 80, 79, 78, then 4 guys at 77
Top 5 Wr Spin ratings: 78, then a bunch of guys at 76

I don't know what it looked like w/o the tuner.

Quote: Originally Posted by chapmanosu1

The reason the team grades are skewed later in dynasties is the influx of guys rated 40-50. Even if they're career backups that never see the field, they bring down the team's overall. So 6 years into a dynasty if the CPU has 5 backups at QB ranked 45-55, we're going to see a drop from say maybe a D+ to a D-, even though those players have no affect on the outcome of a game.

They take up roster spots leaving less depth at other positions. And if the computer teams aren't cutting these guys it could be because players at other positions are even worse.

[Mobaby]

Quote: Originally Posted by mgoblue678

You know the more I look at the rosters around the country after year 2 I think this is possibly the major problem. There are a ton of these guys on the lower prestige rosters and for the most part they are in the 40's.

This isn't that bad when you think of it this way

1 star: 40-50
2 stars: 50-60
3 stars: 60-70
4 stars: 70-80
5 stars: 80-90

I don't think a freshman should ever come in rated in the 90s, but I do think thats how it should work. The problem is that the bad schools are getting bad players.

but how is this a problem?

Seems to me to get a good team, it might takes years. Which is...wait for it...REALISTIC.

[boritter]

Great news. Dynasty mode here I come...

[kbomb1upc]

What about man to man defense and play action? That my bigger complaint with these game. Man to man defense is ridiculous because the CB reacts before my WR even makes a step and My WR has to put and cut for a route while the DB doesn't lose a step. And I've never in my life been so afraid to call a play action as I am now. It’s almost a guarantee sack if a PA is called during a blitz. That’s just plan dumb.

[JohnTesh]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bears_16_and_0

you know, in order to make the graphs that they put up on their blog, they probably ran the simulations 100's or 1000's of times. Simming one season one time is really not a big enough sample size.

You sure? It is evident that they did NOT do that before releasing the game.

[Timpegoose]

Just wondering what actually goes into the letter grade of a team. I apologize if it was in a blog, or in a response here and I missed it. But, if the letter grade is a combination of all of the players on the team its possible that a lack of depth in a team's recruiting class could bring a team's letter grade down when their starters are actually good. I haven't actually had a chance to play with the new tuner set at all so I really don't know, just throwing the idea out there. Thank you for the quick fixes. I know it can be extremely difficult to go back through and fix things without breaking other aspects of the game.