NCAA Football 11 Live Tuning Pack 1, Available Now

[mavfan21]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dax(FlowLyfe)

Why does your chart still clearly show teams degrading? Shouldn't teams be in a constant state of flux, every team on this chart has gotten worse.

Exactly what I noticed...then I thought I was on crazy pills because no one mentioned it. Where's the TCU's that all of the sudden get REAL good, then the USC/Notre Dames that all of the sudden have a couple bad seasons. There should be A FEW (emphasis on few) dramatic risers and fallers each season. The top teams should still rebound often since they get the top recruits, but the general static and declining ratings this chart shows is unrealisitc and disappointing.

[The Barnacle]

Quote: Originally Posted by andicesharks

Ive also been simming a few seasons to look at the results and i am disappointed. I added 12 teams as player controlled (1 and 2 star teams) and looked at all their stats for 4 years. I am not seeing any noticeable increase in recruits OVR. 1 stars still come in as 40s which are generally pointless since a walk on is 40. 2 stars are in the 40s and 50s still and I have yet to see a 3 star be rated higher than 69. This is exactly the way it was before the tuner. I am also seeing the CPU recruit redundant players and end up with silly numbers of backups. Lower teir schools also seem be be having a harder time recruiting in general now. They are still pretty much just recruiting what they can get instead of what they need. I am sure there was some type of tweaking. I don't question that but it is upsetting that what was done had such little impact.

Just a little heads up. If you sim the season full at one time I noticed that the computer recruits terrible. But if you sim week by week you get better results, same with off-season.

When I did a sim with Alabama they mostly signed low-rated players and jucos.

[Nextel Husker]

Quote: Originally Posted by Frost33

Its how a player improves over the course of a season or between season. As of right now players don't improve during the season (as many of us believe they should and have in the past) they only progress during the off season.

Got it. Thank you for the explanation. Good fix!

[bdes]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dax(FlowLyfe)

Why does your chart still clearly show teams degrading? Shouldn't teams be in a constant state of flux, every team on this chart has gotten worse.

Ha dude read around the thread - the recruits aren't the same as the default rosters.

Great job so happy that these issues were addressed so fast and properly. Props.

[georgiafan]

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

Exactly what I noticed...then I thought I was on crazy pills because no one mentioned it. Where's the TCU's that all of the sudden get REAL good, then the USC/Notre Dames that all of the sudden have a couple bad seasons. There should be A FEW (emphasis on few) dramatic risers and fallers each season. The top teams should still rebound often since they get the top recruits, but the general static and declining ratings this chart shows is unrealisitc and disappointing.

most of this is because the rosters are over rated to much in year 1 if you compare it from like year 3 to 7 its better off.

[Hawaii_Stars]

Russ - Have you guys ever thought of keeping the progression and the recruits as it is, and maybe adding in a bonus progression for on the field play? Also I know it seems random, I don't know for sure, but maybe in the future you could implement an off season training rating which could determine how much they can possibly progress?

[Mobaby]

Quote: Originally Posted by mgoblue678

It is bad because 1 * guys aren't even signed by the worst teams in real life. They are D2 and D3 players. Go look at the worst teams you can imagine in the country and their recruiting classes. They are made up of all 2* players at worst. A team that didn't even win 1 game last year in Eastern Michigan didn't sign anybody below a 2 *. Since this is a D1 game they don't belong in the game let alone taking about as much of team's depth charts as they do. And how would it not take years to build if the bad teams had their players coming in at 50-60. They are still much worse than the better teams incoming recruits. For the record I don't really disagree with your chart there. Pretty similar to what I would come up with, but it is not the same one the game is using. I have seen mutiple 2* under 50 and some 3* under 60 simulating so far.

Maybe it's just a way they use it in game to differentiate good teams and players from bad.

Also, you might have to use your user skills in game to change the fortune of your team. Get a couple upsets and a winning season, BAM, get the 3 stars and up.

[Whoman]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mobaby

Also, you might have to use your user skills in game to change the fortune of your team. Get a couple upsets and a winning season, BAM, get the 3 stars and up.

tell that to the 119 team not controlle by the User