NCAA Football 11 Live Tuning Pack 1, Available Now

[andicesharks]

Quote: Originally Posted by shttymcgee

I don't think I understand what you want. Why is a 2 star prospect that comes in rated a 55 and leaves rated a 75 in 5 years bad? What do you want them to come in as?

55 is an alright score for a 2 star. giving them 20 progression over max 4 years is very generous as well. The odds of them hitting 5 each year is slim.

The biggest problem is the low rating on 3 stars and the existence of 1 stars.

1 stars are having time wasted on them when they are pretty much walk on sophomores. 3 stars are generally D players in the game. To me, 3 stars are your bread and butter players. They are not amazing but they are not worthless. Giving these players a 79-65 range seems like it would work best. as it is now, they are almost always in the low 60s and even have a chance at being in the mid 50s a decent amount of the time. I know "grading" is not really something you can put into black and white but a 50 is an F. Not even a D or a D-. If (average) C schools are to be made up of average players, that needs to be the case.

And if anyone is still reading this -- my posts and, I am sure for the most part, the others trying to do some calculations are grateful for the patch and not doing this just to complain. It is great that they are working on the problems, however, it is a process. If no one says 'this is a problem' or 'take a look at this maybe' then EA will not have any reason to fix anything. They will assume people are content.

[White Out]

People need to stop bitching. It's embarrasing. The WR's skill running vs secondary tackling is balanced. Shut up. please. Stop haranging a non issue.

Thanks EA for not over reacting, and doing a slight bump. From the results people have posted, it was done perfectly. I will post my own results in the official progression thread later tonight.

Chill out people this is good stuff

[pokerplaya]

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_Kiniry_EA

If you look at the chart of Before/After LTP1 average OVR has gone up for most teams. -Russ

He wasn't referring to the averages. He's talking about how the recruits dilute the talent pool. While the average OVR has indeed gone up, no teams in your test graph have improved on their overall from the initial season... You could realistically expect a program like LSU to get better sometime.

[canesfan4905]

I think what everyone needs to realize is with the mid august patch and one more tuner set this game is gonna be really good. Perfect no but what sports game is. Be patient.

[Ramminyou]

Quote: Originally Posted by pokerplaya

He wasn't referring to the averages. He's talking about how the recruits dilute the talent pool. While the average OVR has indeed gone up, no teams in your test graph have improved on their overall from the initial season... You could realistically expect a program like LSU to get better sometime.

Regressing less than the other guys seems to be the equivalent to a program getting better in the game. And I don't mean that as a knock, either.

[andicesharks]

Quote: Originally Posted by pokerplaya

He wasn't referring to the averages. He's talking about how the recruits dilute the talent pool. While the average OVR has indeed gone up, no teams in your test graph have improved on their overall from the initial season... You could realistically expect a program like LSU to get better sometime.

I think that right there shows that there should be no real fear about boosting everything once again. The game was made to play best with the default rosters (and it does, its good) so all the numbers point to boosting it a bit more to keep them at that level.

He mentioned worry over the CPU getting too good but the figures posted to us show that that is not happening and will not happen even if they are boosted again. They will just match the current roster (which I think is good for the most part except for some of the 6 star teams).



I think the biggest flashing light to the problem is the FCS teams vs the D teams. If the D teams are constantly losing to the FCS teams a few years into the future then the progression is not quite right. FCS keep their default roster while everyone else regresses. This may not play into the actual user games but it plays a HUGE part in the DYNASTY experience. Seeing unrealistic things like FCS teams destroying FBS teams and constantly missed field gols really take away from Dynasty mode. The general game play is good but the dynasty mode is where the problem lies. It gets too unrealistic.

[pokerplaya]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheMove84

I don't play online so no reason to use my online code up, and if I sell NCAA on ebay having a code not activated will bring me back less loss, and less money in EAs pocket when the buyer doesn't have to pay 10$ for a online pass.

So, the rest of us should suffer because you want to sell your game? Thanks.

[Legionnaire]

Quote: Originally Posted by andicesharks

It is generally easy to bring the school you are controlling out of the dumps but the cpu does not seem to know how. Having a static universe where everyone stays generally the same does not really make for a great or interesting number of years.

This has always been a problem with the game, seems like. That you could go crazy-far into the future and the landscape never really changed except in the cases of teams you directly influenced.

The year there was a bug in the game with discipline points (resulting in teams getting slapped with harsh penalties really easily) was probably the only year the game stood a chance of generating a future where the mighty could actually fall and the weak could actually rise, albeit it for completely fakakta reasons.

This is why, in my longer-running dynasties, I've typically gotten into the habit of meddling with some other schools just to amuse myself (every so often, deciding to wreck a random school, or go turn around a garbage program in my down-time when I'm not working with my own team).