Tone down player Ratings please!!!

[khaliib]

One of the biggest problems the game has been having deals with the progression of players. The in-game player generator creating freshman with an OVR in the 70's, then 2-3 yrs, they're rated in the 90's. This basically broke the offline Dynasty because schools in small Conf's became Power schools within 5 yrs.

With that said, I'm suggesting that they tune the player generator to create 5 Star players with lower ratings so that the game does not have a bunch of 90'ish players in 5 yrs.
- I wish there would be no more than ten 90 rated players in any given year.
- Having fewer players in the 90's, makes it that much more special to get
a player rated in that range, those game changers (Ex. Reggie Bush, Dion
Sanders, Rocket Ismail type that make you change your gameplan)
- Of course this could be any position/player, not just players with speed.

Attributes that are tied into the Locomotion feature should be toned down so that we do not have TE's playing with the attributes of a 180 lb WR or a FB juking and changing direction like a 175 lb RB.

This also adds replay life because building a lower tier school will take some years to build.

Also, certain postional ratings needs to make sense.
- QB's with low throw power does not mean they can't throw the ball deep,
their throws just have more air under them.
- Power and Jump ratings etc....

I just don't want the game to be full of Superstars after 5 yrs with high AGL/ACC ratings.

[conanthelibrarian]

AMEN!!! to this. I think there could be more than 10 per year, but now we have 10 per team 5 years into a dynasty. I think the thing that is broken is player progression.

Some guys should come in as a 72 overall and graduate as a 75 overall, never having really got better. We all have them on our favorite teams, why not in the game?

And most incoming freshman need to start lower ranked, or have less of growth. I realize IRL some freshman come in and start right away, but that is normally due to a favorable depth chart or injury. And if we do recruit a 5 star RB that comes in as an 80 overall, then maybe he still graduates as an 88, having maxed out a lot of his potential in HS.

Because your right, there is no rel differentiating the great players from just all the good players in the game right now. IRL, all these guys are good FB players, but it is the special ones that really stand out. With every team having 10 or more guys ranked 90 or more, the 95-99 rated guys are not really that special.

It also leads to most of your players by year 5 are rated between 83-95 that are starters, so you don't really have any "weakspots", everyone is about the same.

I would love to hear some developer comments on this, as it could have a huge impact on the game.

[dopeboy206]

Agreed with OP 100%

[Deegeezy]

Something that has bothering me about NCAA since the beginning, it's the fact that every players progresses.

In real life, some players get worse over time. A great number of incoming, high level recruits end up busts.

Every once in a while, I'd like to sign a 3-star guy and see him come in rated a 68 and slowly get worse and worse.

[BDawg35]

Quote: Originally Posted by Deegeezy

Something that has bothering me about NCAA since the beginning, it's the fact that every players progresses. In real life, some players get worse over time. A great number of incoming, high level recruits end up busts. Every once in a while, I'd like to sign a 3-star guy and see him come in rated a 68 and slowly get worse and worse.

Yep. The worst I ever see for a player is maybe they get zero progression one year and maybe progress only 4-5 points over a five-year career, but they still progress.

I'd also like to see player experience - good or bad - affect progression. I think it turns out to be random in NCAA. Like, it'd be nice to get backups on the field in a blowout and have it be somewhat meaningful, as my freshman running back who gets 200 yards in mop-up duty over the course of the year gains a little something for it. Same if I have a quarterback throw 20 picks and only 8 TD's. In some cases, it should destroy their confidence coming back into the next year - confidence best measured in a lower THA and AWR rating.

Also, maybe knee injuries affect a player's SPD for the rest of the season, maybe even long-term if it's severe enough.

[Deegeezy]

Quote: Originally Posted by BDawg35

Yep. The worst I ever see for a player is maybe they get zero progression one year and maybe progress only 4-5 points over a five-year career, but they still progress. I'd also like to see player experience - good or bad - affect progression. I think it turns out to be random in NCAA. Like, it'd be nice to get backups on the field in a blowout and have it be somewhat meaningful, as my freshman running back who gets 200 yards in mop-up duty over the course of the year gains a little something for it. Same if I have a quarterback throw 20 picks and only 8 TD's. In some cases, it should destroy their confidence coming back into the next year - confidence best measured in a lower THA and AWR rating. Also, maybe knee injuries affect a player's SPD for the rest of the season, maybe even long-term if it's severe enough.

B-Dawg....You getting back in the Dynasty game?

[dopeboy206]

I think progression should be based on potential ratings and performance on the field.

[bh446066]

What's the in-season progression like for players? This will be my first venture into current gen football this year?