NCAA Football 10 News Post

NCAA Football 10 - Designer Chat

08:22 PM - March 24, 2009 by Russell_Kiniry_EA

Hey guys my name is Russell Kiniry and I'm one of the Designers on NCAA Football 10. I work in (and spend my free time in) game-play and Dynasty.

Going to cut right too it... this week’s blog (which I'm wrapping up now) pertains to game-play. So your concerns are being heard.

Another touchy topic right now: The screen shots from last week’s blog. They were bad; no getting around that... the goal was to show some extreme angles of the camera (not game-play). The offense line that Greg had running at the time was not even close to what the game represents. I actually plan on addressing this a little tonight on insideblog.easports.com (I’ll edit this post when it goes live as long as I’m allowed to post links

).

Really I just hope I can help clear up some of the misconceptions we have this year with features/additions we've already talked about.

-Russ

Edit: Here is the link to the Pocket Blog.

Game: NCAA Football 10Reader Score: 6.5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Wii / Xbox 360Votes for game: 61 - View All

NCAA Football 10 Videos

Member Comments

# 41 djordan @ 03/25/09 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingFinn


	Those 4 shots shown cannot all be from the same play and the result be a sack. In screen 2, the QB releases the ball...

Quote:


	All the above shots are from the same play to give an example of how things are progressing on the NCAA Football 10 game-play front.

http://insideblog.easports.com/archi...rotection.aspx

# 42 greenegt @ 03/25/09 10:36 AM

Thank you, Russell! I skipped NCAA 09 because of the issues, but I'm hyped to buy this game, again. This news, coupled with the fact that the community day feedback will work its way into the game, has me really excited. Can't wait to hear more.

# 43 Russell_Kiniry_EA @ 03/25/09 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingFinn


	Those 4 shots shown cannot all be from the same play and the result be a sack. In screen 2, the QB releases the ball...

Never said the last shot was from the same play (or didn't mean to imply that it was) I said all of the ABOVE shots were from the same play.

The last shot was below that line of text...

There are a ton of random questions/comments I'll see what I can get too throughout the day.

# 44 Russell_Kiniry_EA @ 03/25/09 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhombic21


	Hey, Russ. Can you talk a little bit more about the concept of the passing icons disappearing. Are there any other gameplay changes that impact trying to throw from behind the LOS. For instance, on Madden last year, they also had a different throwing animation on deeper passes, which caused the QB to have to plant and take a longer delivery motion, thus making it easier to sack him. Has that been implemented this year? What about THA penalties for throwing from way behind the LOS? Thanks.

Yeah we have the long wind up animations, and deeper passes should always be a little less accurate.

# 45 FlyingFinn @ 03/25/09 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_Kiniry_EA


	Never said the last shot was from the same play (or didn't mean to imply that it was) I said all of the ABOVE shots were from the same play. The last shot was below that line of text... There are a ton of random questions/comments I'll see what I can get too throughout the day.

Thanks. That clears things up.

# 46 dkrause1971 @ 03/25/09 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_Kiniry_EA


	Yeah we have the long wind up animations, and deeper passes should always be a little less accurate.

Will the there be more deep passes from the CPU in 2010? Just seems like you can really just sit on the 0-10 yard coverage without really worrying about the computer going deep on you. I feel this is one of the major reasons why the teams seemed to play the same and why alot of gamers felt the game was so easy.

If you force us to play more of the field it could also open up the running game more. Which bring me to running QBs. I would really like to see the teams scrap running designed QB plays if the speed of the QB were say 72 and less. Also, those plays do need to be more effective.

Last comment i want to make- really need to make the recruits more talented to possibly play other positions. FB should have some LB qualities, OL and DL could be more interchangable, etc. Factor in that the penalties for switching positions can be so great (like FS drops huge to SS, OLB drop huge to DE, etc) it really just pigeon holes players into the spot you recruited. The CPU should also do a better job switching positions for need as well.

These could well be in 2010 but thanks for reading.

# 47 acts238shaun @ 03/25/09 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkrause1971


	Will the there be more deep passes from the CPU in 2010? Just seems like you can really just sit on the 0-10 yard coverage without really worrying about the computer going deep on you. I feel this is one of the major reasons why the teams seemed to play the same and why alot of gamers felt the game was so easy. If you force us to play more of the field it could also open up the running game more. Which bring me to running QBs. I would really like to see the teams scrap running designed QB plays if the speed of the QB were say 72 and less. Also, those plays do need to be more effective. Last comment i want to make- really need to make the recruits more talented to possibly play other positions. FB should have some LB qualities, OL and DL could be more interchangable, etc. Factor in that the penalties for switching positions can be so great (like FS drops huge to SS, OLB drop huge to DE, etc) it really just pigeon holes players into the spot you recruited. The CPU should also do a better job switching positions for need as well. These could well be in 2010 but thanks for reading.

I agree with all of this, but especially with the recruting deal. As an Arkansas fan i am curious where Lance Ray (6-4, 220 ATH) will end up. He could play receiver, TE, LB, or S. Why not have recruits with such talent? They may be 78 at QB, but will be 79 as a HB or 81 as a WR, CB or S. Michael Bush was one of these players at Louisville and would have been a QB were it not for Brian Brohm. He was experimented at S and LB (i believe) before being moved back to RB.

# 48 youALREADYknow @ 03/25/09 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acts238shaun


	Why not have recruits with such talent? They may be 78 at QB, but will be 79 as a HB or 81 as a WR, CB or S.

Only one or two players each year are truly good enough to be rated in the 80's at 3+ positions on opposite sides of the ball. I agree that ATH's need to be a little more flexible, but some of the suggestions I've seen would lead to major exploitation of the recruiting system as it stands today.

There is no reason for 3 star ATH's to be equally rated between two positions unless we're talking about WR/CB or OL/DT or OLB/DE. If they were truly that good to be equally rated at 3+ positions, then they wouldn't be 3 star prospects.

In actuality, there are a ton of Athletes in NCAA 09 who just aren't correctly listed as ATH in the Recruiting process. I've seen countless players with skills at other positions and have found a lot of TE's that converted into higher rated DE's, OT's who converted into higher rated TE's, etc. The only thing that is typically lacking is the skill ratings. If that can be improved upon, but not making ATH's overpowered then I don't see the problem.

All of this debate seems tied around the OVR rating and will likely be a moot point in NCAA 10 anyways. They are re-working how the OVR rating is calculated in NCAA 10. The only reason most players suffer such a huge drop between positions is that the AWR rating takes a hit. AWR is the progression rating.

# 49 rhombic21 @ 03/25/09 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell_Kiniry_EA


	Yeah we have the long wind up animations, and deeper passes should always be a little less accurate.

That is really good news, Russ! Glad to hear that!

On a separate question that is related to the latest blog on pocket protection, can you talk about whether DL still get "suctioned" in to Olinmen, and whether they still get flipped off their feet as often?

Here is a video outlining some of the major problems with pass protection on '09. Can you talk about the extent to which these issues have been (or will be by the time the game is finalized) addressed?

http://files.filefront.com/Passblock.../fileinfo.html

# 50 SHO @ 03/25/09 01:16 PM

Why does NCAA always program 97% of the team's defense to a 4-3 when it's obviously not the case. And when we try to change it in Dynasty Mode under 'team strategy' it never works.

# 51 dkrause1971 @ 03/25/09 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youALREADYknow


	All of this debate seems tied around the OVR rating and will likely be a moot point in NCAA 10 anyways. They are re-working how the OVR rating is calculated in NCAA 10. The only reason most players suffer such a huge drop between positions is that the AWR rating takes a hit. AWR is the progression rating.

If this were 100% true i don't think most of us would have an issue. I mainly have a problem with ACC, Spd, etc being changed between position changes. Moving a OLB to DE and having 10 go off of his spd, acc makes the move pointless. Or a TE or RB drop hard in those going to FB is another.

# 52 Allaboutme @ 03/25/09 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOBLE


	Why does NCAA always program 97% of the team's defense to a 4-3 when it's obviously not the case. And when we try to change it in Dynasty Mode under 'team strategy' it never works.

Works for me when i change my defensive strategy.

# 53 SHO @ 03/25/09 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allaboutme


	Works for me when i change my defensive strategy.

You're able to play against Alabama in a real game and having them come out in a base 3-4 after you change it?

# 54 Solidice @ 03/25/09 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allaboutme


	Works for me when i change my defensive strategy.

I want your copy of the game.

# 55 Allaboutme @ 03/25/09 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOBLE


	You're able to play against Alabama in a real game and having them come out in a base 3-4 after you change it?

?? when i pick team for OD and i change the sub rates/ pb and base defense yes my team kept the 3-4 base, i dunno about CPU teams if thats what ur asking.

# 56 dlogan.1989 @ 03/25/09 01:31 PM

I think dis is all gravey!! But 1 thing that I been woundering for years now is what's up wit Florida States symbol? I mean Im a guy who is all about looks n its been a long time now and it seems like u guys jus caint make the symbols look like the real thing..espeacially Florida States. All I ask is to please make the symbols look more like the real thing..for example like how Madden did last year!!

# 57 Solidice @ 03/25/09 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allaboutme


	?? when i pick team for OD and i change the sub rates/ pb and base defense yes my team kept the 3-4 base, i dunno about CPU teams if thats what ur asking.

so, when you go to play a game, you don't have to manually select a 3-4, 4-2-5, etc.. for me and everyone else but you it seems, its always defaults back to a 4-3.

# 58 rudyjuly2 @ 03/25/09 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solidice


	so, when you go to play a game, you don't have to manually select a 3-4, 4-2-5, etc.. for me and everyone else but you it seems, its always defaults back to a 4-3.

Yup. But OMT actually said they do that by design for some strange reason. At least he explained it that way when we were complaining about it for '09 a long time ago.

If I set my defensive strategy to 3-4, I shouldn't have to always choose the 3-4 defensive playbook before playing a game.

# 59 youALREADYknow @ 03/25/09 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkrause1971


	If this were 100% true i don't think most of us would have an issue. I mainly have a problem with ACC, Spd, etc being changed between position changes. Moving a OLB to DE and having 10 go off of his spd, acc makes the move pointless. Or a TE or RB drop hard in those going to FB is another.

I do think there should be somewhat of a change in those athletic ratings, but not as drastic as in NCAA 09. The key is that weight should change accordingly.

I.E. if I convert a 200lb WR to TE, then it would be nice to see him progress to 210lb in the offseason, gain 3-4 STR, but lose 1-2 SPD, AGI, ACC to compensate for the weight and strength gains.

Still, the majority of the OVR change comes from AWR in NCAA 09.

# 60 stoncold32 @ 03/25/09 01:40 PM

not to complain, but does anyone else notice the still "Mars-like lighting" in those pics....ughhhhh

OMT: Why do the OU helmets not match the stripes on the pants???? In other words, they're still too bright.

« Previous 1 234 5 6 7 8 Next »

More Links

NCAA Football 10 - Designer Chat