02:27 PM - May 24, 2011 by mike10003
Check out the latest NCAA Football 12 blog, featuring the recently announced Dynasty feature called, Coach Carousel.
|
|||||||||
|
NCAA Football 12 News Post
02:27 PM - May 24, 2011 by mike10003Check out the latest NCAA Football 12 blog, featuring the recently announced Dynasty feature called, Coach Carousel.
NCAA Football 12 Videos
Member Comments
|
|||||||||||||
|
I'm also not just saying this to bash, I was saying the exact same thing on here a while ago before EA even announced their CC.
did not relize that the military schools have not always been tradional option teams, just becoming familar with the schools recently, so i take back my comment, i suppose it would be just a change that could happen in real life as well
also, i read these forums EVERYDAY, never post, but i remember before any info about dynasty or even the game was out, evryone was saying, oh if there is no CC im not buying or it will be a great dissapointment
now that we have the details about the CC and junk, everyone is b**ching anyways, it ridiculous, settle people, its a great addition
also, i read these forums EVERYDAY, never post, but i remember before any info about dynasty or even the game was out, evryone was saying, oh if there is no CC im not buying or it will be a great dissapointment
now that we have the details about the CC and junk, everyone is b**ching anyways, it ridiculous, settle people, its a great addition
Okay, finally on my computer so I can type what I really want to say.
So far what we have seen from EA's CC is that coaches have one dominant rating and that is it. That rating is prestige. What that affects is how much players progress under them, how well a team performs in simulated games, and one pitch in the recruiting phase. The thing is, we don't know how big of a difference players progress under an A+ coach and a C- coach. Do they always get at least 4 points improvement under the A+ coach or is there more of a possibility to see the "Max Improvement" that has been in the game for some time? Under the C- coach do they sometimes not progress, or only progress up to 3 points a year at the very best? We don't know how much impact they really have.
EA needs to come out and give us the details. What exactly is the differences in progression under coaches with different ratings? What exactly is the difference when simming games with an A coach and a C coach? Just a higher probability of a win with the better coach?
The other thing I have seen new for the CC is coach loyalty. I don't completely know how this works. From my thinking it isn't exactly a pitch, but just a variable there. A coach with higher loyalty gets a bonus when recruiting because the players know he'll be there throughout their careers. I may be wrong, and if so, please someone correct me.
My problems with EA's CC is that we don't know the specifics. For all we know players really don't progress that much better under coaches, and going by last year, recruits don't care much about the Coach Prestige and that can be completely avoided and made useless. So if that is how it really is, then like I have said, the only difference we will see is schemes changing through the years.
Now if EA comes out and tells us players will progress under an A coach twice as good every year over a C coach, then coaches will obviously have a very big impact on the game. Right now though, it is all speculation and I believe the differences won't be enough to truly separate the coaches.
What I want to see EA do with the Coach Carousel is add individual ratings and the ability to pick your coordinators. We don't need 20 ratings for a coach. We can have very basic ones like other games have done. By having something like 6 ratings in the game, but making them have very strong influences will easily separate coaches.
In real life we have all kinds of coaches. For example...
Gary Pinkel and Frank Beamer: Two coaches who don't get the best recruits out there, but they're teaching of the game has their players playing constantly to their potential. So even though these guys get a majority of 3 stars, they easily compete with the better teams that get the top 25 recruiting classes with their 4 and 5 stars.
Lane Kiffin: This guy can persuade anyone, including Tennessee fans, to come to his program. Who knows what it is, but this guy just knows how to recruit. His catch? He isn't the best X's and O's coach. So he draws in the top talent and they do progress under him, but come game time, he isn't the best person to have in charge.
Randy Shannon: Once again another great recruiter. This guy brought in a #1 ranking class several years ago according to ESPN. The thing is, the players never showed that they had progressed under him and they played very inconsistent on the field. Great recruiter and defensive coordinator, but that is it.
Nick Saban: This guy is the best of the best. He can recruit as well as anyone, he can teach as well as anyone, he knows the game as well as anyone, he is just one of the best in every category. This guy is a mastermind that can take any program and easily win with them.
So what does EA need to do? Simple, add ratings. We need basic ratings or areas.
Recruiting: Simple, the higher it is the more points you rack up in a phone call. Have A+ or 95+ in this category, then recruits are going to buy into everything you sell them. Have a terrible rating and you better expect recruits to have their doubts about you.
Offense: If a coach is high in this area, then his offensive players will perform consistently and possibly get boosts to their attributes depending on how high his rating is.
Defense: The same thing as offense.
Teaching: This rating dictates how well players progress under your watch. If you have an A+ or 95+ rating, the players are going to consistently grow 4-5 points per year at the very least. If you are average in this category, then some player might have big jumps while others stay the same or possibly get worse.
Those are simply basic ratings and might not seem like a lot, but if done right they can easily have major impacts on the game. Say Alabama struggles after Saban retires, so they hire a coach that is A- in recruiting, but everything else is B- or lower. So he'll bring in top notch talent every year, but players will never progress under him and their on the field performances will be inconsistent and they may have their attributes decrease if he is bad enough.
On the other hand, North Carolina could be sick and tired of getting no more than 7 wins a season for 6 straight years, so they hire a new guy. He is no greater than a B+ in any rating, but is no worse than a B-. So he is able to get attract some quality recruits, have them progress, and also have them play well on the field. He ends up improving them and gets them to 9-10 wins a year, but no better. So either he has reached his potential and never gets better as a coach and UNC either makes the decision to keep him or try and find a better coach that will be able to build on to what is there and possibly make a BCS Title run.
Situations like that just add so much to dynasty mode.
Ratings do not need to end with Head Coaches. Coordinators need them as well. Say Miami has a Head coach with B- Recruiting, A Defense, D+ offense, and B Teaching, then he needs to get a good offensive coordinator to make up for his terrible rating and he also needs to make sure either his OC or DC have a good recruiting rating. That also brings up a good point. When recruiting players, we should be able to pick whether we want the HC, OC, or DC to be the one talking to the kid. So in this case, we'll say the HC has that B- recruiting rating, the OC has a C+, but the DC has an A-. So when recruiting you will always use your DC because he'll sell the school. The downside is that a Coordinator with A+ will still not leave as big an impact on a recruit as a HC with an A+. That will help keep people from just progressing their coach to all defense or offense and then stacking up on coordinators who can recruit like crazy.
Also, if a HC has a B+ Teaching rating, but the OC has a C+, then the players on offense should either have the progression range of a C+ to B+, or they should progress like they're under all B or B- coaches since that is about the average. The same would happen for a defense. So it would also be important to make sure not only your HC can teach, but also the coordinators.
That will make getting the right coaches a nice chess game. Do you want to risk having bad teachers as coordinators and make your HC a great one, or do you make sure your coordinators are average teachers at least, but maybe not so great on their respective side.
Something like Having the HC ratings be A Rec, A Def, C- Off, C Tea. Then having to choose between an OC with B, D, B+, C- or you can choose the one that is B-, D, B-, A. That just adds another strategy element to the mode that really makes the game that much more fun.
Now I know this sounds like a lot and it is, but I think this is the direction EA needs to go. You do not need a lot of ratings to separate coaches. If you have basic ones like I have listed, then you can just make those have great impacts on the game. Possibly exaggerating those affects would really make the game that much more fun and make coaches really matter. They need to find the perfect balance.
I hope you guys finally see what I am saying. I am not an EA *****, I don't think they are lazy, or anything like that. I just don't like what the current CC is set up like. I know it is year one and stepping back for a second, maybe I was being too harsh, but I do feel this is entirely realistic to have in NCAA 13 and I think if it was, a lot of people would be very happy, or at least I would be.
So far what we have seen from EA's CC is that coaches have one dominant rating and that is it. That rating is prestige. What that affects is how much players progress under them, how well a team performs in simulated games, and one pitch in the recruiting phase. The thing is, we don't know how big of a difference players progress under an A+ coach and a C- coach. Do they always get at least 4 points improvement under the A+ coach or is there more of a possibility to see the "Max Improvement" that has been in the game for some time? Under the C- coach do they sometimes not progress, or only progress up to 3 points a year at the very best? We don't know how much impact they really have.
EA needs to come out and give us the details. What exactly is the differences in progression under coaches with different ratings? What exactly is the difference when simming games with an A coach and a C coach? Just a higher probability of a win with the better coach?
The other thing I have seen new for the CC is coach loyalty. I don't completely know how this works. From my thinking it isn't exactly a pitch, but just a variable there. A coach with higher loyalty gets a bonus when recruiting because the players know he'll be there throughout their careers. I may be wrong, and if so, please someone correct me.
My problems with EA's CC is that we don't know the specifics. For all we know players really don't progress that much better under coaches, and going by last year, recruits don't care much about the Coach Prestige and that can be completely avoided and made useless. So if that is how it really is, then like I have said, the only difference we will see is schemes changing through the years.
Now if EA comes out and tells us players will progress under an A coach twice as good every year over a C coach, then coaches will obviously have a very big impact on the game. Right now though, it is all speculation and I believe the differences won't be enough to truly separate the coaches.
What I want to see EA do with the Coach Carousel is add individual ratings and the ability to pick your coordinators. We don't need 20 ratings for a coach. We can have very basic ones like other games have done. By having something like 6 ratings in the game, but making them have very strong influences will easily separate coaches.
In real life we have all kinds of coaches. For example...
Gary Pinkel and Frank Beamer: Two coaches who don't get the best recruits out there, but they're teaching of the game has their players playing constantly to their potential. So even though these guys get a majority of 3 stars, they easily compete with the better teams that get the top 25 recruiting classes with their 4 and 5 stars.
Lane Kiffin: This guy can persuade anyone, including Tennessee fans, to come to his program. Who knows what it is, but this guy just knows how to recruit. His catch? He isn't the best X's and O's coach. So he draws in the top talent and they do progress under him, but come game time, he isn't the best person to have in charge.
Randy Shannon: Once again another great recruiter. This guy brought in a #1 ranking class several years ago according to ESPN. The thing is, the players never showed that they had progressed under him and they played very inconsistent on the field. Great recruiter and defensive coordinator, but that is it.
Nick Saban: This guy is the best of the best. He can recruit as well as anyone, he can teach as well as anyone, he knows the game as well as anyone, he is just one of the best in every category. This guy is a mastermind that can take any program and easily win with them.
So what does EA need to do? Simple, add ratings. We need basic ratings or areas.
Recruiting: Simple, the higher it is the more points you rack up in a phone call. Have A+ or 95+ in this category, then recruits are going to buy into everything you sell them. Have a terrible rating and you better expect recruits to have their doubts about you.
Offense: If a coach is high in this area, then his offensive players will perform consistently and possibly get boosts to their attributes depending on how high his rating is.
Defense: The same thing as offense.
Teaching: This rating dictates how well players progress under your watch. If you have an A+ or 95+ rating, the players are going to consistently grow 4-5 points per year at the very least. If you are average in this category, then some player might have big jumps while others stay the same or possibly get worse.
Those are simply basic ratings and might not seem like a lot, but if done right they can easily have major impacts on the game. Say Alabama struggles after Saban retires, so they hire a coach that is A- in recruiting, but everything else is B- or lower. So he'll bring in top notch talent every year, but players will never progress under him and their on the field performances will be inconsistent and they may have their attributes decrease if he is bad enough.
On the other hand, North Carolina could be sick and tired of getting no more than 7 wins a season for 6 straight years, so they hire a new guy. He is no greater than a B+ in any rating, but is no worse than a B-. So he is able to get attract some quality recruits, have them progress, and also have them play well on the field. He ends up improving them and gets them to 9-10 wins a year, but no better. So either he has reached his potential and never gets better as a coach and UNC either makes the decision to keep him or try and find a better coach that will be able to build on to what is there and possibly make a BCS Title run.
Situations like that just add so much to dynasty mode.
Ratings do not need to end with Head Coaches. Coordinators need them as well. Say Miami has a Head coach with B- Recruiting, A Defense, D+ offense, and B Teaching, then he needs to get a good offensive coordinator to make up for his terrible rating and he also needs to make sure either his OC or DC have a good recruiting rating. That also brings up a good point. When recruiting players, we should be able to pick whether we want the HC, OC, or DC to be the one talking to the kid. So in this case, we'll say the HC has that B- recruiting rating, the OC has a C+, but the DC has an A-. So when recruiting you will always use your DC because he'll sell the school. The downside is that a Coordinator with A+ will still not leave as big an impact on a recruit as a HC with an A+. That will help keep people from just progressing their coach to all defense or offense and then stacking up on coordinators who can recruit like crazy.
Also, if a HC has a B+ Teaching rating, but the OC has a C+, then the players on offense should either have the progression range of a C+ to B+, or they should progress like they're under all B or B- coaches since that is about the average. The same would happen for a defense. So it would also be important to make sure not only your HC can teach, but also the coordinators.
That will make getting the right coaches a nice chess game. Do you want to risk having bad teachers as coordinators and make your HC a great one, or do you make sure your coordinators are average teachers at least, but maybe not so great on their respective side.
Something like Having the HC ratings be A Rec, A Def, C- Off, C Tea. Then having to choose between an OC with B, D, B+, C- or you can choose the one that is B-, D, B-, A. That just adds another strategy element to the mode that really makes the game that much more fun.
Now I know this sounds like a lot and it is, but I think this is the direction EA needs to go. You do not need a lot of ratings to separate coaches. If you have basic ones like I have listed, then you can just make those have great impacts on the game. Possibly exaggerating those affects would really make the game that much more fun and make coaches really matter. They need to find the perfect balance.
I hope you guys finally see what I am saying. I am not an EA *****, I don't think they are lazy, or anything like that. I just don't like what the current CC is set up like. I know it is year one and stepping back for a second, maybe I was being too harsh, but I do feel this is entirely realistic to have in NCAA 13 and I think if it was, a lot of people would be very happy, or at least I would be.
|
|||||||||||||
|
I never said my only problems were the lack of info, I just said they're a part of it. Right now I know as much as you when it comes to how big of an impact a coach has. Neither of us know if it is a 5 point difference per year in progression between an A coach and a C coach. It could only be a 1 point difference. Neither of us knows. Thats why I am saying it is a big possibility coaches won't differ much.
In the whole post, if you had quoted it all, then you would have seen that I said if coaches had very large impacts on progression and recruiting then it wouldn't be so bad. If an A coach had players progress at least 7 points a year and a C coach never had his player progress more than 4 points a year, then they would be obviously different and impact schools very heavily. That would be exaggerated though, but its just an example. But if it is what I am fearing and there is a very small difference, then yea, coaches will hardly be different from one another.
Also, had you read my entire post, then you would have seen I did mention the other part of recruiting. The whole Coach Loyalty thing was mentioned in my post. I said I didn't believe the Loyalty was actually a pitch, but just a variable in a way. If it is a pitch, then I stand corrected. That would be my misunderstanding.
And when talking about recruiting, I use last year as an example because that is all we have to go by. We have no new info on recruits. For all we know the recruiting pitches are the same as last year and recruits will hardly care a lick about coach prestige. Or it could be re-tuned and every recruit has at least Above Average interest in Coach Prestige. If that is the case, then again, coaches have a bigger impact.
Right now we are all speculating on the CC still. We know what coaches have with the prestige rating and we know what those affect, but we don't know to what extent. If it is hardly noticeable at all, then I would think I was right in saying coaches are hardly different from one another outside of playbook. If coaches have large impacts in those area and it is easy to see why an A is a lot better than that C, then I will be wrong.
Before you accuse me of being wrong some more, you should read the paragraph above this. We're all going off speculation right now, so no one is really wrong or right yet.
# 105
fcboiler87 @ 05/24/11 10:54 PM
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
you're grouping two different sets of people together in order to point out a contradiction that isn't actually there.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Sorry but I had to laugh at this.
# 107
Da Hype Iz Real @ 05/25/11 12:06 AM
Anybody care to guess what happens when being a Coordinator and if you are watching the other side of the ball what sliders would be in effect User and CPU or CPU for both sides if sliders are even in effect at all.
# 109
sparkdawg777 @ 05/25/11 12:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
Ok have to admit that you are showing your immaturity right here. I didn't see one post where cane talked bad about you. He is just defending his thoughts on how CC should be. So there is no reason to get mad at him because you don't like his opinion.
Also to say that we can't compare CH2k8's CC to NCAA 12's just shows your ignorance of the CC in CH2k8. You kept saying how they shouldn't be compared because they are 2 different sports. Well if you have ever played the CC in CH2k8 you will see the coaches ratings are attributes like Scouting, Recruiting, Charisma, Offense, Defense, and a few others can't remember exactly but those can all be tied in to football. So the FACT is YOU are wrong.
On that note I still think CC will be fine but like some have said it could have been better and it WILL be. I'm still glad we have it over nothing at all.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
VERY nice post. NCAA with coaching carousel at that depth would be any dynasty player's dream. I see why you're frustrated with the CC implemented now. I am perfectly happy with what is in now, but if EA eventually had CC into that level....
Hopefully more details about the prestige rating's effect on players will come out Friday.
# 112
PaperBoyx703 @ 05/25/11 01:14 AM
How bout we let everyone have their opinions and assumptions. If people want to speculate and assume things based off selective viewing and hearing, let em. For those who want to turn a blind eye to facts already stated by impressions and the Devs themselves then let the game prove them wrong.
This isnt politics theres no need to debate this for this long, im pretty sure these trivial arguments, which are funny but get old quick, dont affect the games sales. I hope this is over because this indifference about CC has gone on too long.
Its in the game deal with it. The way it is is the way it is, take it or leave it. Its as simple as that
This isnt politics theres no need to debate this for this long, im pretty sure these trivial arguments, which are funny but get old quick, dont affect the games sales. I hope this is over because this indifference about CC has gone on too long.
Its in the game deal with it. The way it is is the way it is, take it or leave it. Its as simple as that
# 113
CurryStorm @ 05/25/11 03:28 AM
|
|||||||||||||
|
The reason I quoted you, though, if for the teaching rating. This rating would have to be carefully thought out. I wouldn't want players to ALWAYS improve 4+ points just because they have a good coach. Some players just don't improve no matter what their talent level is or the coaching they receive. If you put too much emphasis on how a head coach improves players attributes, you're going to lose some of what makes individual players unique.
I think, taking your example, a coach with an A+ teaching should get large jumps from a higher *percentage* of their players than a coach with a lower rating. Maybe an A+ teaching coach will normally get 4 or 5 points of improvement from 65% (or whatever) of their team, while a C+ teaching coach would only get 4 or 5 points of improvement from 30% (or whatever) of their team. I just think there should be some players that, no matter who the coach is, they're just not going to improve and some players that are going to improve 5 points every single year no matter who the coach.
Maybe a more complex situation would be for recruits to have hidden ratings that would break each recruit into one of three types: 1 type of recruit will become great no matter who the coach, 1 type will never get better no matter who the coach and the last type depends ONLY on who their coach is. The third type would be the proverbial "diamonds in the rough" where a great coach can take a 2* player and coach him up to be a 4-5* player by the time he graduates. I think this would separate the good from the great coaches- any above average coach can land a 4 or 5 star every now and then, but a great coach can take that 2* and make him "play" like a 5*. This type of coach would be your Frank Beamer or Gary Patterson type coach.
One thing people consistently miss is that coach ratings really have 0 to do with a coaching carousel. They just get lumped together for whatever reason. Even in a play-now game there should be a difference between coaches.
I think that was what they were trying to do last year with the 120 ways to win, but a lot of the "ways" didn't function correctly and the coaches ran too close together in terms of philosophy/playbooks. Good example being how every team would run all out blitzes often on D.
coach ratings / better philosophies = having to think about what coach you're playing against. Someone could turn NCAA 11 on swap Urban Meyer with Danny Hope and I'm not sure I'd ever notice. It'd add another layer of strategy to the game. It'd help solving the problem we have now where you can just pick a scheme, never adjust, use it against every team and have success doing so.
I think that was what they were trying to do last year with the 120 ways to win, but a lot of the "ways" didn't function correctly and the coaches ran too close together in terms of philosophy/playbooks. Good example being how every team would run all out blitzes often on D.
coach ratings / better philosophies = having to think about what coach you're playing against. Someone could turn NCAA 11 on swap Urban Meyer with Danny Hope and I'm not sure I'd ever notice. It'd add another layer of strategy to the game. It'd help solving the problem we have now where you can just pick a scheme, never adjust, use it against every team and have success doing so.
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
# 117
justblaze09 @ 05/25/11 12:55 PM
Wait, you want coaches to ultimately be able to develop their players 4-5 pts a year. That's 16-20 pts a career, and you end up with rosters we have now (which I think it too overrated).
|
|||||||||||||
|
My thoughts on the this mode are mostly positive. I'm glad it is coming to Dynasty, but to me it seems that this is the only change made to Dynasty (other than custom conferences which are mostly superficial), and that's the problem. It is hardly "the deepest mode" as they advertise it to be.
I would like to see more differentiation between Coordinators and Head Coaches--it seems like the only differences are the goals you contract for and playing both sides of the ball. I think Coordinators should only be involved in recruiting for their side of the ball, as well, but not exclusively (as the HC still has maximum control). I would also like to see more responsibilities given once you become a head coach so there is a bit more incentive to do so.
I also think they can take a path similar to RTG and have your coach start on a high school team (perhaps a tie-in after you complete your career as a player?), then based upon your coaching abilities and the way you manage your players/team, you receive offers from various schools--probably low-end at first--to either coach or coordinate. I do understand some concern about just wanting to pick your team, however. This would really connect all the modes in the game.
Aside from that, as long as the implementation is done well, this should be a fine addition. I'm looking to see that teams behave realistically with their coaches. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the goal system: some of the goals look unrealistic or just unbalanced.
I'm looking forward to hearing the details on the revamped RTG mode. Hopefully something there can really entice us. They have done some good work this year, and hopefully it sets us up for a future of much-improved football.
I would like to see more differentiation between Coordinators and Head Coaches--it seems like the only differences are the goals you contract for and playing both sides of the ball. I think Coordinators should only be involved in recruiting for their side of the ball, as well, but not exclusively (as the HC still has maximum control). I would also like to see more responsibilities given once you become a head coach so there is a bit more incentive to do so.
I also think they can take a path similar to RTG and have your coach start on a high school team (perhaps a tie-in after you complete your career as a player?), then based upon your coaching abilities and the way you manage your players/team, you receive offers from various schools--probably low-end at first--to either coach or coordinate. I do understand some concern about just wanting to pick your team, however. This would really connect all the modes in the game.
Aside from that, as long as the implementation is done well, this should be a fine addition. I'm looking to see that teams behave realistically with their coaches. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the goal system: some of the goals look unrealistic or just unbalanced.
I'm looking forward to hearing the details on the revamped RTG mode. Hopefully something there can really entice us. They have done some good work this year, and hopefully it sets us up for a future of much-improved football.
# 120
themassacre771.1 @ 05/25/11 01:40 PM
I think the game looks pretty good. My biggest concern was being able to move up really fast and based on that part 2 video that's not going to happen.
Post A Comment
Working...