- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OLD CFB25 Thread - THREAD IS OFFICIALLY ANCHORED
Posted on 5/29/24 at 8:06 pm to holdmuh keystonelite
Posted on 5/29/24 at 8:06 pm to holdmuh keystonelite
quote:
If that was the case some players would never develope. How do you expect backups that just happen to be behind star players most of their career reach upper potential? Also some of us like myself only play 8 or 9 min quarters so that makes it difficult to get some backups enough time to make an impact. I agree that some of that should factor in but there needs to be a reasonable balance.
Coaches will have a player development skill tree. I’m sure they will have some weekly training feature like Madden does.
1
Posted on 5/29/24 at 8:55 pm to Dairy Sanders
Will I be able to add STTDB in their version of Neck?
Posted on 5/29/24 at 9:53 pm to Dairy Sanders
quote:
I don’t like nor want a Potential rating for players in this game. Progression should be based on playing time, performance, and the coaches’ developmental ratings/skills.
So you think a 40 rated 5’8” slow white dude that is mechanically sound and been playing football since he was 6 should progress the same as a 40 rated 6’6” athletic freak who didn’t play football until his senior year of high school, but has the athletic ability to break out in a few years because the coaches are good and they practiced a lot? lol….k
Posted on 5/30/24 at 5:43 am to VinegarStrokes
Potential ratings for players who will be around for 3-5 years is a trash idea. For pro games it makes sense since they can be around for 20 years but not in a college game.
They never had them before and players progressed just fine.
They never had them before and players progressed just fine.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 7:41 am to Dairy Sanders
quote:
Potential ratings for players who will be around for 3-5 years is a trash idea. For pro games it makes sense since they can be around for 20 years but not in a college game.
They never had them before and players progressed just fine.
None of us have played the game yet. If what is being said is true about the huge gap between players that are 2 star and players that are 5 star, then a "potential" rating may be really good for this game. You may be able to find a few 2 star guys that are rated low but have big potential that may help boost them to a starter for a larger school in year 4 or 5 of their playing career.
My point is, it seems very obvious that the guys working on this project really like what they are doing and trying to give a quality game. Let's not bash it until we see how it works.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 7:46 am to The Eric
Oh yeah I’m excited for the game, I’m just not interested in a potential rating for recruits, which is not something that is in the game (at least not something that anyone has said is in game).
Posted on 5/30/24 at 8:19 am to Dairy Sanders
Bud Elliot talked about the game on the cover 3 podcast. The most interesting part to me was he described the new run game mechanics:
1. On RPO/option plays, you now push the button to PULL the ball rather than hand it off. That’s a reversal from previous games
2. On running plays, particularly zone blocking schemes, you’ll need to run into the correct lanes to have success. It should feel more natural compared to the old games
1. On RPO/option plays, you now push the button to PULL the ball rather than hand it off. That’s a reversal from previous games
2. On running plays, particularly zone blocking schemes, you’ll need to run into the correct lanes to have success. It should feel more natural compared to the old games
Posted on 5/30/24 at 8:42 am to tlsu15
How am I just now finding out Pat Green does an Iowa rendition of Wave on Wave? That is badass and for such a great cause. I guess I never heard the song paired up with the waves when I’ve seen it on tv.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 8:46 am to Dairy Sanders
quote:
Potential ratings for players who will be around for 3-5 years is a trash idea. For pro games it makes sense since they can be around for 20 years but not in a college game.
They never had them before and players progressed just fine.
Go back and read the posts again. No one said EA needs to include potential. What I originally said was that they need to ensure that progression is balanced properly if they are going to commit to this wide spread of ratings. I mentioned what The Show does as a way to help counter it....as an example.
You say potential ratings for players who will be around 3-5 years is a trash idea yet don't actually explain why.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 8:55 am to VinegarStrokes
To put it simply: it can put an artificial cap on a player and it can reward a player for merely existing rather than playing, performing, practicing, and training.
And we should probably move on from this topic because there is no reason to bog the thread down in something that most likely won’t be in the game.
And we should probably move on from this topic because there is no reason to bog the thread down in something that most likely won’t be in the game.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 8:58 am to Dairy Sanders
quote:
They never had them before and players progressed just fine.
Actually, player progression was one of my least favorite aspects of the NCAA series. I was never a fan of bringing in 5 guys at around 70 overall and them all progressing at roughly the same rate. Preferably, I'd have 2-3 guys that never progress past the 70's, 1-2 that get into the 80's, and a max of 1 that breaks into the 90's and becomes a star.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 9:04 am to Dairy Sanders
quote:
To put it simply: it can put an artificial cap on a player and it can reward a player for merely existing rather than playing, performing, practicing, and training.
And we should probably move on from this topic because there is no reason to bog the thread down in something that most likely won’t be in the game.
Correct, it likely won't be in the game. That's on you for dragging that out.
The real discussion, and what was posted by me originally, is what is EA doing to balance progression and to ensure that players have their own personalities. Kids get recruited at a 4 star and 5 star level and flame out because they weren't evaluated properly. Kids come in as 2 stars but have tools and ultimately become stars. There are a shite ton of 3 star players in real life, and none of them progress at the same rate.
In these video games, "practice and training" features are bare bones and not all that realistic. Just because someone practices a lot and lifts a lot of weights doesn't mean they'll progress into a star. There needs to be variability, individual personality, yet balance in this thing.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 9:28 am to VinegarStrokes
quote:
Correct, it likely won't be in the game. That's on you for dragging that out.
The real discussion, and what was posted by me originally, is what is EA doing to balance progression and to ensure that players have their own personalities. Kids get recruited at a 4 star and 5 star level and flame out because they weren't evaluated properly. Kids come in as 2 stars but have tools and ultimately become stars. There are a shite ton of 3 star players in real life, and none of them progress at the same rate.
In these video games, "practice and training" features are bare bones and not all that realistic. Just because someone practices a lot and lifts a lot of weights doesn't mean they'll progress into a star. There needs to be variability, individual personality, yet balance in this thing.
Hopefully the coaching tree helps with this aspect.
The motivator, strategist, recruiter builds sound interesting
Maybe the recruiter build allows you to better determine player potential, maybe motivator does a better job of getting guys to play above their level, and maybe the strategist is better at putting the opponents at a disadvantage?
Would be nice if as a motivator you may not be able to land 5 stars but are able to build 3 stars into high level 4 stars because "insert Any Given Sunday Speech"
As much as we all loved the previous games we all know that there were some attributes that were just far more important to success.. Would be great if Speed isn't the only important attribute.
Awareness should be huge especially when playing a ranked team. If you have seniors who are all "aware" but may not be as talented as Bama... there should still be room for the upset because awareness is so high they are able to play above their level for a big game.
This post was edited on 5/30/24 at 9:30 am
Posted on 5/30/24 at 9:37 am to The Eric
Looks like gameplay deep dive coming tomorrow at 10 AM
This post was edited on 5/30/24 at 9:38 am
Posted on 5/30/24 at 9:43 am to HogX
I think that’s where the factors I mentioned should weight in. Maybe they can do something similar to Madden with certain traits that enable to develop faster as well.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 9:48 am to VinegarStrokes
quote:
In these video games, "practice and training" features are bare bones and not all that realistic. Just because someone practices a lot and lifts a lot of weights doesn't mean they'll progress into a star. There needs to be variability, individual personality, yet balance in this thing.
That we definitely agree on.
Honestly, I don’t think we weren’t in agreeance before, I just don’t like the idea of capping a player’s potential. Madden did that before with their old C/B/A potential ratings and it was atrocious. C players could never go above 79 and B players could never go above 89 overall.
2K gives players a numerical potential rating and players rarely match or exceed them (at least from what I’ve seen).
As long as they don’t do that or something worse, I’m fine with it.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 10:09 am to Dairy Sanders
quote:
That we definitely agree on.
Honestly, I don’t think we weren’t in agreeance before, I just don’t like the idea of capping a player’s potential. Madden did that before with their old C/B/A potential ratings and it was atrocious. C players could never go above 79 and B players could never go above 89 overall.
2K gives players a numerical potential rating and players rarely match or exceed them (at least from what I’ve seen).
As long as they don’t do that or something worse, I’m fine with it.
I'm hoping that by "cap" they mean things like
Cornerbacks maybe have a max catch rating of 80... that way you get more realistic bat downs rather than picks... or kickers not being 99 speed so you can't have created punters recruited that you immediately switch to RB/WR/QB
I think that having max ratings for certain attributes for certain positions would be nice.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 10:32 am to The Eric
quote:
As much as we all loved the previous games we all know that there were some attributes that were just far more important to success.. Would be great if Speed isn't the only important attribute
I believe it was 07 or 08 that speed was by far the most attribute and so many people complained so the next year they absolutely neutered speed and you had defensive lineman with speeds in the low 70s down into the low 60s chasing down backs and receivers with 90 plus speeds.
I hope they have a happy medium because yeah elite speed needs to be a massive weapon, but it can’t be the only weapon.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 10:33 am to The Eric
quote:
I think that having max ratings for certain attributes for certain positions would be nice.
Yeah I’m down for that.
Posted on 5/30/24 at 10:49 am to Dairy Sanders
Do we know yet if we will be able to edit player height, weight, and ratings in dynasty mode like you can in Madden? I would like to have the ability to "cheat" every once in awhile, like starting with a lower-level team but putting a stud qb to get the program going or changing a recruited stud offensive lineman who's 265 lb to 300 lb.
Page 43 of 141
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News