NCAA Football 10 - Designer Chat

[Russell_Kiniry_EA]

We are working on the Recruits (with a close eye on ATH) to get a few more players that can play multiple positions.

I have been looking at the position changes rating hits, and I agree that getting a negative 4 in speed does not seem right. The reason for this hit originally was to stop exploits, but I do not feel like that is a valid reason anymore and will likely be removing those penalties (AWR will stay for sure, but SPD, ACC, STR penalties are high on my chopping block).

-Russ

[MorePlays445]

Once again I want complete playbooks...also why was Tebow only a 95 rating last year especially as the season goes on you should update ratings on the game. Donald Brown of UCONN rating was in the 80's. Please keep more up to date charge 10 dollars more if u have too.

[JAYMO76]

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_Kiniry_EA

We are working on the Recruits (with a close eye on ATH) to get a few more players that can play multiple positions. I have been looking at the position changes rating hits, and I agree that getting a negative 4 in speed does not seem right. The reason for this hit originally was to stop exploits, but I do not feel like that is a valid reason anymore and will likely be removing those penalties (AWR will stay for sure, but SPD, ACC, STR penalties are high on my chopping block). -Russ

Russ, the ATHLETE issue is huge. By definition an athlete should be good at several positions but ATHLETE in next gen has been useless. I really hope this glitch can be fixed so an athlete will be strong in multiple positions.

[wde1723]

What you said about the ratings has really excited me. I would love to see this because in last years game ratings didn't seem to matter other than speed.

[SHO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Russell_Kiniry_EA

We are working on the Recruits (with a close eye on ATH) to get a few more players that can play multiple positions. I have been looking at the position changes rating hits, and I agree that getting a negative 4 in speed does not seem right. The reason for this hit originally was to stop exploits, but I do not feel like that is a valid reason anymore and will likely be removing those penalties (AWR will stay for sure, but SPD, ACC, STR penalties are high on my chopping block). -Russ

Will you also work on players attributes according to height/weight? Too many times in recruiting where 5-11, 200 defensive ends and 6-0, 257 d-tackles are coming in with C+ and B- strength while the mammoths (6-3, 260, 6-1 290) only end up with C- or C level strength.....

[mierk]

Russell (and OMT), thanks for being available for questions.

Are you guys going to be able to address imbalance in CPU recruiting and depth charts -- ie, teams with 6 QBs but only 3 OTs? Or starting a 65 rated walkon RE when they have a pair of LE's in the 80s? Has there been any thought on the general philosophy of some positions that should be fairly interchangeable -- FS/SS, RE/LE, RT/LT? If not, can you explain the thought process behind why they are relatively inflexible and what you are hoping to prevent or encourage?

[OMT]

Quote: Originally Posted by mierk

Russell (and OMT), thanks for being available for questions. Are you guys going to be able to address imbalance in CPU recruiting and depth charts -- ie, teams with 6 QBs but only 3 OTs? Or starting a 65 rated walkon RE when they have a pair of LE's in the 80s? Has there been any thought on the general philosophy of some positions that should be fairly interchangeable -- FS/SS, RE/LE, RT/LT? If not, can you explain the thought process behind why they are relatively inflexible and what you are hoping to prevent or encourage?

We've fixed the issue with the CPU recruiting a bunch of LTs when they need a RT. The problem is you are only recruiting Ts, and you don't know if they are left/right until you sign them. The depth chart logic puts the best player with that natural position (left or right), but the CPU never does position changes.

Now the CPU will do position changes if the backup on one side is better than the starter on the other side. Note, this does not actually happen during Position Changes in the offseason, so if you look at CPU teams before starting a new season, the change won't have happened yet.

[mierk]

Quote: Originally Posted by OMT

We've fixed the issue with the CPU recruiting a bunch of LTs when they need a RT. The problem is you are only recruiting Ts, and you don't know if they are left/right until you sign them. The depth chart logic puts the best player with that natural position (left or right), but the CPU never does position changes. Now the CPU will do position changes if the backup on one side is better than the starter on the other side. Note, this does not actually happen during Position Changes in the offseason, so if you look at CPU teams before starting a new season, the change won't have happened yet.

I was under the impression that ratings or performance-wise, there was no distinction between LT/RT -- I haven't noticed a hit when I have done position changes. What I was talking about was the way teams will over-recruit for certain positions but under-recruit for others. There is no need for teams to have half a dozen QBs on the roster, especially when they don't have appropriate numbers at a different position.

And I haven't gotten far enough in my own dynasty to see this in action since I just got my new Xbox in December, but I saw threads from other users saying that 3-4 years into dynasty, CPU teams would be playing WRs and RBs on the line because they didn't have enough beef up front.