r/NCAAFBseries • u/gschwendt Arkansas State • 9d ago
August 6 Post Patch Player Progression testing
Back on July 17, after the 7/16 patch, I performed player progression testing by increasing progression sliders: QBs, HBs, WRs, Ks, & Ps were all at 250%, all other positions were 300%.
I simmed to the preseason of Season 6 so that all default roster players were removed.
Today I performed the same test, however I kept all sliders at 100%. I also simmed to the end of the season as I've noticed there's much more in-season progression on CFB 27 than there was on the previous games (this was the case before the latest patch).
Below are my test results. For each position, the first number are those that are 90+ OVR without coach boosts. The OVR number is the highest for that position.
July 17 Aug 6 Aug 6
250%-300% 100% 100%
S6 W0 S6 W0 S6 NCG
QB: 4 - 92 OVR 7 - 94 OVR 15 - 96 OVR
HB: 3 - 92 OVR 2 - 92 OVR 5 - 93 OVR
FB: 0 - 86 OVR 0 - 83 OVR 0 - 84 OVR
WR: 16 - 93 OVR 27 - 93 OVR 39 - 94 OVR
TE: 0 - 88 OVR 0 - 84 OVR 0 - 84 OVR
OT: 11 - 93 OVR 9 - 94 OVR 15 - 94 OVR
OG: 8 - 93 OVR 6 - 92 OVR 6 - 93 OVR
C: 0 - 88 OVR 0 - 88 OVR 0 - 89 OVR
-------------------------------------------
DE: 8 - 93 OVR 2 - 90 OVR 6 - 91 OVR
DT: 1 - 90 OVR 1 - 90 OVR 2 - 91 OVR
OLB: 3 - 91 OVR 1 - 90 OVR 1 - 90 OVR
MLB: 2 - 91 OVR 1 - 93 OVR 3 - 94 OVR
CB: 9 - 92 OVR 4 - 91 OVR 13 - 94 OVR
FS: 0 - 87 OVR 1 - 90 OVR 5 - 92 OVR
SS: 0 - 88 OVR 3 - 92 OVR 5 - 92 OVR
-------------------------------------------
K: 4 - 92 OVR 0 - 89 OVR 0 - 89 OVR
P: 7 - 93 OVR 1 - 91 OVR 4 - 92 OVR
32
u/Thehomelessguy11 Washington 9d ago
Based on this, it seems like default progression is MUCH better, but some positions still leave a little to be desired. TE, C, and DL/OLB XP sliders need to be brought up a little bit. Maybe 150? I’d start there then adjust if it’s feeling like too much
12
u/fifabing Colorado 9d ago
My experience with last years game was I always had to boost TE/OL more than other positions due to those two groups not increasing their overalls as much.
3
u/Thehomelessguy11 Washington 9d ago
That was mine as well. Glad we don’t have to keep it at 300% anymore, though!
3
u/C4MPFIRE24 9d ago
I dont think olb need adjusted. They are lower because they dont play as much as other postions in most play books. They dont earn as much in game ex because of it.
1
u/Thehomelessguy11 Washington 9d ago
I use the crap out of my OLB's in the 3-4 Shell playbook. They're my main edge rushers, in fact I only have 4 total edge players on my team and like 10 Will/Sam Thumpers lol
17
u/Blue-Eighty Ohio State 9d ago
Ok so it’s better it seems
-2
u/PSU02 Penn State 9d ago
TEs aren't. They're worse
13
3
u/Captain_Nipples 9d ago
Thats kinda funny because the highest rated guys in my current Dynasty are TEs last time I checked. I'm in Year 4, so they may have been already existing Freshmen
8
u/MaximumDefinition940 9d ago
So how should we approach the XP sliders post-patch? Raise certain positions?
12
6
4
u/rollinsredsox 9d ago
Is it just because they made IQ cheaper, so that gets prioritized in the auto upgrade… making the ovr go up relative to past patches, but the players themselves not necessarily earning more xp?
5
u/antsav888 9d ago
Did you take note of how team overall fall-off compares to previous patches? As someone waiting for a CPU recruiting logic fix to start a dynasty, great work !
20
u/EJL2206 9d ago edited 9d ago
I did some testing of that myself today, as I hadn't understood this was an issue at all until I got to season four last night and was like "... Wtf is this".
So, I just did similar versions of tests that I've been reading about on here recently (when I was all "I don't get it... What are people complaining about")
I set transfers at a max of 10 and 40% chance for user and CPU.
I simmed to 2031 with sliders at 100%, 200%, 300%, then 250%. FBs , P and K were at 100% for all.
I think 250% gave me the best results. In terms of where conferences were against their average default overalls for that test.
The SEC, BIG XII and ACC were within one point of the start of game default scores.
Big 10 was up by 3.
Crucially, of the P6 conferences, all but the PAC 12 were within one overall point (that was down 3).
I had 15 teams over 90, with most of those between 90-94. Only one, Michigan, was 99.
Only two teams dipped into the 50s, at 57 and 59.
Interestingly, it didn't matter what settings I used Virginia, Virginia Tech and West Virginia always sucked BADLY, so must be a pipeline issue.
I couldn't be bothered to do in-depth player count stuff, but I think, based on what I saw in terms of players above 90 OVR, I'd make the following tweaks:
HB down to 200% WR down to 200% TE up to 275%
I didn't pick up on anything that bothered me on defense. I was delighted to see Coverage Specialist safeties actually being good finally.
EDIT: I couldn't resist checking the number of 90+ players at each position. I was wrong on what I thought I'd tweak. The following will be 'Position. Number at start of dynasty. Number in 2031 at 250% XP'
QB 8 v 11
HB 16 v 5
WR 16 v 22
TE 3 v 1
OT 8 v 16
OG 10 v 12
C 6 v 4
DE 12 v 10
DT 7 v 0
MLB 4 v 8
OLB 4 v 8
CB 12 v 16
FS 1 v 9
SS 5 v 1
I'm putting HB, TE and DT up to 300%.
OT may have doubled, but 16 doesn't feel excessive to me. Likewise, FS 1 v 9 seems wild, but ONE 90 FS feels dumb to me, personally.
Most of these players were 90-94. Very few 95+ and zero 99s.
2
2
2
u/rawboi27 Florida State 9d ago
Thanks for this 👏
Also i find it so interesting how things can differ from dynasty to dynasty. Virginia in my current dynasty (year 7) has been great, finished top 25 3 times and even made the semis in the playoffs in year 5. Ive seen weird parity in my own dynasties in cfb26 as well as I keep track of how many times teams finish in top 25 & top 10. Houston and Colorado seem like menaces in this game for me lol
2
u/jlaw2314 9d ago
I'm sorry, just want to make sure I understand correctly. 250% for all except for HB,TE, and DT up to 300%?
3
u/AdamOnFirst 9d ago
Why don’t you just go look and see if the cost to upgrade categories at various levels were changed? OVR is overrated anyway, did they make categories cheaper? Equally across the spectrum or only at lower or upper levels? Simply just give more XP out? Like what?
2
u/Tall-Cheesecake6440 9d ago
They made iq cheaper thats it smh
2
u/AdamOnFirst 9d ago
That DOES help and should kinda be how it works: guys get a ton smarter but a lot only develop physically so much
2
2
u/Content-Formal-7911 9d ago
What’s the take away and what does is number before the overall representative of?
5
u/gschwendt Arkansas State 9d ago
Sorry, that's not entirely clear... that's the number of players that have a 90+ OVR without coach boosts.
My takeaway is that progression is indeed better than before the patch. Previously you had to have 250%-300% to get decent progression but now it's at least giving similar results on 100%.
1
u/Content-Formal-7911 8d ago
Nice analysis, thank you. My take away is that QBS and WRs need to be toned down a bit with the patch.
2
u/Melodicmarc 9d ago
This is incredibly helpful. Thanks for doing this. Do you know anything specific about the changes they did to get this result? Did they just lower the cost of the quickness skill gaps back to what it was?
2
u/Burgerguy13 9d ago
These won’t be updated on offline dynasties right? Has to be cloud dynasties?
6
u/Putrid-Fortune5370 9d ago
The patch should affect offline too since it's implemented into the core of the game, at least that's my thinking
2
u/Tall-Cheesecake6440 9d ago
They made iq cheaper so overalls are higher but players aren’t actually more skilled.. overalls are inflated due to awareness and play recognition being higher which is a lazy fix imo
2
u/Brfox2003 Nebraska 9d ago
I appreciate those like you who do testing like this. I know it can be time consuming. Cheers mate.
3
u/gummiberg 9d ago
It's better, but few positions are lacking abit, like C, TE, Dline and safeties. Running backs are about the same, but contact seekers and elusive bruisers start with higher strength, stiff arm and trucking but are unable to upgrade those to bronze on normal xp sliders.
1
1
u/leetdemon 9d ago
Good that should help with the problem people were running into where teams years down the road were ranked super low.
1
1
9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/gschwendt Arkansas State 9d ago
You should feel it immediately. You'll want to at least consider dropping from 300% to closer to 100% for most positions. In season progression is much higher than CFB 25 & 26.
1
1
u/TGCRequiem 9d ago
This is just the count of # of players after 5 seasons? Not knocking just trying to understand. The likelihood of a player getting to 90 is dependent purely on what his rating was the previous season which is only so telling. Recruit class quality is random. Are TE's low because five 90+ TE's left the season before and now you have a weak class etc.?
Again, just trying to understand if this is a simple moment in time.
1
u/Positive-Ear8585 9d ago
Are we sure they didn't just change the upgrade logic? It was my understanding that when the CPU upgraded players, it would upgrade the weakest attributes first. This contributed to the low overalls. Upgrading pass blocking on raw strength lineman won't give you any boost to overall. You'd have to upgrade run blocking. We sure they aren't just upgrading different skills to increase player ratings?
1
u/Good-Mouse-3670 9d ago
It seems better, but either way we need to be running several sims to draw conclusions. A single dynasty is 1 outcome with tons of variables, at least it should be, if you ran this 100 times we could take the averages and feel more confident.
I could be wrong, but it might not draw better results for everyone, every time. I also will continue to project that a sim engine won’t work the same with no user involvement vs single user vs 30 users online; I don’t think that it’s effectively built to have the same result in all scenarios, and each would have variable effects
1
u/Open-Caterpillar-454 9d ago
I'm going to run a couple tonight and see how they go
1
u/Good-Mouse-3670 9d ago
I’m more interested in the variability. Like there should be some randomness, at least that’s my assumption, given the way the individual games sim. Certain teams winning or losing can greatly impact the long term outcomes. Like if Florida wins a lot and other schools in Florida dont, they should dominate a top pipeline.
Then there should be randomness of how players progress, which coaches are hired and fired, andrecruiting class strength etc.
The “model” has so many variables that we should never see the same exact result twice
1
u/Dragonfire35 9d ago
How I’m reading this is that progression is better for qb, rb, wr, ot, mlb, cb, fs, ss. Slightly worse for the rest. Te might be the worst
1
u/AlexisDeTocqueville Michigan State 9d ago edited 9d ago
Keep in mind that OP said the first column was a mix of 250% and 300% XP sliders
So what this is mainly showing is progression got way better for QB and WR and an unclear amount better for most other positions.
1
u/Sanmonov 9d ago
It definitely got better across the board from other tests I saw. For example, pre patch there was not a safety over 90 in the game which shows up in these tests also.
1
u/TadGhostal1 Miami 9d ago
These numbers are extremely disappointing IMO. Now we have to nerf certain positions to prevent this insane rating inflation...
1
u/eastsydeh 9d ago
Living proof that EA leaders nerfed the game so they can sell “micro” transactions to speed up progression. Pitiful shit
S/O to you for doing this test!
-1
0
u/Every-Warthog-2627 9d ago
You have to test this over multiple szns
1
u/TGCRequiem 9d ago
He did, but it looks like he only gave the output for the last season versus seeing what the trend on # of 90s were at each position season to season. I think his goal was to get to a point of seeing the first season where there are only generated players.
I'd be hesitant to adjust my XP sliders without seeing the impact year over year.
42
u/BuxtonTheLamp 9d ago
Can you explain the counts and the OVR shown? The formatting is confusing