its not fantastic but I think the guys are trying to make it better, and taken to I thought the possibility of like the how did that happen games. OFan not realizing my point that a running back in Gun formations was little off-putting but will leave that for another day.

and take into consideration the possibility for the that shouldn't happen in this game games to happen. don't forget Appalachian State beat Michigan.

Agreed on both points.  If I were to write up a wish list, it would go something like this:

• Add a spread/pistol formation (4 WR/RB) and perhaps a 3-3-5 on defense
• Add the ability to select move skill position players around in formations (split out TE's in WR slots, same for RB's, etc)
• Shortening recruiting to 5 days....same 24 hour first day, 48 hour pre-sign period, then 48 more hours post signing to finalize rosters
•                                                                  ****OR****
• Implement recruiting throughout the season.  Give each coach time each day that they can spend on recruiting.  For example, you could send out 1 each of a Campus Visit and Assistant Coach Scout and up to 5 HC phone calls per day throughout the season.  SIMs' would get the same limits.  This way you could start working on players throughout the season and try to turn a few before recruiting ever started.  The system would take tweaking, but would be a blast.
• Ability to set game plans by quarter, not just by half.

There are other improvements that I think of at times, but other than some basic bug fixes, I like the new engine quite a bit.

Posted by kas1007 on 2/7/2014 6:15:00 AM (view original):
its not fantastic but I think the guys are trying to make it better, and taken to I thought the possibility of like the how did that happen games. OFan not realizing my point that a running back in Gun formations was little off-putting but will leave that for another day.

No one is really saying this game isn't decent, but it is entering on its 3rd year of development. Engines 1.0 and 2.0 were decent but flawed, same with 3.0. The big question is do we get what we pay for in quality. If you are a gamer, would you pay $120 a year to play any other game if it was rated a 2.5 stars out of 5? Would you buy a game for $50 and then only get to play it 1 hour per day? What we are demanding from this game is a chance to be able to develop a team from players and gameplans and logically be able to play other humans or SIMS with simulations that are identifiable to their outcomes. When you submit a gameplan against another team and then win or lose and not know in either case why, or what to change to improve then we should just develop a dice game and roll every time.

Read the forums, most people really like playing this type of game. But the frustrations are cost for quality and illogical/random/unpredictable game simulation results given the observable inputs.

Katz, I can't disagree with that logic.  I would much prefer it was a cheaper price for the product we pay for.  $5-7 a season would be much more palatable but they are just not going to do that until they lose enough players and have to revamp the game/pricing structure.

I Like it JTD The fact that the recruiting time got messed with gets on my Nerves.  I was couldn't get my point across about the Pistol/Spread.  On D I think a lot of guys would experiment with the 3-3-5.   BUT THAT RECRUITING TIME MIGHT BE MY FIRST THING TO CHANGE.    In reality it put more money in CBS Sports pockets. 

KatzPhang88 If you were a gamer you would pay more.  I know when I played I got call of Duty and beat it in one night, 60.00 College football 60.00 thats only two games. 

you mean Fox sports LOL

Posted by kas1007 on 2/7/2014 7:09:00 PM (view original):
KatzPhang88 If you were a gamer you would pay more.  I know when I played I got call of Duty and beat it in one night, 60.00 College football 60.00 thats only two games. 

I think your missing the point. KatzPhang88 was saying would you play a lower rated game for 1 hr a day for $120 a year. Call of Duty is one of the top rated games on any platform. It would be like playing asteroids on xbox one LOL. The point is if we are going to pay for a product it should work properly and have outcomes that at least make sense.

I don't agree that it that bad I think that where the problem comes in.   Wolfen3D or Doom.   Hey Doom is great But Wolfen3D was no slouch. hehehehehe.