Difficulty: Do you want tough games or not care?

[BEasy20]

I like playing as weaker teams and trying to build them up. Ive been using the OS Community Sliders of late. My games are usually a challenge with me losing about 1 or 2 a year. But the problem I have is that im admittley bad at offense. Find myself scoring around 21-28 points a game. However, i still end up winning most of them by a touchdown. While yea its a challenge I dont really feel like I should be winning some of the games I do.

And alot of the time Ive noticed that against the teams I should lose to I win and some of the games I should win I lose. For example, as UL Lafayette I won against Arkansas K State and losing to Texas State and WKU

[jeeve]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSmerg

I think that maybe we'll get a chance to see starting next year what can be done with the AI, if there is a willingness on the part of dev team(s). The major limit, an understandable one at that, is the technology of the platform...PS3 & Xbox360. Quite simply these are ancient pieces of technology that simply lack the processing horsepower necessary to create a more realisic and engaging p v cpu game. /2 cents

I understand that an Xbox 360 isn't a dream machine, but I still don't agree with the technology excuse at all.

The gameplay for most of the current-gen platform has lagged far behind the regular X-box / PS2 versions that we got nearly 10 years ago, and the gameplay and interface have been saddled with lags and bugs galore which the old-gen versions didn't have.

[BigMoneyAllDay]

Quote: Originally Posted by jeeve

I understand that an Xbox 360 isn't a dream machine, but I still don't agree with the technology excuse at all. The gameplay for most of the current-gen platform has lagged far behind the regular X-box / PS2 versions that we got nearly 10 years ago, and the gameplay and interface have been saddled with lags and bugs galore which the old-gen versions didn't have.

I think that's because more stuff that's not related to gameplay has been added. Along with various online stuff, what about all the new modes they added (that no one uses)?

[Dcourtne]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cardot

Doesn't that turn the regular season into a chore though?

No, we are usually on playing games at the same time, kinda like hanging out. Plus we just enjoy the game.

[Slayer525]

If im a crappy team, say Tulane for instance (which I am in my dynasty) I expect to have a losing season until im better. I mean yeah its very tough to be sitting at 3-6 when I want to be kicking ***, but I wanted a true rebuilding project and so far thats what im getting.

I just hope im not fired o_O

[K0ZZ]

I want tough games, but I don't want games to be difficult just for the sake of difficulty.

I wish coaching ratings played into the play calling a bit (mainly when it comes to adjustments and plays that do and don't work) so playing the upper coaches mattered a little more.

I want the good teams to give a challenge, but I don't want for example an Army doing serious damage to me because of sliders that made it so that an Alabama would give me fits.

I feel like fixing some of the logic would go a long way for the game, hopefully next generation the procedural logic is heavily improved and we can get a more indepth and better playing game.

Not to say i'm not enjoying this game, but I've actually turned off games I've won because I felt like the game was too 'gamey'.

[AggieDuckPatrol]

It's a very thin balance to deal with. I really enjoy good, tough games for teams around my OVR rating, blow outs for teams much better than me, and cake walks for teams that are beneath me (with the occasional blow out, of course). If I turn the ball over multiple times, I expect to lose. I play on AA with CPU favored sliders because Heisman is just made difficult for the sake of being difficult, which I hate. I'm constantly adjusting. I have noticed that most of my games are high scoring affairs, but that's because I'm pretty good at offense. I sim the defense. All in all, I think I've found a pretty good set of sliders, but it's a constant work in progress. (Lost to #14 Maryland with BC by 7 at home in my last game). It's really too easy to run, so I need to adjust the running game to make it more difficulty. I usually schedule 3 cakes in my OOC and 1 ranked team. Had a good run with Kansas (their offense isn't bad at all) where I got blown out by Texas, Baylor and Oregon, but upset #1 OU on a late field goal (they had 3 turnovers, I had 0). If a team has a decent offense, I can win with them (Kansas, Purdue, and BC).

It annoys me when buddies talk about their off-line dynasties where they take someone like Georgia St or Tulane and make them undefeated in year 1. Their defense is always like "the games are always close", even when they beat Alabama like 31-28 or something. It's very annoying. "I don't want any losses as an HC." And these are guys in their late 20s, early 30s! That wouldn't be fun. I enjoy upsetting teams, but on a rare occasion. If I play ND with Purdue, I expect to lose to the tune of 56-10 (which I did!). I just can't stand it when the game is just difficult for the sake of being difficult.

[ajwhawkeye12]

Quote: Originally Posted by TarHeelPhenom

In order for you to have the variety you're looking for there has to be separation ratings wise that puts distance between the elite teams and the mid-level to bottom feeder teams. This compensates a little for stick skills if you're playing with let's say North Texas vs Bama. Ratings rise it should even be close and all things being considered Bama should whip you. But EA themselves don't put enough space between the elite and the scrub.

There rosters (for 360 users) take care of that problem via a re-rate of all teams to get a larger spread in ratings distribution. Soon will have further refined coach levels to achieve the same thing as well.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...d-rosters.html