Tired of CPU Ints? Here is the solution...

[baa7]

Quote:

---

capa said:
RBs - should be min 80 and max 99 for catching
CBs - reduce coverage 20-30 points and reduce Jumping 20 points
SS, FS - reduce coverage 10-20 points and jumping 20 points

---

The Catch for RB’s is generally lower this year because I think that’s the “fix” VC came up with to stop all the RB passes that happened last year. The QB usually won’t throw to an RB with a rating below 50, even if you call a screen pass. RB’s tend to catch every thing anyway, so I personally would leave those numbers, except for those players whose Catch ratings are too high or low. The Run Route rating definitely needs to be up in the 60’s at least for everyone otherwise RB’s often stand around in the pocket when they’re supposed to be running out for a swing pass. I had one RB do that two plays in a row!

The DB’s are a whole different story for me. I actually increased their effectiveness – Consistency and Aggression – so they’d actually cover receivers! (Which they do now, now that they’re fixed.) That of course caused another new problem – my lousy CPU running game was now really awful, because the D is so aggressive. So I’ve been slowly lowering defensive players’ Tackle, and now I’ve got my CPU RB’s averaging 4-5 yards per carry.

[pstrickert]

I was about to abandon hope for this game, until I took capa's advice. I increased QB Accuracy and Read Coverage, increased WR, HB, FB, and TE Catch rating, and decreased CB, SS, and FS Coverage rating. That didn't do it. Then, I increased WR, HB, FB, and TE Run Route rating. That didn't do it (at least I don't think so - having only played about half a game without much difference). Finally, I decreased CB, SS, and FS Aggressiveness rating by 20 points. Wah-lah. Here's what happened. Again, I set up a CPU-CPU game between Buffalo and Jacksonville. This time, Buffalo won 28-7. Leftwich: 21-43 (49%) for 256 yards, 1 INT. Bledsoe: 12-18 (67%) for 207 yards, 0 INT. The sole interception occurred with less than 2 minutes remaining (the Jags were playing catch-up).

It's only one game, but SOOOOOOOO different than what I'd seen before. Couple of concerns: no pass rush for either team (0 sacks) and the running game was relatively quiet (both teams averaging about 3 yards per carry).

Maybe there is hope for this game afterall.

[capa]

An observation - most of the INTs seem to come from tipped balls...lowering def players jumping ability and catching ability significantly does seem to help. It's like VC wanted to show off their tipped ball animations (and there are some great ones!), but it wreaks havoc with the INT rate.

If you lower the db and safety catch ratings to single digits they wind up batting balls down rather than intercepting...but you'll still see 1-3 picks a game probably so it is not a universal thing. But 1-3 is alot better than 5-8.

C

[Sleeper]

Just for testing purposes I gave all the Cowboy and Viking defensive players a ZERO catch rating and ran a CPU vs CPU game to see where the weakness and strengths are because I'm still coming up with sliders and by games end. Dallas had 2 INT's and Minnesota had 1. So even if you bring the catch rating to zero they still catch the ball which leads me to believe that there's something else under the hood that's working it's "magic"....maybe something hard coded.

The flow of the game was pretty good. Dallas ended up winnin 24-17. For some reason Culpepper couldn't buy a catch. Threw to Moss 22 times he caught 9 of them. Culpepper ended up with only 48% for the day. Carter had a good day and passed for around 250 and had 58% completions. All the other stats were pretty realistic. 2 sacks for Minn and one for Dallas. Everything else was pretty good I have to say. Just find it odd that with 0 catch ratings that players still catching the ball however. Also another thing I noticed is that Dallas changed their punt and kick returners to a low tier WR instead of their star CB like you see every team do so that was good. This is definitely due to the 0 catch rating I'm sure.

Incidently, here were the sliders I used for reference:

Blocking 40
Pass 40
Run 40
Catch 40
Cov 0
Persuit 30
Tackle 0
Kick 0
Fatigue 3

Injury 20
Fumbles 22
INT 0

sub in 100
sub out 45

[Sleeper]

Quote:

---

capa said:
An observation - most of the INTs seem to come from tipped balls...lowering def players jumping ability and catching ability significantly does seem to help. It's like VC wanted to show off their tipped ball animations (and there are some great ones!), but it wreaks havoc with the INT rate.

If you lower the db and safety catch ratings to single digits they wind up batting balls down rather than intercepting...but you'll still see 1-3 picks a game probably so it is not a universal thing. But 1-3 is alot better than 5-8.

C

---

True. I've seen many INT's come off of tipped balls. For some reason defenders swarm to these while the WR just stand there.

[DaiYoung]

I've been following this thread with interest. As a coach only player the large number of picks and general inaccuracy of the cpu passing was killing this otherwise great game for me.

Just tried my first game with adjusted ratings. Pretty much changed all the ratings for the Bears and the Bengals as Capa advised. Didn't mess with aggressiveness but upped QB accuracy, QB reading, WR/RB/TE catching whilst lowering DB jumping, catching and coverage.

Good news was that in my first trial cpu vs cpu game I saw only one interception (sliders set similarly to those above). Very happy with this since INTS were my main gripe, never seen a game with less than 4 before.

Passing percentages were still a little low but not far off. Palmer went 12 of 21 for 214 yds -- Grossman 20 of 39 for 206 yds. I wonder if raising the compusure ratings would help? This might prevent the extended QB slumps where they throw 5 or 6 incompletions in a row.

[DaiYoung]

Another tweak I was considering was to lower every kickers power by say 10 points to get rid of all the touchbacks. Against someone like Vinatieri currently I barely ever see a kick return attempted.

Not sure of the knock-on effect this will have on field goals though.

[pstrickert]

The more feedback on this issue, the better.

Have the number of sacks been a problem? I'm seeing too few.