OK I think I Finally Figured it out

[azn_essence]

when you think about it, everyone should have max consistency.
What I mean is, players always play how they play. Example,Olineman.
If this player is inconsistent in blocking, then his blocking rating should be low. If he's a solid blocker who performs, then it should be higher.
There shouldn't be a player at 95 coverage being inconsistent. Why? If he is inconsistent, shouldn't his coverage go lower and be at 80?

It's like a double negative. The consis rating tells how consistent does a player playing consistent. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Rickster101]

Quote: Originally Posted by azn_essence

when you think about it, everyone should have max consistency. What I mean is, players always play how they play. Example,Olineman. If this player is inconsistent in blocking, then his blocking rating should be low. If he's a solid blocker who performs, then it should be higher. There shouldn't be a player at 95 coverage being inconsistent. Why? If he is inconsistent, shouldn't his coverage go lower and be at 80? It's like a double negative. The consis rating tells how consistent does a player playing consistent. That doesn't make sense to me.

Well your right and then again some things should remain the same being consistant doesn't always equate to being good, if a bad player is bad then that consistantcy rating isn't going to help a whole....as in consistantly making the same "mistakes" or "mis-cues" over and over.

Like I said before a lot of it these attributes can be misleading so exercise caution and it wouldn't hurt to be better at calling plays to coach and exercise good stategys and gameplay methods as opposed to expecting random numbers to fall in place to fix the gameplay issues.

Editing can only do so much and it does improve a lot of the gameplay issues but theres no one thing as far as sliders or attributes that cures all of them some are just there and we'll just have to deal with that.

Holla Back ya'll

[BBMo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ram209

Ok I think I figured out what our "problem" is in this game. After endless hours of slider tweakings and such I just said screw it and put it on Legend default. I was having good games untill I would get the same *** **** happen every game, My OL would go brain dead and not react to anything and the DB problems as we all know. Well thanks to finns roster editor and IRONz rosters I changed everyones Consistency to plus 10 but a max of 93 and a min of 80. AND IT WORKSSSSSSSSS. This is THE MOST IMPROTANT rating on this game. I dont care how good your player is rated if he has a low Cons. Rating then he will do that stupid stuff that we are always seeing. I swear I played 6 games with the rosters like this and they WERE THE BEST GAMES I HAVE EVER PLAYED PERIOD. I played Default legend 7 minutes and it has become a whole new game. I could count on one hand how many times a DB made a stupid animation or my oline whent brain dead in 6 games that I played. I played the Pit and I was Oak in one of my games, well againts Pit I won 21-19 great game Joey porter had 3 sacks. Now before I used to play Pit and freaking Hampton would always beat my centers *** cause they would go brain dead. This game nothing he had a couple of tackles and WAS ALWAYS doubled I was amazed. Trust me guys every game I played was so freaking good. Now before you start thinking wow all of our problems are sloved thier still is a couple of minor issues depending on how you look at it. First, because I bumped up the Const. Rating every teams ratings were off the charts the Eagles were 100 in everything and the worst team I think the Cardinals they were like low 80's. Ok to Offset this I went in and lowerd everyones ratings 1 percent, except the const. I left that alone. After I did that the team ratings became a little better. Yet they are still a little high. I know IRONz adjusted the ratings maybe he or some one else could figure out how we could get the overall ratings for teams a little lower. Ok 2nd problem, The CPU QBs on Legend are still a little bad, Ok now with the Raiders I have 2 great corners and My nickel and dime corners are ok-to good. And that could be the reason why, But Man I am telling you when I called man to man and brought them up they where all over the rec. and really guys NO STUPID ANIMATIONS, ok maybe not none but 10000xs better than before. I was thinking we need to bump up the cpus read coverage but then again that might mess with the ratings. Again it could have been that I had a pretty good secondary. I would like to have someone test this out with a bad secondary and see if you get burnt etc.... Everyone now plays to their ratings because there COnst. Rating is good. SO ratings matter even more now. I can not stress how much of a difference this has made, someone PLEASE try this and tell me I am not stupid. PLay Legend Default and tell me what you think. Ok now I TAKE NO CREDIT for these rosters IRON did all the work and I just adjusted what I told you. Also without FINNS amazing editor none of this would have been possible. ONce again guys I TAKE NO NONE NOTHING Credit for these rosters, thank IRON and FINN. And if you find what I am saying is true then thank me later.

This makes since...I mean if you think about it Nobody with more than 2 years experience in the NFL should have a con rating of lower than 70. If they did they would probably be CUT from their team. A player with a con rating of 75 is expected to play to the best of his ability on 3 out of 4 plays (75%). In actuality coaches in the NFL are MORE demanding than that. They strive for ERROR FREE FOOTBALL. To be beaten on a play because you are not fast enough is one thing...that can be solved by matchups...to be beaten on a play because you didn't play your assignment correctly is something totally different. I think you may be on to something here. (Even though I am having good games on default all pro)

[Ram209]

Quote: Originally Posted by BBMo

This makes since...I mean if you think about it Nobody with more than 2 years experience in the NFL should have a con rating of lower than 70. If they did they would probably be CUT from their team. A player with a con rating of 75 is expected to play to the best of his ability on 3 out of 4 plays (75%). In actuality coaches in the NFL are MORE demanding than that. They strive for ERROR FREE FOOTBALL. To be beaten on a play because you are not fast enough is one thing...that can be solved by matchups...to be beaten on a play because you didn't play your assignment correctly is something totally different. I think you may be on to something here. (Even though I am having good games on default all pro)

Try it, play a couple of games and let me know how many "bonehead plays" you see, I am willing to bet if someone gets beat 95% or does something wrong its because he is rated a worse player not because of the programing, I understand the rating its just to bad VC implamented it in this manner. I am never going back now..........................

[HMcCoy]

Gerard Warren is a physical beast. 6'4", runs a 5 sec 40, and threw up 225lbs close to 30 times. Should be a pro-bowler, but is not. Why? Consistency or lack therof. I've said in several threads that the composure and consistency ratings are paramount, the trick is to find the right range. You have to be careful though, or you'll make Gerrard Warren into John Randle.

I bumped the DB's by 10pts in Consistency and 20 in Composure (with minimums of 60). As its been said, that helps with the bad animations, but then the DB's tend to break up too many passes, which neccessitates increases in QB accuracy and reciever catching and "hold on" ratings. Its a very slippery slope.

Also, the DB's and O-Line are the only players that need Cons & Comp upgrades. The run game is already well-balanced as is the LB play. Ram, try adjusting only the O-Line and DB's and then see how the overall ratings are affected.

BTW, Good job.

[Ram209]

Quote: Originally Posted by HMcCoy

Gerard Warren is a physical beast. 6'4", runs a 5 sec 40, and threw up 225lbs close to 30 times. Should be a pro-bowler, but is not. Why? Consistency or lack therof. I've said in several threads that the composure and consistency ratings are paramount, the trick is to find the right range. You have to be careful though, or you'll make Gerrard Warren into John Randle. I bumped the DB's by 10pts in Consistency and 20 in Composure (with minimums of 60). As its been said, that helps with the bad animations, but then the DB's tend to break up too many passes, which neccessitates increases in QB accuracy and reciever catching and "hold on" ratings. Its a very slippery slope. Also, the DB's and O-Line are the only players that need Cons & Comp upgrades. The run game is already well-balanced as is the LB play. Ram, try adjusting only the O-Line and DB's and then see how the overall ratings are affected. BTW, Good job.

100% agree with you my biggest gripe was the DB's and ESPICALLY THE OLINE. THats why I did this, I will try doing just the db's and Oline and see how that affects the ratings. I also agree with the Warren comment, but like I said the way VC programs the rating in this game is horrid, with the oline I mean sometimes I watch and I have to remind myself that this is only a game it looks and just "feels" real. Then like 2 or 3 plays later I see my OT just look like a Hard-on standing straight up with a stick up his arse and watch the DE run right by him. Your also correct it is a very tricky thing to do, maybe I could do just the oline and DBs. One other thing I noticed is the CPU qbs need to be a little better, I did some testing with Boller, in these rosters he is a 79 overall with a Pass read coverage of like 69 and pass acc 71. Well I bumped up his read coverage up 10 points and his overall rating went up 1 point. I moved it up 20 and it went up 2 points, so you see the trend. Now I lowered his acc 20 and he dropped 8 points. So it seams like accuraccy affects overall rating more.
With that said I think If we bump up the CPU read coverage, which is what determines the INTs we could be ok.
I will try this out, and if you could any testing that would be great.

[jpup]

this may be a stupid question, but has anyone thought about maxing out every player's consistency ratings? What would happen if you turned them all up to 100?

[BBMo]

Quote: Originally Posted by jpup

this may be a stupid question, but has anyone thought about maxing out every player's consistency ratings? What would happen if you turned them all up to 100?

well...in theory if someone were to do what you said then that would mean that all the other ratings (that dealt with mental stuff) SHOULD really show in the game, thus making it MORE realistic. But ONLY if the players OTHER ratings are correct...allow me to explain...

If a QB were to have a 70 accuracy rating then he would be expected to hit his mark 70% of the time...now if that QB has a 100 consistency rating then that would mean that that QB would ALWAYS hit his mark 70% of the time. Thus creating the formula 1.00x.70= .70 or 70% (This of course only accounts for the QB HITTING HIS TARGET, it does NOT mean that his target will make the catch. (That's a whole other bag O' Worms...LOL)
Mabey That's why they even added a consistency rating in the first place...to account for certain intangibles like slumps, players returning from injury or MURDER TRIALS (LOL). Any way, by adding this CONSISTENCY rating they have made it IMPOSSIBLE to PREDICT exactly how a player will perform on Any Given Sunday...*pun intended*

Alas, if we implement this suggestion and make everyone's con rating 100 we would virtually ERASING the surprise element in the gameplay...(I may be wrong about this). It seems to me that doing this would mean that all other ratings would have to be "SPOT ON" in order for us to get the most "realistic" game play. We all know that this is not the case. It seems as though this "CON" rating is possibly the NUCLEUS of the game's A.I. because it makes the game itself UNPREDICTABLE....

Consider this...If we KNEW that our QB would complete 70 out of 100 passes to an open receiver then we could almost adjust our gameplans accordingly BEFORE THE GAMES TOOK PLACE!

Example: Rex Grossman hit his target 20 out of 50 attempts last week...hmmmm...that means that he'll be 50 for 50 THIS WEEK...whoo hoo we won't run the ball at all we'll just throw it!

This is just an example of how the game COULD be exploited if there was a "set" pattern to things. (And you all KNOW some of us WOULD exploit it...)
It seems that the "CON" rating keeps us just off balance enough to force us to make adjustments DURING THE GAME.

I don't know about y'all but if my QB starts making bad plays, I take him out of the game. Even though I know that it's all just computer generated events, it is random enough to fairly recreate REAL football...

This issue really perplexes me....I will shut up now...and think some more
PEACE OUT!