OK I think I Finally Figured it out

[Ram209]

Quote: Originally Posted by BBMo

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!

Thats why you dont put it at 100 you leave it for the good players somewhere @85-90 and avg players @70. And like I have said before I think this rating is great because some guys do have off days and such, BUT the way VC has programed the game to show that is the problem. I am having really good results with just the OL and the DBs rated at higher con. because now they dont make their "bonehead, brain dead" plays. They still get beat but thats because of the ratings. I think you whent a little to deep on us :>)

[KingV2k3]

As a long time student of these games and how to make them 'sim' I applaud your insight...

This game is so close to being what I want it to be that I've been racking my slider brains out and have not had 'consistant' good gameplay...it will be fine for a while and then it goes to cr*p...

The big issues are (as stated) the O-line stupidity...and the d back issues...

I WAS going to wait for the roster edit (to see if they 'clean up' the gameplay a bit with better ratings...

But this thread's got me thinking that the 'fix' may be a combination of things...

Start with a new ESPN roster edit...

Then...bump all QBs up 10% in PRC...

All O-line 10% in pass blocking (not run blocking)

And finally...bump all consistancy ratings into the 70-95 range based on weather they are starters, role players, backups or roster fillers...

Starters...85-95
Role players...80-85
Backups...75-80
Roster fillers...70-75

Simply base the place within the range based on number of years in the league...

For instance...

You have a situational pass rusher (role player) that should fall in the 80-85 range...start at 80 and add a year for each year in the NFL...

For career backups and role players that have a ton of experience adding a point for EVERY year would possibly bump them into the next higher bracket making it (IMO) very realistic b/c even though their core ratings slip as they age the 'wisdom' of consistancy is on their side making them desireable for a time...

Not sure how much of this will need to be tweaked further...but it's a suggestion...

Tie con rating to experience and role in league/team...

Good stuff...

NOW RELEASE THAT ROSTER EDIT OKAY?...

We have (your) work to do...

[jpup]

i still think i am going to try to increase the rating to 100 and see how it works out just for kicks.

i have noticed a huge problem with the ratings. For the Titans: Chris Brown has an aggressiveness rating of only 9, yeah, that's right, 9. Antowain Smith has an aggressiveness rating of 74. Something is wrong with this picture.

[Ram209]

Quote: Originally Posted by KingV2k3

As a long time student of these games and how to make them 'sim' I applaud your insight... This game is so close to being what I want it to be that I've been racking my slider brains out and have not had 'consistant' good gameplay...it will be fine for a while and then it goes to cr*p... The big issues are (as stated) the O-line stupidity...and the d back issues... I WAS going to wait for the roster edit (to see if they 'clean up' the gameplay a bit with better ratings... But this thread's got me thinking that the 'fix' may be a combination of things... Start with a new ESPN roster edit... Then...bump all QBs up 10% in PRC... All O-line 10% in pass blocking (not run blocking) And finally...bump all consistancy ratings into the 70-95 range based on weather they are starters, role players, backups or roster fillers... Starters...85-95 Role players...80-85 Backups...75-80 Roster fillers...70-75 Simply base the place within the range based on number of years in the league... For instance... You have a situational pass rusher (role player) that should fall in the 80-85 range...start at 80 and add a year for each year in the NFL... For career backups and role players that have a ton of experience adding a point for EVERY year would possibly bump them into the next higher bracket making it (IMO) very realistic b/c even though their core ratings slip as they age the 'wisdom' of consistancy is on their side making them desireable for a time... Not sure how much of this will need to be tweaked further...but it's a suggestion... Tie con rating to experience and role in league/team... Good stuff... NOW RELEASE THAT ROSTER EDIT OKAY?... We have (your) work to do...

I already have released the rosters, they are IRONz rosters with the changes to consistancy like I stated, 93 max and 75 min.

[Brownhornet]

Quote: Originally Posted by sportsgeist

I'll check it out. I've been looking for the editor myself but couldn't find it. Could post a link to where its at?

You can find the editor at Espnhockey.net