No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

[khaliib]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Not because I say so, the numbers do. We have the average 40 times for lineman and wide receivers. So you have the fastest and slowest positions as the metrics.

At 75, 65 speed lineman, the average in madden, runs it in the 5.50s, so around. 2 knocked off. Totally believable when you factor in their weight plus pads. 90 speed was, so your 4.5 guys like Ceedee lamb, are in the 4.60's, again within a believable margin of error, smaller pads, smaller guys etc.

What isn't believable is the average 5.3 lineman running a 5.14 40, when they couldn't do it without pads, and were presumably lighter at the combine than when they hit the field in Sept.

5.14 is what they ran at 95 threshold, I put it on video, with a timing tracker that followed them the entire 40 yards. There was a delay between the timer and him running, so put it in slow mo, deduct the added seconds prior to them actually running and that's what I got.

So I don't care what Adam or anyone else said, if their data doesn't match the real world, they're wrong. Full stop. And besides, he hasn't worked there in years, the game moved faster then. So rather than you "believing" nothing has changed, test it. Or don't come for me.

Unfortunately, NG consoles & the Run Cycles applied via New Player Movement & other LOS Pre/Post Snap applications make this kind of effort very unreliable when you incorporate defenders during gameplay due to game functions that are out of our control.

Once defenders are on the field, certain phases of under-the-hood gameplay components (LOS Burst, 10yrs Press Interaction phase, defender Shading/Leverage etc) inject impacts that were not there with WR being timed alone/Practice Mode.

[Kevin McKoy]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

LMAO..."don't come at me"? yea like I really "came" at you, give me a break...

, you started this thread for discussion right? when you or your "methods" are questioned you get defensive and claim that your right and everybody else is wrong...okay then

You "lmao" at me and now it's my fault when I react.
Nah, you were mocking me and I called you on it. I don't tolerate disrespect.

[Kramer5150]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

You "lmao" at me and now it's my fault when I react.
Nah, you were mocking me and I called you on it. I don't tolerate disrespect.

Okay, first and foremost I was NOT mocking you, you didn't "call me out" on anything so get over it ...I also don't tolerate disrespect!...if you can't handle folks disagreeing with you and challenging your "test results" and having different views don't create a thread acting like you have the "secret sauce" and proclaiming your "right" and everybody else is wrong!!

[Kevin McKoy]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Okay, first and foremost I was NOT mocking you, you didn't "call me out" on anything so get over it ...I also don't tolerate disrespect!...if you can't handle folks disagreeing with you and challenging your "test results" and having different views don't create a thread acting like you have the "secret sauce" and proclaiming your "right" and everybody else is wrong!!

"Listen, you don't dictate how your actions affect others. I said you mocked me. Doesn't matter what you think, you were being condescending, smug. That's more than just 'challenging results.'

Final word: either step up, contribute something worthwhile, or step off. You're not needed here and you've added zero value. Time for you to reevaluate your approach, or better yet, your whole presence."

[Hooe]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Okay, you two can both stop this bickering now, please and thank you.

[Kramer5150]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Okay, you two can both stop this bickering now, please and thank you.

I have no problem with stopping the back and forth...

What I DO have issue with is being talked down to and disrespected!

Telling me I'm not needed here? what kind of garbage is that?. Last I knew this was a discussion forum,.

"Listen, you don't dictate how your actions affect others. I said you mocked me. Doesn't matter what you think, you were being condescending, smug. That's more than just 'challenging results.'

Final word: either step up, contribute something worthwhile, or step off. You're not needed here and you've added zero value. Time for you to reevaluate your approach, or better yet, your whole presence."

Don't worry I'm done here...

[Hooe]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

I wasn’t extending an invitation to debate, nor was I attempting to enter the argument. Take the personal disagreement to DMs.

Back on topic from here forward or this thread is closed.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

If you run a 4.5 in shorts, no pads, you might lose .2 to .3, so you might run a 4.7 or 4.8 in pads, it's a margin of error in other words. You might run a 4.62, but on the latter end is what .02 to .03 is about.

Thank you for clarifying the precise meaning of that.



Now, where's the data to back that up? Some guys (especially guys who didn't train for 40 times prior to the combine) actually get faster than their combine speed.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Okay seriously....is it your sole purpose to troll me in these threads?

The example I gave was NOT what I witnessed, but what was said during the beta last year...DAMN!!

Just to clarify...HERE is what I said.



Notice I said thats what I READ!! I myself didn't say that...

Well my dude you kind of focused on something I didn't really consider that relevant to my post (Tyreek getting caught). I'm more concerned about the other stuff, regarding how the speeds are mapped to the slider (do they lower the top speed with a higher differential as well as raise the bottom, or just raise the bottom, or do they change all speeds? Etc).


Adembroski was the guy I was referring to who said a higher one was more realistic. I just don't remember precisely what he said they used.



But I think it was you who mentioned he said 95? Either way we know it's higher. And I don't think there's much incentive to rebuilt it, although it may actually change each year in terms of the coefficient which changes how speeds are changed with each adjustment.


EDIT: I suppose new testing will be needed because of whatever adjustment they make to locomotion. But at least everyone here is agreed that at minimum it shouldn't be below 75, and I don't see that changing since the plebeians would prefer a more fast, dynamic game than a realistic one, so the default is likely going to be unrealistic.

[Kanobi]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

95 threshold just feels/looks right. Action looks better, more explosive. Honestly, I feel it's all just a matter of personal preference regardless of real-world accuracy

[canes21]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

95 threshold just feels/looks right. Action looks better, more explosive. Honestly, I feel it's all just a matter of personal preference regardless of real-world accuracy

I agree with this. I'd love for the game to be tuned to where we could get absolutely realistic speeds and in return that meant all other aspects of the game played out authentically, but at the end of the day, that's not what we have.

I like data driven studies with Madden and I'd like to see this looked into more detail, honestly, but I will likely continue to use 95 when 24 comes out if it continues to create the passing windows, pass rush, and run defense that it has for the last few games. It not only looks accurate in my eyes, but gives more authentic gameplay with the tighter defense.

Like I said, though, I'd love to see more people really look into this to see what all can be found out with not only speed, but potentially other attributes as well. The more we find out about the game, the better.

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Anyway, I believe the OP was saying that linemen times aren't realistic at 95 (too fast). But in the grand scheme, even if that's true, I'd rather have linemen too fast and have relative WR and DB speeds more accurate than the other way around.

[MizzouRah]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

95 threshold just feels/looks right. Action looks better, more explosive. Honestly, I feel it's all just a matter of personal preference regardless of real-world accuracy

Totally agree. On 95, the OL actually get down the field and block, the game feels more fluid and responsive to me as well. Combine that with 15 for both CPU and HUM interceptions and I'm seeing some really nice WR/DB interactions.

You can definitely pull away from a slower player on 95 as well.

[Kevin McKoy]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Anyway, I believe the OP was saying that linemen times aren't realistic at 95 (too fast). But in the grand scheme, even if that's true, I'd rather have linemen too fast and have relative WR and DB speeds more accurate than the other way around.

No, not quite what I was saying. Part of the problem is we have been under the assumption that only the lower spd players were incorrect, the assumption was incorrect, as you're about to see.

Mecole Hardman spd 99 https://youtu.be/Z3USBnqPcxk

Mecole Hardman spd 95 https://youtu.be/Z3USBnqPcxkDb7SUhaoOgc

Mecole Hardman spd 93 https://youtu.be/QVPWqco-97M

Now you may decide to still do what you're going to do, but you just saw it with your own eyes. People are essentially using 95 to compensate for this imo. Neither Mecole Hardman or Tyreek Hill have ever run a 40 in 4.20, ever.

Tyreek Hill recently ran a 60m dash in 6.70, which is just a hair under 20 mph, with no pads on, in a runners stance.

People have long said "there is no way an 88 spd corner should get smoked by a 99 spd receiver like that" and they were right. What they didn't know was why they were right. And as of my testing, it's been like that for a while, I got the same 99 spd results going all the way back to 19.

Again if anyone wants to do other testing, the software is at www.kinovea.org and it's completely free. If you need help using it, lemme know, but yeah, people need to know.

[RogueHominid]

Re: No more guesswork: Unveiling new threshold calibration method

Kevin, just to be extra clear: your argument is for 75, correct?