MyCareer cpu score distribution help

[mudtiger]

This is my first 2k golf game. I played a lot of EA PGA the past 2 years. I'm really enjoying this game other than one thing in career mode. The distribution of scores in mycareer is not great. I completed qschool and now am more than half way through my first pga season on pro.

The slider for cpu scores works well but the distribution of scores is poor. I believe I have cpu sim around 83-85. The event/tournament deviations are default. I generally see 1 to 3 people competing with good scores and then the rest of the field drops off quite a bit. I play all 4 rounds of every tourney. I'm fine with this distribution here and there but not every tournament.

For example, say the top CPU player will have a -12 after 4 rounds and the next cpu player will be at -10 and the next at -9. From there everyone drops off more and more. The next couple will be at -4, then the next group at -1 and then a few around even and then the rest are shooting above par. This also makes cuts too easy.

Simply raising the cpu skill sends the leader to -30 territory and helps more players to be under par but I'd rather see poor score distribution than constant -30s.

Has anyone had any luck tweaking the cpu skill, event skill difference or round skill difference to control this and get a realistic range of scores for the event? I'm not sure if raising or lowering these dramatically would help. I could see lowering them causing the cpu to shoot more consistently to their skill which could even out the field........or raising it to get more fluctuation could even it out by allowing lower ranked players a chance at scoring better?

I wouldn't think altering cpu attendance would not help.

Anybody have any ideas on this?

I suppose I'll start altering these sliders to their extremes and see if anything changes per event and document the results.

[Dawgfan1]

There's no setting around general field parity to address the bad leaderboards, only round-to-round and event-to-event deviations for individual golfers (not sure how effective these are, either). I've been using the maximum skill deviation settings in my 2-round events and it hasn't done much to the scores themselves, although it may be helping limit Xander Schauffele from winning 8 events a year lol.

The CPU leaderboards on the PGA are just bugged with no great workaround, the devs know about the issue but atm there's not much we can do but wait for a potential fix. The best remedy is to do 2-round events for now, I've done around 15 of them and the score disparities are still too much but much less annoying and I've only seen a victory margin of 6-7 shots at most. There's also a 1-round cut so you're not missing out on that.

[mudtiger]

I started my career over. Played the first tournament with

CPU 85
Event deviation 55
Round deviation 15
Attendance 90

Results were not improved. Gaps were still large between players.

2nd tournament, I just finished the 2nd round with what I'm looking for. All I did was change the round skill deviation to 5.

I'm at -13, then the scores below me are -7, -7, -7, -7, -6, -6, -4, -4. There are another 5+ players all below par. Much too early to draw any conclusions but definitely what I was looking for. Hopefully this holds but I could see this also being coincidence.

This might even be too close where I would bump up to 6 or 7 depending on how the next 4 or 5 tournaments go.

[mudtiger]

Finished the tournament with a win with some much better looking scores overall from the cpu vs the first tournament.

Final results
-24 me
-16
-15
-13
-11
-10
-10
-9
-9
-8

Plus a bunch more after that below par. Seems like progress. I'll keep playing with the 5% round deviation to see how this holds up over another 3-5 events.

Probably will bump up the cpu skill to 86% as that 2nd tournament course is very scorable. CPU should have played better.

[Dawgfan1]

I did a little bit of testing today to see if the CPU scores varied based on course conditions, and they definitely do. I did notice that on easier course conditions the dispersion of scores throughout the field seemed to be less severe, that might be worth testing to see how things end up.