CFM Rated Roster (XB1)

[Rollo]

Quote: Originally Posted by mpd3892

tdawg3782, Have you played around any with lower XP settings? I did some quick tests just to see how things might play out. I went 0, 10, 20 & 30 XP setting for all positions. I've kinda settled on 20 as it provided enough XP without any players being able to get a crazy amount by seasons end. I had it set to end of season and when I checked what the CPU upgraded, it was mostly what you would expect and want. For the most part players received 1 to 2 point increases to mainly AWR and PRC. Some received 1 to 2 point increases to positional specific ratings (i.e. FMV for a pass rusher). I like the idea of younger players getting some level of increase as they become more experienced. Any thoughts here?

I was thinking of doing 10% myself (or 10% of Tdawg's final xp slider set), and maybe combine it with the confidence boosts.

I kind of like the idea of manually regressing on confidence as well. I know regression will happen when the players get older, but real avg career length being 4 years (give or take), players don't typically reach those later years.

[RogueHominid]

Really great ideas here about rethinking the role of XP in CFM!

I agree that Madden's current XP system allows you to progress players far too quickly, and I really like Khalib's analysis of how important fringe players become to the roster when you eliminate the artificial XP boosts.

I like the idea of making the confidence boosts into "hard" boosts to relevant attributes in the areas affected by confidence. Tdawg, you mentioned upping the relevant INT values--is that an abbreviation for intangibles, or something else?

How do folks feel about AWR and PRC boosts for 1st and 2nd year players, perhaps weighting those boosts a bit to account for snaps played and performance?

[tdawg3782]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trojan Man

Really great ideas here about rethinking the role of XP in CFM! I agree that Madden's current XP system allows you to progress players far too quickly, and I really like Khalib's analysis of how important fringe players become to the roster when you eliminate the artificial XP boosts. I like the idea of making the confidence boosts into "hard" boosts to relevant attributes in the areas affected by confidence. Tdawg, you mentioned upping the relevant INT values--is that an abbreviation for intangibles, or something else? How do folks feel about AWR and PRC boosts for 1st and 2nd year players, perhaps weighting those boosts a bit to account for snaps played and performance?

Yep. I meant intangibles. I've never been a believer in upping physical ratings. I feel that's not a teachable thing. But the rest can be improved.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by tdawg3782

Yep. I meant intangibles. I've never been a believe in upping physical ratings. I feel that's not a teachable thing. But the rest can be improved.

Cool.

I'm assuming you are interpreting physical ratings as SPD/ACC/AGI/JMP, etc., and that intangible ratings would include everything from AWR/PRC to MCV/ZCV, PUR, etc.

Does that sound right, or are you thinking of it differently?

[tdawg3782]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trojan Man

Cool. I'm assuming you are interpreting physical ratings as SPD/ACC/AGI/JMP, etc., and that intangible ratings would include everything from AWR/PRC to MCV/ZCV, PUR, etc. Does that sound right, or are you thinking of it differently?

Yep pretty much. I've always interpreted PHY/INT as this:

PHY
STR
AGI
SPD
ACC
JMP
THP
KPW

INT
AWR
CTH
CAR
PBK
RBK
BCV
SFA
SPM
JKM
IBK
SPC
CIT
RTE
RLS
TAS
TAM
TAD
TOR
PAC
KAC
TAK
PMV
FMV
BSH
PUR
PRC
MCV
ZCV
PRS

Attributes that could go either way IMO
TRK
ELU
POW

The way I break it down is if it can be coached or not. I don't feel any of the attributes under the PHY group can be taught. All the attributes under the INT group can be taught IMO. The last group can go either way but I'm inclined to lean more towards the PHY group for those three. Can you really teach a guy to truck better, be more elusive, or hit harder? But again it's really user preference. Anyways that's how I look at it.

[NFCastle]

Just making sure I understand the concept here...including some of the ideas from the conversation that has occurred.

*Could start with Khaliib's edited roster
*Use 0 XP (or possibly something low like 20 to limit progression)
*When incoming draft classes come in, edit THP down for QBs to match the scale of the edits
*User decision about hard edits for conf boost ratings at season end

Is that basically the gist? Or am I missing any time-consuming edits that would need to be made with each draft class? (Like editing all coverage ratings,etc)

I'm really intrigued by the idea, but I am worried about the prospect of needing to spend hours upon hours of time editing the roster each season for draft classes/forced progression.

[tdawg3782]

Quote: Originally Posted by NFCastle

Just making sure I understand the concept here...including some of the ideas from the conversation that has occurred. *Could start with Khaliib's edited roster *Use 0 XP (or possibly something low like 20 to limit progression) *When incoming draft classes come in, edit THP down for QBs to match the scale of the edits *User decision about hard edits for conf boost ratings at season end Is that basically the gist? Or am I missing any time-consuming edits that would need to be made with each draft class? (Like editing all coverage ratings,etc) I'm really intrigued by the idea, but I am worried about the prospect of needing to spend hours upon hours of time editing the roster each season for draft classes/forced progression.

This is basically what I'm gonna roll with. With kaliib's edited roster it will mesh very well with with incoming rookies as far as OVRs go. He does have a few attributes that are off from the generated draft classes (QBs have very high AWR) but I don't think it will cause much trouble in the grand scheme of things. To edit the stuff back would take quite a bit of time. I've debated on making the changes myself (and may still do it) but as said it should be okay. And yes the only rating that I believe needs to be edited each year for incoming rookies is QB THP on the 70-85 scale. All others should be good to go.

[RogueHominid]

Quote: Originally Posted by tdawg3782

Yep pretty much. I've always interpreted PHY/INT as this: PHY STR AGI SPD ACC JMP THP KPW INT AWR CTH CAR PBK RBK BCV SFA SPM JKM IBK SPC CIT RTE RLS TAS TAM TAD TOR PAC KAC TAK PMV FMV BSH PUR PRC MCV ZCV PRS Attributes that could go either way IMO TRK ELU POW The way I break it down is if it can be coached or not. I don't feel any of the attributes under the PHY group can be taught. All the attributes under the INT group can be taught IMO. The last group can go either way but I'm inclined to lean more towards the PHY group for those three. Can you really teach a guy to truck better, be more elusive, or hit harder? But again it's really user preference. Anyways that's how I look at it.

Love it, man.

You should write a Madden franchise bible. You've got a really well-conceived, systematic approach to this stuff.