JoshC1977's M17 Sliders

[RogueHominid]

Just popping in to echo King that the 49 IBB adjustment has been monumental. This is a huge find that's going to add at least two seasons' worth of gaming to M17 for me.

I'm also using the 75 fatigue setting and am not seeing what you're concerned about, Josh. I'm not going to take up too much space in the thread plugging a value that you're not using, but I've vetted 75 fatigue for a bit, and I'm finding a combination of your IBB setting and this fatigue value to be really solid. Just my .02.

But again, excellent find on the IBB @ 49. Game-changer!

[KingV2k3]

Quote: Originally Posted by JoshC1977

I've toyed with the high fatigue as well...but am concerned that it might really result in a much weaker CPU run game (I.e. if they won't be able to break as many tackles).

Small sample, but 2018 Thomas Rawls (SEA) broke 4 in 16 carries and had a couple "beastmode" style romps in the redzone with 75 fatigue...

Dude was more of a handful than I'd seen from him before...

MY concern was that previously, fatigue was disproportionate and the CPU would suffer in the last two or few minutes of each half as a result...

Not now...ran a couple really strong two minute drills and their late half defense held up as well...

Seems like a lot of lost functionality was returned...in various aspects, etc...

[JoshC1977]

TM and King....

Thank you both for your insights, I had not studied this fully as of yet, so I feel much better going into this that it won't just be another "rabbit hole". I'm just hoping that this still holds-up well with a AP/AP/AP setup.

I've been trying to settle on who to use for a CFM (which is my universal issue). Once I settle on a team, I will plug the 75 CFM fatigue as well to see how it goes.

[Hunkerdown]

Falcons CFM year 2:

Falcons vs Cowboys, All time classic.



Xbox GT: Hunkerdown
Twitch: hunkerdownuga
Sports Franchises:
Madden - Falcons
FIFA- Everton
NHL - Lightening
NBA 2K - Hawks

[Sm27]

Quote: Originally Posted by JoshC1977

TM and King.... Thank you both for your insights, I had not studied this fully as of yet, so I feel much better going into this that it won't just be another "rabbit hole". I'm just hoping that this still holds-up well with a AP/AP/AP setup. I've been trying to settle on who to use for a CFM (which is my universal issue). Once I settle on a team, I will plug the 75 CFM fatigue as well to see how it goes.

Hey Josh,
You have done a wonderfully thorough job on all of this.
I have been in the "Madden K-hole" for the last three days...
I have some very good news.

I have been running with everything you have displayed on the OP with a couple of minor "fine tuning tweaks".

Set everything up the way you have been in the OP.
Here are the tweaks that finally bring it all home.

MM vs CFM Injury Slider:

Since you start with INJ at "1" in the MM, make that "41" in the CFM instead of 50.
Why?
2 reasons...
If "10" is the default in the MM, and "50" is the default in CFM, then that is a span of 40 basis points.

SO...
a setting of "1" in the MM translates to "41" in CFM.

Let me tell you..the difference in gameplay, organic interaction, and REALISTIC injuries by moving this from 50 to 41 is just simply stunning with this one tweek. It takes all of the "stickiness" out of the line play interactions, and all of the kinetic interaction between player animations is opened up so the way that the bodies "bounce" of of each other and the turf, and the way hits are either absorbed or slipped is suddenly opened up....THIS is the tweek that truly puts the finishing touch on kinetic balance. The illustration of weight and gravity is resolved. Finally everything displays realistically. There are NO adverse related affects to anything else.
Don't worry, Injuries still occur. I lost Stafford in the 3rd Qtr of 2018 week 16 against the Vikings, insuring that I would not make the playoffs.

As far as the Fatigue setting goes...
I applied BASICALLY the same MM vs CFM basis points logic to this slider as I did the Injury Slider.
In the MM we set it at "1".
BUT...
That doesn't mean we need to "add back in" the 49 points we subtracted from default in the MM...If we did that we would be using a "99" fatigue setting in CFM.
Believe me, I tried that...it was nuts! DB's just kinda give up on covering anybody deep...they get REALLY TIRED!..hahahah
What I have been doing is SUBTRACTING the "1" in MM to get to a default number in CFM.

So..
CFM Default is "49" :
1 (MM) + 49 (CFM) = 50
So if you wanted to futz with this slider, I suggest you start @ 49 in CFM and then go up in multiples of ten from that. IMHO to stay "balanced" this number, whatever it is, needs to end in "9" so that when the MM "1" is added to it, you end up with a sum that is a multiple of 10.
Since I am running 14 min / 20 sec QTRS, I am having great results @ "69" Fatigue setting in CFM.

Don't worry, you can confidently just plug these in to your existing CFM as long as your settings for these 2 sliders are still "1" in MM.
The difference is simply stunning.
Cheers!

[Arlingtonwil]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sm27

Hey Josh, You have done a wonderfully thorough job on all of this. I have been in the "Madden K-hole" for the last three days... I have some very good news. I have been running with everything you have displayed on the OP with a couple of minor "fine tuning tweaks". Set everything up the way you have been in the OP. Here are the tweaks that finally bring it all home. MM vs CFM Injury Slider: Since you start with INJ at "1" in the MM, make that "41" in the CFM instead of 50. Why? 2 reasons... If "10" is the default in the MM, and "50" is the default in CFM, then that is a span of 40 basis points. SO... a setting of "1" in the MM translates to "41" in CFM. Let me tell you..the difference in gameplay, organic interaction, and REALISTIC injuries by moving this from 50 to 41 is just simply stunning with this one tweek. It takes all of the "stickiness" out of the line play interactions, and all of the kinetic interaction between player animations is opened up so the way that the bodies "bounce" of of each other and the turf, and the way hits are either absorbed or slipped is suddenly opened up....THIS is the tweek that truly puts the finishing touch on kinetic balance. The illustration of weight and gravity is resolved. Finally everything displays realistically. There are NO adverse related affects to anything else. Don't worry, Injuries still occur. I lost Stafford in the 3rd Qtr of 2018 week 16 against the Vikings, insuring that I would not make the playoffs. As far as the Fatigue setting goes... I applied BASICALLY the same MM vs CFM basis points logic to this slider as I did the Injury Slider. In the MM we set it at "1". BUT... That doesn't mean we need to "add back in" the 49 points we subtracted from default in the MM...If we did that we would be using a "99" fatigue setting in CFM. Believe me, I tried that...it was nuts! DB's just kinda give up on covering anybody deep...they get REALLY TIRED!..hahahah What I have been doing is SUBTRACTING the "1" in MM to get to a default number in CFM. So.. CFM Default is "49" : 1 (MM) + 49 (CFM) = 50 So if you wanted to futz with this slider, I suggest you start @ 49 in CFM and then go up in multiples of ten from that. IMHO to stay "balanced" this number, whatever it is, needs to end in "9" so that when the MM "1" is added to it, you end up with a sum that is a multiple of 10. Since I am running 14 min / 20 sec QTRS, I am having great results @ "69" Fatigue setting in CFM. Don't worry, you can confidently just plug these in to your existing CFM as long as your settings for these 2 sliders are still "1" in MM. The difference is simply stunning. Cheers!

Seems kinda legit when you think of it like just for the simple fact he changed IBIB 49 and that open up everything for him to where it seems people across the board saw instant improvement so theory wise 49 seems viable and might work I know a few post back some mention put all MM TO 1 as on turn them on then applying 49 to the CFM should be golden

Sent from my XT1635-02 using Operation Sports mobile app

[packmanuk]

Where do you set autoprogression ?

Quote: Originally Posted by JoshC1977

I've personally just set everything to auto progression....allowing my players to progress in exactly the same manner as the CPU.

[JoshC1977]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sm27

Hey Josh, You have done a wonderfully thorough job on all of this. I have been in the "Madden K-hole" for the last three days... I have some very good news. I have been running with everything you have displayed on the OP with a couple of minor "fine tuning tweaks". Set everything up the way you have been in the OP. Here are the tweaks that finally bring it all home. MM vs CFM Injury Slider: Since you start with INJ at "1" in the MM, make that "41" in the CFM instead of 50. Why? 2 reasons... If "10" is the default in the MM, and "50" is the default in CFM, then that is a span of 40 basis points. SO... a setting of "1" in the MM translates to "41" in CFM. Let me tell you..the difference in gameplay, organic interaction, and REALISTIC injuries by moving this from 50 to 41 is just simply stunning with this one tweek. It takes all of the "stickiness" out of the line play interactions, and all of the kinetic interaction between player animations is opened up so the way that the bodies "bounce" of of each other and the turf, and the way hits are either absorbed or slipped is suddenly opened up....THIS is the tweek that truly puts the finishing touch on kinetic balance. The illustration of weight and gravity is resolved. Finally everything displays realistically. There are NO adverse related affects to anything else. Don't worry, Injuries still occur. I lost Stafford in the 3rd Qtr of 2018 week 16 against the Vikings, insuring that I would not make the playoffs. As far as the Fatigue setting goes... I applied BASICALLY the same MM vs CFM basis points logic to this slider as I did the Injury Slider. In the MM we set it at "1". BUT... That doesn't mean we need to "add back in" the 49 points we subtracted from default in the MM...If we did that we would be using a "99" fatigue setting in CFM. Believe me, I tried that...it was nuts! DB's just kinda give up on covering anybody deep...they get REALLY TIRED!..hahahah What I have been doing is SUBTRACTING the "1" in MM to get to a default number in CFM. So.. CFM Default is "49" : 1 (MM) + 49 (CFM) = 50 So if you wanted to futz with this slider, I suggest you start @ 49 in CFM and then go up in multiples of ten from that. IMHO to stay "balanced" this number, whatever it is, needs to end in "9" so that when the MM "1" is added to it, you end up with a sum that is a multiple of 10. Since I am running 14 min / 20 sec QTRS, I am having great results @ "69" Fatigue setting in CFM. Don't worry, you can confidently just plug these in to your existing CFM as long as your settings for these 2 sliders are still "1" in MM. The difference is simply stunning. Cheers!

Interesting theory....

I'd love to see some gameplay vids of this in action. "Great gameplay" is pretty subjective....and frankly, I could make this sort of argument for just about any value. Like, I could argue for "39" for the MM injury slider (to go along with your "1+XX=multiple of 10" theory for fatigue and then use 59 for CFM fatigue)? And then if you add 39 + 59 + 1 + 1 = 100...voila.

I'm not making light of what you're proposing, not by a mile. KingV2k3 will tell you that I'm quite receptive to "Madden Math"...but, you're assigning two sets of rationales to the two settings and frankly, I am really struggling with your rationale on the injury slider (the fatigue explanation makes way more sense).

Truth be told...it could be just as simple as setting both to 49 (or maybe fatigue to a higher value ending in "9" - like 59). I'm not confident that we should treat the MM injury slider as "10" when it never has been in the past. Have you tried 49 for CFM injury? We know how much of a difference that 1 point made for IBB, I'm very much in favor of small changes with this gameplay engine.

Now, if you tell me that you saw a "break point" with 41 CFM injury, then I can see that....but I'd like to understand if some of these more intermediate values have been appropriately vetted as well.

Let us know.