Totally fine, that's how I have done it too, but I've also modified from the CFM.
|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by SilverBullet19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game 2 on V10.5.
Cowboys (84 ovr) @ Texans (79 ovr). All-pro settings.
Final: Cowboys 31-6
I'd like to point out that although I am now 5-0 in my CFM, I am yet to play a team rated equal to or better than mine. Everyone has been 81 or below. Once again, I'm big on a realistic stat line. I again made the extra effort to be diverse not only offensively, but on defense too. I think this has actually opened up my passing game more than before. I am heavily considering switching to All-Madden, although my track record there is awful lol.
Team Stats
Texans:
Total Offense: 320 yards (114 rushing, 206 passing)
3rd downs: 2/12 (16%)
Turnovers: 0
penalties: 7/35 (all false start/offside)
Cowboys (User):
Total Offense: 365 yards (145 rushing, 220 passing)
3rd downs: 8/14 (57%)
Turnovers: 1 (interception)
penalties: 4/20 (3 false start, 1 offside)
player stats
passing:
Watson (CPU): 19/32 (59%), 237 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT, 4 sacks
Prescott (User): 21/31 (67%), 237 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 2 sacks
rushing:
Elliott (User): 19 carries, 130 yards (6.8 avg), 3 TD's
Scarbrough (User): 6 carries, 5 yards (0.8 avg)
Foreman (CPU): 12 carries, 49 yards (4.0 avg)
Blue (CPU): 8 carries, 57 yards (7.1 avg)
The good
Once again, running is spot on. Elliott had a high average only because of a 50 yard run due to a perfect setup situation on the play. 8 broken tackles total for him. I could not run toward JJ Watt lol. He plugged the hole big time. Scarbrough was plugged up every run.
Foreman was all power against me, Blue was speed. I did not see pointless or erratic juke moves by the CPU. They danced a bit behind the line, but if the hole was there, man he was on it!
CPU passing was good. Watson shredded my secondary in man-to-man. He also took off a few times on the run, even juking guys behind the line. I was surprised by that one. There were not erratic throw away passes, which should be noted since we are playing with intentional grounding OFF. It has not caused the CPU to dump the ball out as a crutch.
My passing, I enjoyed too. Dak actually missed some passes. He missed some on the run and missed some deep passes with overthrows. Worth noting, the CPU pass rush was not overbearing on play action. If it looked like a blitz, I would audible out. My one pick was because I was hit as I threw, causing it to be underthrown by about 15 yards. I had to spread the ball a decent amount to move, I had multiple completions to 5 different receivers.
The Bad
Still penalties. This game saw a combined 11. The NFL average for penalties per game hovers in the range of 12-13 total, so in terms of that, it's fairly close. For offsides and false start, however, the highest average from 2017 was still less than 1 per game. I'm yet to see any other call.
CPU FG, I may bump up power. Houston missed 3 field goals, all from the low 50 yard range. They all bounced off the crossbar or came up short. Most NFL kickers will hit 50+ in power, just not accuracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the great feedback.
Yes, penalties, I want so much more of. Logic says higher penalty value = more times it occurs, but this only seems to pertain to those presnap penalties and holding.
The 3rd down conversion percentage is troublesome in general with this game. I've said it before, but it seems like the CPU is scared of the first down line at times. 3rd and inches is all too common. It's not even their playcalling, which is a relief, but more so just the animations that play out. Wish there was a bit more extension in the play by the ball carrier, whether it be a receiver or back. I'm looking into this though as there has to be something within the animations to establish this consistently.
Yeah, the traits are a good option. I am just not sure on the triggers of a CPU v CPU game to be honest. The running theory that I've posted is that the User RBL affects the CPU directness. If it's CPU v CPU, the User values don't come into play (at least that is the assumption), so therefore the theory of directness shouldn't apply.