Flawed QB AWR progression

[haloofduty]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Here's the AWR rating of every QB in my 2035 CFM, which I've kept around. Every default roster QB is out of the league at this point, so the ratings are at the mercy of the draft classes and CPU progression / regression routines. Progression setting is at "Every Four Weeks", btw. count (default roster): 119 μ (default roster): 65.3 σ (default roster): 14.5 99 99 97 95 95 92 90 89 88 87 87 86 86 85 84 83 82 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 76 76 76 75 75 74 74 74 73 73 73 73 72 71 71 71 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 69 69 69 69 68 67 67 67 66 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64 63 62 62 60 60 60 57 57 56 55 55 55 55 54 54 54 54 54 53 53 52 52 52 52 52 51 51 50 50 50 50 49 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 46 46 45 45 44 42 41 41 40 37 count (20 years): 93 μ (20 years): 63.5 σ (20 years): 16.4 99 99 95 93 93 92 92 88 87 86 85 84 82 82 81 80 78 78 76 76 76 74 74 74 73 73 72 72 72 71 71 71 71 70 70 70 69 69 68 68 68 68 67 66 66 66 66 65 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 61 59 58 58 57 52 51 51 50 49 49 49 49 48 47 47 47 47 45 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 44 43 43 43 41 41 41 40 40 39 38 38 Given twenty seasons for the game to screw things up, I don't see nearly enough here to call anything "flawed" in how the CPU progresses their QBs' AWR rating.

Was this online or offline? I had horrendous results offline. No QB was a 90 in year 12. Maybe online is better.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by haloofduty

Was this online or offline? I had horrendous results offline. No QB was a 90 in year 12. Maybe online is better.

Online CFM, yeah.

I can't imagine what 20 years of sim times would be for an offline CFM, lol.

[Robo COP]

but why would there be any sort of difference between offline and online when it comes to CPU controlled teams spending their xp?

[haloofduty]

Quote: Originally Posted by Robo COP

but why would there be any sort of difference between offline and online when it comes to CPU controlled teams spending their xp?

I have no idea. I'm simming right now. I'm in 2020. I'm going to sim to 2025 and check ratings. I'm doing weekly progression offline. I will check online progression later.

[althor]

My issue had nothing to do with computer controlled teams.

I simmed a season with progression turned OFF so the computer did not use any of my points. After a 2-13-1 season Mariotta dropped like 8 overall points. Which I thought was ridiculous, no matter how bad the season. Started looking and saw his awareness had dropped to FOUR.

There should be a minimum at the very least. How can you be a NFL player and have awareness less than 50 or so?

[SwampFox]

Quote: Originally Posted by Robo COP

but why would there be any sort of difference between offline and online when it comes to CPU controlled teams spending their xp?

Because the dev team can hotfix online so a lot of the issues last year people had in CFM they fixed online but never did for offline.

[ajk49er]

has anyone checked the goals? this is what is holding back CB's, they have an INT goal, and are having pass deflections counted instead....my guess is that's not the only position group with team goal issues.


I am in year 4 of my CFM, and there are 4 qb's over an 80 overall(chiefs). "flawed" is more like "broken". It drives me nuts to watch the CPU get good production from a QB, and that QB loses points in overall. it ruins the entire concept. watch the Carr's and Mariotta's...they will all be as useful as Matt Barkley in a couple seasons. Austin Davis started and got 3500 yards 24-8 TD/INT and went from a 76 to a 73. how?

[Mattanite]

I tested the different forms of CPU progression over 10 seasons and recorded the change in AWR for a set of QB's every off-season in online CFM.

I turned off injuries, coach firing, pre-existing injuries, trades, relocating etc in order to limit the number of changes happening around the QBs, so they stay as long as possible in the same scheme with similar players around them and play a full 16 games per season. I did not track stats so there will be variations along the 10 seasons as players had good and bad games and seasons etc.

I tested 2 superstar, 2 quick and 2 normal dev quarterbacks in order to check the difference between that and the progression styles. The idea is not to compare the different players, but compare the same player between progression styles.

See the pdf attachment.

Conclusion - Progression style looks to play a significant role in determining QB AWR progression. The weekly progression seems to put more points into AWR as the logic uses the points more regularly for cheaper AWR. Inversely, once per off-season progression means points are used less on cheaper AWR and therefore doesn't make up for the AWR regression in season from bad playing.

It should be noted that when it was weekly, the teams resigned their own quarterbacks more consistently as they had higher OVR from higher AWR. The dev of a player affects the AWR progression and regression. Superstar plays seemed a lot less affected than normal players. The normal players were hit harder, possibly also attributed to the lower XP in this years game. Also, backup QB's and FA's did not regress as bad as starters due to having lower goals and no "bad game/season" regression, therefore some of the quarterbacks tested did not regress as far as they could have once they became backups.

Also, in year 10, the general ranges of QB AWR across the league apart from the elite AWR players seemed as follows. This is just quick observation and I'm not putting too much emphasis on this.

• Weekly - 60-80

• Every 4 weeks - 50-70

• In the offseason - 30-70

Based on this information I would recommend using weekly progression

In other news, I thought I'd possibly found a workaround for the LT regression as Greg Robinson (the usual LT regression culprit) had 90 PBK in the weekly and 63 in the 4 week progressions. I thought i was onto something but then the "offseason progression" Robinson had 97 PBK. See image below for my initial excitement... ha... almost... might be worth a try looking at but not as promising as i thought.

http://www.operationsports.com/Geodu...dden-16/42228/

p.s. if anyone knows how to embed the pdf as an image within a comment instead of just an attachment I'd be grateful.