Coaching Schemes/Priority Affects Player Ratings!!

[eastcoast49ers]

Changing schemes just changes what attributes are more heavily weighted when calculating the OVR rating. It doesn't magically make that person better.

[D81SKINS]

Quote: Originally Posted by sebennayx

The thing is, it doesn't change ratings - it changes the OVR which is simply a calculated number determined by weighing specific ratings at a variable factor depending on scheme. OVR is not a rating in-and-of itself. If changing the scheme meant it changed ratings like BKS, PUR, THP, etc. then I'd buy it because those are the ratings which are actually going into the "dice-rolls"...OVR is merely visual (as well as determining depth chart - unrelated to performance on the field). Again, until I see empirical evidence, I'm not buying it. If I'm not mistaken, the CPU uses the same "gameplan" put together for the playbook of that coach. Changing the coaches scheme doesn't change the playbook or re-rate more 5-star runs on 1st down. Personally, I'm the type of person that would have to see similar results spread repeatedly and consistently through a large sample size; like 10 games each scheme. If, over the course of the same game (say - NYG v WAS) played 10 times repeatedly as a West Coast QB scheme - the QB regularly averages ~65% with ~6.5 YPA... ...Then after another 10 games (again using NYG v WAS each game) the same team/player under a Strong Arm QB scheme - with the QB regularly averaging ~55% with ~8.0 YPA... ...then I'd probably be all aboard. Again, I'm definitely willing to give it a shot to test it out too, I'm just skeptical. Do you happen to have a video showing what you're seeing? That would certainly help other people to see it too!

I don't have a video yet, I can see how the coaching suggestions/playcalling changes for my team depending on how the CPU's offensive scheme is set. I will test it some more and get a video. If it's changing how it determines my coaching suggestions, I'm assuming it's changing their playcalling.

Like I said, more testing is needed and not just a bunch of guys shooting it down before testing it.
Coaching Schemes has changed the gameplay/playcalling in the past.
Another thing that can affect playcalling is the pass/run aggression slider, I've only been able to set that up when creating coaches so far.
In past Maddens, I think it was M13, you could change the real coaches pass/run aggression slider(offense and defense). It changed how the playcalling went back then.
This is big for me, b/c like I said I'm playing the cpu and using coaching suggestions, similar to coach mode except I still control the ball carrier and switch on.

[Mike Lowe]

I'm in the camp that feels this is a lot of placebo, but a good test would be to play against Russell Wilson, create Pete Carroll, and ensure Wilson is set to mobile scheme. If he scrambles during the game, it may hold water.

[D81SKINS]

Quote: Originally Posted by eastcoast49ers

Changing schemes just changes what attributes are more heavily weighted when calculating the OVR rating. It doesn't magically make that person better.

It's not the scheme that I see changing the player's rating though, it's the individual position priority that is affecting the ratings(ie. HB one cut, balanced etc).
Now the actual coaching scheme does seem to affect how and what plays are called(ie. Power run, spread, etc)
More testing is needed but when I see a player go from a 76 ovr to an 80 and all I did was match his strengths(same as its listed in the upgrade/progression screen. Balanced, ball hawk, etc) to the priority setting, that's big!
I know the naysayers will say the overall doesn't matter, but when I'm playing the cpu, and they are doing more w/ that HB, FS, SS, or whatever player/position it is, i will beg to differ.
You say overall going up doesn't matter, I'd say how can you prove that?

In my 32 team CFM I'm playing each game on the schedule and posting those stats and differences after changing coaching schemes in the slider forum here: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...m-control.html

[D81SKINS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

I'm in the camp that feels this is a lot of placebo, but a good test would be to play against Russell Wilson, create Pete Carroll, and ensure Wilson is set to mobile scheme. If he scrambles during the game, it may hold water.

That's a good idea but guys will just say it's his qb traits.
I started testing this b/c I wanted to see cpu HBs run more like themselves b/c I was holding them to 82yds per gm(default all-pro).

For ex. I put all the Olineman as run blocker and the priority for the HB to match his trait(one cut, balanced) and changed the scheme to power run, and the cpu so far the cpu has ran the ball better. Out of 4 games since changing the scheme, the cpu has avg over 120 per gm in 3 out 4.

I have pics of those games and stats in my slider thread.
It's easy for guys to say "Placebo", prove it.
I'm not in here to prove anything, I can go on to enjoy my CFM and no more slider changes, and be happy.
Now, with that being said,
I'm still looking into what kind of video would help show the difference. I'm not so sure the Wilson experiment would prove it, unless guys are just absolutely not seeing Russell scramble at all.

If you or anyone else is saying placebo, I'd have to ask how anyone can prove that? Worst case scenario is this helps improve the cpu ai.

[James0]

When you are doing an offline cfm and you change the schemes it doesn't save your changes anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheDominator273]

Quote: Originally Posted by D81SKINS

It's not the scheme that I see changing the player's rating though, it's the individual position priority that is affecting the ratings(ie. HB one cut, balanced etc). Now the actual coaching scheme does seem to affect how and what plays are called(ie. Power run, spread, etc) More testing is needed but when I see a player go from a 76 ovr to an 80 and all I did was match his strengths(same as its listed in the upgrade/progression screen. Balanced, ball hawk, etc) to the priority setting, that's big! I know the naysayers will say the overall doesn't matter, but when I'm playing the cpu, and they are doing more w/ that HB, FS, SS, or whatever player/position it is, i will beg to differ. You say overall going up doesn't matter, I'd say how can you prove that? In my 32 team CFM I'm playing each game on the schedule and posting those stats and differences after changing coaching schemes in the slider forum here: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...m-control.html

Look at all the position relevant attributes. Go change the scheme type for that position and go back and look at the same attributes. They do not change. The overall calculation is weighted towards certain attributes depending on what the player scheme type is set to. That's why the overall changes, not any attributes changjng.

[sebennayx]

I'm going to test out playing as the Falcons vs the Eagles. Chip Kelly defaults his QB preference to Mobile, while Sam Bradford is a Pocket Passer. This presents a solid situation with 2 completely separate ends of the spectrum of QB play.

My goal is to play using the following scenarios:
QB Scheme = Mobile, Offense = Spread ... both are Chip Kelly's default, should see some Mobile QB play with Read Option, QB draw, Bootlegs, and other unplanned Scrambling - all through 4 & 5 wide sets.
QB Scheme = Pocket Passer, Offense = Spread ... should see less (if any) QB running in 4 & 5 wide sets.
QB Scheme = Mobile, Offense = Power Run ... should see many more rushing attempts in general - including from the QB; should be mostly via 12, 21, and 22 personnel.
QB Scheme = Pocket Passer, Offense = Power Run ... should see few (if any) rushes from the QB in 12, 21, and 22 personnel.

I'm going to try to keep track of;
- Personnel/Formations
- Play Call
- End results

This may take a while, I don't play very often - so if anyone else is willing and able to do the same tests, it would only help to confirm/rebut the theory.

Ideally, this would be done with multiple games per set-up, via multiple people...but I realize this may not be feasible. I'll give it a go now and start tracking some results.