Cfm drafts where almost all players suck?

[Slim4824]

Quote: Originally Posted by cityofchampions

Ha Ha, ok my friend. You must not post or read very many other places except here on operation sports, if you honestly believe that. I already acknowledged that here, on operation sports, I am in the minority, but overall, I'm part of the larger portion of the player base, who doesn't buy into this whole "it needs to be harder to be realistic" thing. You guys could have tweaked the xp sliders, and not auto upgraded, if you wanted to keep your players ratings down. I love it how the other people should have to edit their players and traits to get their players how they want them, but you guys shouldn't have to. Seems to me that there is a bit of a double standard here. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It should be set as realistic as possible. Then people can adjust sliders from that point.

Sent from my SM-N920R7 using Tapatalk

[cityofchampions]

Quote: Originally Posted by Slim4824

It should be set as realistic as possible. Then people can adjust sliders from that point. Sent from my SM-N920R7 using Tapatalk

So again, you should be able to play it out of the box, but people who don't share your play style shouldn't. That is basically what you are saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ForUntoOblivionSoar∞]

Quote: Originally Posted by wellred

Yes, yes it is. Ovr rating is not something that can even be applied to realism, as no such thing actually exists. The merits of this change 'realistically' are entirely subjective and open to debate as the modified draft classes present far more sim gaming issues than it hopes to solve. About the only thing that can be applied here mathematically in this situation are player salaries. And with the modified draft classes we see far less talented players in the league 10 years from now in cfm and as a result mean salaries drop off a cliff. That is not realistic, we know that. What actual data can be presented that the original classes were not realistic? Feelings are not data.

You can easily apply numbers to rank quarterbacks. There might be some doubt as to who is number 1, but no one will doubt that Brady and Rodgers are in a different class than Cutler and Gabbert. You can partition them into groups of five, and assign a number ranking based on each group. You can choose any number system you want. Perhaps 1-5? And maybe within each class you can separate by statistical performance. Maybe that changes your scale 10 to 50? And maybe you don't like those numbers, so you move the minimum to 69? Now you have a scale from to 59-99.

So YES, you can use numbers to rank players. There is a subjective element to it, but it is clear that a player you rate as 99 overall will be better than a player you rate as 60 overall. Since you can use statistics to tie-break between subjective levels, your ranking can be a very good barometer.

And it is ALSO clear you can compare rookie players to veterans using the same scale.

And with that knowledge, you can easily compare long term trends. If you continue to group into these tiers, and notice that all the players in the top tier have much worse statistics than the players in the top tier did 5 years ago (after guys like Rodgers and Brady retire), you can reasonably conclude that the level of quarterback play at the top has dropped. It is there that you can decide that some in the top tier should be dropped to a lower tier, and once again you can use statistics to rank in each tier.


So yeah, you can easily see if there is a downward trend using numerical categories.


ADDED NOTE: Just because it CAN be done doesn't mean EA has done it right. Further, just because Super Stars SHOULD be rare, doesn't mean the end result of EA's attempts to make this so don't screw with something else.

Quote: Originally Posted by cityofchampions

It has to do with the draft classes, because it is a well-known fact that the CPU simply does not develop its players anywhere remotely close to as efficiently as the player does, which means that unlike the player the CPU's roster will be filled with mostly below average players, meaning that the CPU teams will suck. See none of the people who incessantly whined about the draft classes from the moment madden 17 came out, took that into account, in fact the people that were whining the most were the people that simmed several years, and only paid attention to overalls, and not individual ratings. This in my opinion, is one of those times where "realism" of one part a franchise should have taken a backseat, to preserving the "realism" and the balance of the mode overall.

Yes, BUT, if users are better at developing, won't they STILL have that advantage even if draft classes are better?

Quote: Originally Posted by mavfan21

One BIG problem. The players are so lowly rated that the CPU just cuts a 68 OVR 2nd round rookie and keeps a 69 OVR 10 year vet. Very unrealistic and immersion killing. 1-3rd rounders need to be in the 70s on average, then start dropping off in OVR. The league gets really flukey.

THAT is definitely a problem.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by pack4life69

I look up and of course the whiny post comes from cityofchampions More whining out of you the past week then everyone else combined. You're the "small group of people" on this issue. If you believe majority should rule then shut up about it already. Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk

There's always those few who gripe simply for the sake of griping, he's clearly one of them. Ignore.

[howboutdat]

So , our 32 man league did out first draft last night . Here is a break down of how things panned out . Seems like you either draft in rounds 1-2 or you can about count on the player your getting not being too much of a real player.

I say this, because i consider the fact in the stock rosters , there are 1602 players with a 70 or above overall rating. That averages out to be 50 players per team above 70. In Rounds 3-7 the aver overall picked ends up a 68 or less. Yes i know, they are rookies, but my point is, a very large majority end up being lower than 94% of a stock roster in overall. Sure the rookies can improve while the older guys dont. However seems alot will be lucky to ever really see the field much , if any.


The stock roster rookies had 154 players above 68 overall .This class had 102 players above 68 overall total, majority of which where picked in 1st 2.5 rounds, with a guy here and there found at later rounds.Mostly positions not picked alot before that. So to just base it on 1 draft , isnt enough, this class could have just been a " bad class" . Only more drafts will tell.

Draft Recap

[reyes the roof]

Is it normal for guys you scouted to just disappear? I'm at the week before the draft and I'm trying to get organized for who I might want to target and when, and I've noticed a lot of guys have disappeared. When I was scouting there were four kickers available, two that I was interested in and now there is only one kicker on the board. Same type of thing happened with fullbacks

[ajra21]

at the beginning of my second season on this new CFM i'm doing, i found a 34OLB with 76 OVR in the YDFA pool. he'll spend his first two years on the PS.

[howboutdat]

Quote: Originally Posted by ajra21

at the beginning of my second season on this new CFM i'm doing, i found a 34OLB with 76 OVR in the YDFA pool. he'll spend his first two years on the PS.

Are you in offline/solo cfm ?Cant see that happen in an online one with 31 other vultures scouring over the players to just be sitting there.