Keeping it challenging and interesting

[greed8819]

I play offline CCM using Jarodds black slider set and have set up rules to keep the game a little more fun and difficult to play. I use the most recent roster for the team, I sign no FA's, I don't allow player release that will result in cap penalties for my team, no player trades for my team, and no draft pick trades with the CPU, I let the CPU controlled teams do as they will. This forces me to develop players and test my abilities more.... It's way to easy to "stack" a team through Free Agency or trading player/picks with the CPU. Anyone kinda do the same or have house rules they play by?

[ajb3313]

My biggest house rules deal with trade logic. With any trade I make, the first thing I make sure of is that the player I'm giving away will be a viable starter for his new team. I won't trade a decent young quarterback to the Redskins, where he'll waste away as RG3's back-up, or a tight end to the Patriots just to sit behind Gronkowski and Hernandez. If I can't rationalize the trade in my mind for the opposing team, I don't make it.

And my other rule, which I had to come up with this year, is limiting myself to one in-draft trade per year. The biggest problem I found is that it's way too easy to trade back and get extra picks. I took over a bad team in one of my online CCMs and was able to move back two spots in the first round and in the process get an additional second- and first-round pick. The team that traded with me (Detroit) drafted a safety who immediately went behind Louis Delmas on their depth chart. So not only did I get a bounty in return, but the AI of the other team effectively gave away two premium picks to move up two slots and take a back-up.

In that same draft, I traded back on more than half my picks (this is a CCM with other players who were doing the same thing, so I was mostly just doing it to keep pace; we've since installed a rule to prevent it from happening again). But that was a wake up call for my online draft. Certainly there are teams like the Patriots who relentlessly wheel and deal. But I felt like it was far too easy and the value I was getting back for small moves were way too rich.

[greed8819]

Quote: Originally Posted by ajb3313

My biggest house rules deal with trade logic. With any trade I make, the first thing I make sure of is that the player I'm giving away will be a viable starter for his new team. I won't trade a decent young quarterback to the Redskins, where he'll waste away as RG3's back-up, or a tight end to the Patriots just to sit behind Gronkowski and Hernandez. If I can't rationalize the trade in my mind for the opposing team, I don't make it. And my other rule, which I had to come up with this year, is limiting myself to one in-draft trade per year. The biggest problem I found is that it's way too easy to trade back and get extra picks. I took over a bad team in one of my online CCMs and was able to move back two spots in the first round and in the process get an additional second- and first-round pick. The team that traded with me (Detroit) drafted a safety who immediately went behind Louis Delmas on their depth chart. So not only did I get a bounty in return, but the AI of the other team effectively gave away two premium picks to move up two slots and take a back-up. In that same draft, I traded back on more than half my picks (this is a CCM with other players who were doing the same thing, so I was mostly just doing it to keep pace; we've since installed a rule to prevent it from happening again). But that was a wake up call for my online draft. Certainly there are teams like the Patriots who relentlessly wheel and deal. But I felt like it was far too easy and the value I was getting back for small moves were way too rich.

Yeah same here, the draft is a sure way to LOAD up on players and picks.... after 7 seasons of my old CCM I had 8 first round draft picks in one draft and my team was already loaded, so thats why I made the rule and started over.

[bohawk]

Great post! I had to come up with some house rules for myself as well. I got tired of of winning Super Bowls.

[RogueHominid]

I have a question about house rules: which routes do you guys think are cheap, if any?

I'm getting to where I think the streak is a little cheesy because it's so easy to complete with lead passing vs. a cover two. I know in real life that window does exist, but for me it's too easy and creates lots of big play opportunities that throw off stats and scores.

Would you guys suggest not using lead passing, changing the streak route to something else, or do you not see this as an issue?

[KingV2k3]

As far as House Rules for team management go, I STILL use post #2 as a guideline:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...any-forum.html

Good Stuff!

[ajb3313]

Quote: Originally Posted by JMP

I have a question about house rules: which routes do you guys think are cheap, if any? I'm getting to where I think the streak is a little cheesy because it's so easy to complete with lead passing vs. a cover two. I know in real life that window does exist, but for me it's too easy and creates lots of big play opportunities that throw off stats and scores. Would you guys suggest not using lead passing, changing the streak route to something else, or do you not see this as an issue?

I try not to run that. It's kind of hard though because there are so many routes that have at least one streak built into them and, typically, if you see a receiver running wide open, your instinct is to throw to them.

In general though, I think any route that you run repeatedly is a little cheesy. I've played games online where my opponent will throw exclusively to players on crosses or outside posts. I view it as taking advantage of the CPU AI. I mean, even if I know in my head that you're going to run the same thing repeatedly, there are only so many players I can control to stop it.

[RogueHominid]

Good link, and good comment. I've also come to the conviction that I shouldn't run the toss out of the goal line formation. When going for two it works 90+ % of the time, and I've won several critical games that way.

Other than that, I think plays shake out at a reasonable rate of success/failure.