Impacts of Players Out-of-Position in Depth Chart

[jbrew2411]

Quote: Originally Posted by Art01

jbrew: Good information. Thanks for the details regarding your game experiences with Out-of-Position subs. I will review them again in detail as I proceed with my experiments. My next experiment is to fill the DC slots with properly-positioned players for two evenly matched teams, then play several games to see what happens. I will report results.

The only time I have noticed a difference in play is when speed was an issue. An example is I had a game where the CPU had to play a MLB at SS. The guy was a step slow all game. He had low 80s speed and mid 70s acceleration.

I don't know why I forgot this but I had a linebacker a few seasons back that was fast and was a coverage guy so he could catch. I used him in sub packages as a TE in a few formations. He caught a few balls and scored a few touchdowns. His awareness was in the 30s but he ran his routes fine and caught the ball fine. I think awareness only makes a difference when you sim or play coach mode. As a human vs CPU player I don't see much of a drop off other then the key skill ratings not being as high. As long as they have good enough skill ratings to play the position they are fine, but put a guy with 40s in then he will look lost. That is just my own thoughts based on my experience so you might find something different.

[return.specialist]

My utility player (a QB playing sporadically at CB) got a few swats last season and a number of dropped INTs. Did get a fair amount of tackles. Moreover, he returned a kick for a TD during a simmed game-segment. AWR as Kr/PR is ~35.

[Art01]

ANALYSIS THREE - BUILT UPON ANALYSIS TWO POSTED EARLIER:

I have continued to work with the version of Tommycoa's 30-Year Greats Roster, in which I used the Editor to set all ratings for all players to 40. In the earlier post, I observed that the OVR rating for a player would show as 40 in the Depth Chart, but would show as Tommy's original number in the Edit Rosters feature. I set out to determine why the OVR rating was not being re-calculated in the Edit Rosters feature. What I have found so far is surprising and unexpected.

I began this third analysis by looking at the Rosters for two teams - Alabama and Arizona. I noticed that the FB position in both rosters had only one designated player. So, I selected the two bottom HBs from each team's roster and changed their positions to FB in the Edit Player feature. Also, I changed Speed from 40 to 41, then back to 40 for the QBs, HBs and FBs in both rosters so that the game would re-calculate their respective OVR ratings to 40.

Then, I looked at Alabama's Depth Chart and decided to allow the game to Auto-Reorder the Alabama Depth Chart. I expected this action would place the two HBs I had converted to FBs in the FB slot in the Depth Chart. To my surprise, that did not happen.

Instead, the game placed a FB in slot one, a Center into Slot two and a HB into Slot three. Intrigued, I looked at other positions in the Depth Chart and found a general, but patterned, scrambling of depth chart players. Some additional examples:

1. At QB, there was a QB in slot one, a FS in slot two and a CB in slot three.
2. At HB, there was a HB in slot one, a FS in slot two, a CB in slot three and another HB in slot four.
3. At WR, there were WRs in slots 1,2,3 and a FS, CB, and HB in slots 4,5,6.
4. At TE, there were a TE, C, and HB in slots 1,2,3.

There several patterns in the five examples above.

A. Both FB and TE positions had the same Center and HB in slots 2 and 3.
B. The QB, HB, LOLB, MLB, ROLB, FS and SS positions all had the same FS and CB in slots 2 and 3. Plus the same FS and CB were in slots 4 & 5 of the WR position and slots 3 & 4 of the CB position.
C. The LT, LG, C, RG and RT positions all had the same C & LG in slots 2 & 3.
D. The LE, RE and DT positions had the same C and LOLB in slots 2 and 3.

There were other scrambles in the K, P, etc. positions.

I decided that, perhaps I needed to edit all players in the Alabama Roster by changing Speed from 40 to 41, then back to 40 so that the OVR for every player on Alabama's Roster would re-calculate to 40 in the Edit Rosters feature. I made this change for every Alabama player and the OVR re-calculated to 40 as expected.

Then, I returned to the Depth Chart option for Alabama and applied the Auto Re-Order feature again. To my surprise, nothing changed for Alabama. The scrambled players I described above were still in exactly the same locations throughout the Depth Chart. This is a very curious result because properly-designated players are not being used in the Depth Chart and the out-of-position players are in those locations despite having reduced ratings such as Awareness, etc. when they are out of position in the Depth Chart. With all players having identical 40 ratings for all categories, there should be no reason for any player to be out-of-position when there are enough correctly-designated players to fill each position. Furthermore, the use of the same two players for so many different positions doesn't make any sense.

Obviously the logic being applied by the game's software to order the Depth Chart is affected in some way either by the use of the Editor to alter ratings, or by some other factor or factors not yet understood. My goal is to identify what those factors are or whatever else is causing the illogical ordering of the Depth Chart.

Next, I manually substituted a QB for the FS in the QB Slot 2 location, saved the file, then applied the Auto Reorder feature again. The QB was replaced by the FS again. Then, I manually substituted QBs into both Slots 2 and 3 to replace the FS and CB, saved the file, then applied Auto Reorder again. Back came the FS and CB again.

I'm unsure where this quest will take me, but I'll bet that what I am seeing has a bearing upon what happens during a game as the CPU makes in-game substitutions.

I'll stop this post at this point. I'm considering what to next to try to untangle this mystery. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.

[return.specialist]

I believe this line of inquiry can yield insight into hard-coded, default ratings or ratings-boosts assigned to certain positions.

Quote:

Both FB and TE positions had the same Center and HB in slots 2 and 3.

Perhaps, in the game, by default, C's are assigned higher block ratings or a boost in block ratings. Hence, C's are 2nd in the depth chart behind the starting FB and TE, respectively. I wonder what might happen if height and weight of that C are lowered and then the Auto-Reorder is executed?

Quote:

The LT, LG, C, RG and RT positions all had the same C & LG in slots 2 & 3.

This is consistent with the notion that C's, as well as LG's, may be assigned default block ratings which are greater than RG and T's. I also suspect that, since G's execute the majority of pull-blocks, perhaps, LG's are assigned slightly greater ACC ratings by default?

The FS and CB being assigned to QB2 and QB3 is quite interesting. I wonder if maybe those positions are defaulted with a boost to ratings which are applicable to the QB as well.

ART, I'm curious, if you load the re-ordered roster into the EA DB Editor and examine the C, LG, FS, CB, HB who are assigned to so many roles, maybe they have higher Discipline (PDIS) or Importance (PIMP) ratings? Maybe they have higher ratings in the PPOE or PWIN fields in the Player Unknown tab?

[Art01]

ANALYSIS THREE: CONTINUATION & UPDATE

I am in the middle of analyzing how changes to player OVR ratings affect Depth Chart positions. Based upon what I have completed so far, I am concluding that the game's software does not follow a logical progression and may be seriously flawed with regard to setting Depth Chart slots. I am continuing to work with my "all-40s" rated roster, as discussed in previous posts in this thread. Here is what I have found so far, working with the Alabama Roster:

1. In order to force the Depth Chart to select QBs for all three QB slots, I raised QB Throw Power to 99, which caused QB OVR to increase from 40 to 41. The increase to 41 only took effect at THP of 99 - THP of 98 left the OVR at 40.

2. In order to force the Depth Chart to select all HBs for the four HB slots, I raised Speed to 47, Awareness to 99 and Break Tackle to 99. This combination raised the OVR from 40 to 41. Lowering any one of these three ratings by one point would drop the OVR back to 40.

3. To force the Depth Chart to select all FBs for the three FB slots, I raised Run Blocking (RBK) to 83 to cause an OVR increase to 41.

With the above changes in effect, the QB, HB and FB positions had the correct players in their respective slots. However, these changes caused interesting results in other positions.

1. The last three WR slots now contain two FBs and a QB - all with OVRs showing as 40 in these slots. Interestingly, the two FBs still had the 83 rating I had set for RBK. But, RBK is a non-critical rating for WR. But, for both FBs in the WR position, the Catching and Break Tackle ratings had been reduced to 26 and the Awareness rating had been reduced to 20 - which resulted in the FB OVR rating of 40 in the WR position. Catching, Break Tackle, and Awareness are all WR critical ratings.

2. The TE position now contains a FB and a QB in slots 2 and 3. The QBs THP rating remains at 99 and the FBs RBK rating remains at 83 - neither rating being critical to the TE position. However, both the QB and FB AWR rating had been reduced to 20, which allowed the OVR reductions to 40 for both QB and FB in the TE position.

3. The LE position (a Defensive Position) now contains FBs in slots 2 and 3, both with 40 OVR ratings in the LE position. STR was reduced to 30 and AWR was reduced to 20 for these FBs in order to achieve the 40 OVR.

From these three examples, I have drawn the following conclusions:

1. The game's software considers OVR as the primary rating when setting the Depth Chart.

2. While considering OVR, the software can ignore the player's designated position. This finding is a major revelation and is supported by Example 3 above where FBs have been inserted as LEs.

3. If enough properly-designated players are available with sufficiently high OVR ratings, then the software will properly place those players in the Depth Chart positions. This finding is supported by the proper players being placed in the QB, HB and FB positions after I raised their respective OVR ratings from 40 to 41.

4. However, if enough properly rated players are not available, then the software reverts to the "highest OVR first" method for depth chart placement.

From other analyses I have previously performed and for which I have data, I also know that the software's overall approach to setting OVR ratings and populating Depth Charts is more complex and interactive, based upon the combined effects of a number of ratings. But, I believe my analysis reveals the fundamental control mechanism and shows that mechanism to be flawed.

I am satisfied that I now know enough to be able to say that the only way to force the game to properly set up and manage Depth Charts is to have enough properly-rated players in each position to provide properly-rated players with sufficiently high OVR ratings to keep them in place.

I am going to stop here and wait for comments or other findings supported by evidence.

[Art01]

ANALYSIS 3: FURTHER CONTINUATION

I am still attempting to understand the software logic being employed to populate depth charts. I have yet another experimental roster - an editor re-rated version of Tommycoa's 30 Year Roster. This version contains maximum ratings of 127 for all players in all positions, plus OVR adjusted to 127 for all players (these max ratings are available via the editor and are visible within the game).

With all ratings at 127, I would have expected the software to use properly-designated players in all positions wherever they are available. But, not so. The depth charts are still constructed with out-of-position players in many slots, even though proper-position players are available. I can manually change a roster in the game to have properly-designated players occupy slots, but if I then use the Auto Reorder feature, the roster reverts to the previous state with the same out-of-position players in the slots.

I understand the comments from previous posts in this thread with regard to the software placing players with the highest applicable ratings in various slots. I agree that doing so might seem logical, but my questions are:

1. With all players having equal ratings, why not use the properly-designated players?

2. Why populate slots with out-of-position players and then lower certain critical ratings for those players? Lowering their ratings will certainly not enhance their performance and likely will degrade their performance.

3. Why the use of the same few out-of-position players in slots in multiple positions?

4. How does this software approach relate to what might be happening in a game with regard to players being substituted in and out - especially in game-critical situations in which the software might want to influence the game's outcome?

Having tried several analyses and having seen very similar results, I don't think there is anything I can do to prevent what is happening. It is true that I could manually edit each team's roster to re-designate players and then edit each team's depth chart to manually substitute properly designated players into various slots. However, even if I were to do so, I would still not know what the software might be doing during a game.

In another thread in the Sliders Forum, there is a discussion about the benefits of turning Fatigue Off. I have tried this approach and I agree that the CPU seems to play better, especially in the 2nd half with Fatigue Off. With Fatigue Off, there will be fewer substitutions, so perhaps turning Fatigue Off will prove to be a way to slow down the use of out-of-position players during a game. I still believe that this process is one of the ways the software manipulates game play to implement Momentum, adjust for Difficulty Level settings, etc.