Slider explanation thread and statistical slider set recommendations

[Oraeon1224]

I need a bit of help to clarify an issue if anyone can help. I noticed an interesting change. When I reduced QB accuracy to 20 the CPU stopped throwing the ball deep and actually increased their completion percentage the same or higher than on 30 when they tried more deep balls. This has beent he same in 2 games now with CPU % going from 60% on QB accuracy of 30 to 70% on QB accuracy of 20. If this statement is true then 30 may be the best setting and changing WR catching the only way to adjust completion percent (though this will lead to unrealistic drops it may be the only option).

In my two test of Run defense of 25 have actually given real world numbers for the teams (main back averaged 4.7 ypc in first game and 5.1 ypc in the second game).

[mcwups1]

Ya know...I'm reading through this whole thread, to try and "make it as realistic as possible", becuase I want that too....but really, wouldn't it be easier if there were no sliders, and the game worked off of rating for each player?

Wouldn't it be easier to take away the difficulty levels too?

I mean, if you have an OLman that is 85 on pass block, and a NT rushes him with a Shed Block of 90, shouldn't the ratings just take over, and factor in the outcome?

Sliders are so damn ignorant IMO, along with difficulty levels, because that stuff doesn't change like that on the field. I mean, the players are given their ratings, that you can change before the year starts if you think they are too low, and then the players should just play.

Why can't EA get rid of these silly sliders and difficulty levels, and just let the ratings take over on the game?

I guess you guys wouldn't have all that extra fun "testing" things, and then reporting every little detail.

To me, it's a whole lot of wasting of time.

However, given the state of the game, I will take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work.

Hopefully, EA will fix this so we don't need sliders or difficulty levels, and make it a more realistic feel.

[Buckstopshere]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcwups1

Ya know...I'm reading through this whole thread, to try and "make it as realistic as possible", becuase I want that too....but really, wouldn't it be easier if there were no sliders, and the game worked off of rating for each player? Wouldn't it be easier to take away the difficulty levels too? I mean, if you have an OLman that is 85 on pass block, and a NT rushes him with a Shed Block of 90, shouldn't the ratings just take over, and factor in the outcome? Sliders are so damn ignorant IMO, along with difficulty levels, because that stuff doesn't change like that on the field. I mean, the players are given their ratings, that you can change before the year starts if you think they are too low, and then the players should just play. Why can't EA get rid of these silly sliders and difficulty levels, and just let the ratings take over on the game? I guess you guys wouldn't have all that extra fun "testing" things, and then reporting every little detail. To me, it's a whole lot of wasting of time. However, given the state of the game, I will take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work. Hopefully, EA will fix this so we don't need sliders or difficulty levels, and make it a more realistic feel.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

I definitely appreciate the effort that went into this thread because at least someone was able to explain in a simple manner the bizarre quasi science that goes into making any sense out of these sliders as they currently function.

[theharbinater]

ok, here are the stats for my first 3 complete games. i see some concerns, but i cant tell if they are anomalies or trends. also, note that the averages are rough, as i rounded everything.

											average
		me (k st)	cpu (k st)		me (k st)	cpu (psu)		me (k st)	cpu (ou)		me (k st)	cpu
score		21	7		36	30		27	52		28	30
1st downs		8	17		18	10		27	14		18	14
total O		263	350		305	329		402	550		323	410
rush-yds-tds		35-78-0	32-14-0		50-128-0	30-127-2		40-70-3	27-197-1		42-92-1	30-113-1
comp-att-td		15-29-3	29-47-1		15-28-2	18-37-2		28-48-1	17-25-5		19-35-2	21-36-3
comp %		52%	62%		54%	49%		58%	68%		55%	59%
pass yds		185	336		177	202		332	353		231	297
3rd down eff		4-16 (25%)	2-19 (10%)		5-17	4-16		6-17	5-11		5-17	4-15
red zone		3-2-0 (66%)	2-0-0 (0%)		4-2-2	4-3-1		4-4-0	2-2-0		4-3-0	3-2-0
turnovers		2	3		4	2		1	0		2	2
fumble		0	1		1	0		1	0		1	0
int		2	2		3	2		0	0		2	1
punt return		64	32		34	13		37	5		45	17
kick return		47	105		196	182		221	120		155	136
punt ave		9-47.6	9-36.4		5-48.6	8-35.4		5-47.6	5-33.8		6-47.9	7-35.2
penalty		2-15	4-35		3-25	2-32		2-20	2-10		2-20	3-26
t.o.p.		28:17	17:06		31:43	13:40		35:18	12:01		~32	~14
sacks		9-59	5-54		2-12	7-68		2-?	3-?		4-33	5-47
drops		3	2		1	2		6	2		3	2
tack for loss		23	14		11	12		7	16		14	14
field goals		0-1	0-2		4-4	1-1		0-0	0-0		1-2	0-1
long run		39	31		18	81		18	66		25	59

observations:

game 1 - was a great game, but had some questionable things, mainly sacks. more in previous post.

game 2 - everything went right in this one for me. i got a pick-6, and had 2 ko returns for long gains (neither a td, though). seemed like a realistic upset. lower ranked team jumped out early to a big lead (21 pts) and high ranked team works back into, but just doesnt have enough time to finish the job.

game 3 - blowout, and played like a real game. close at half (21-14), then mid-3rd ou started taking over, with 3 quick tds.

-score - looks right.
-1st downs - a bit high for me.
-total O - about right
-rush - maybe a bit low for me. cpu had a horrible game 1, but after that was right on. keep an eye on.
-comp/att/td - seems good. my comp% was a little low, but working up. cpu is almost perfect, maybe a hair low.
-pass yrds - seemed alright.
-turnovers - seemed good.
- punt ave - low for cpu, little high for me. keep and eye on.
-penalty - seemed good.
-t.o.p. - way off, but not sure i can change this. not a big deal. might look into later.
sacks- ave looks ok, little high, but had a wide range in individual games. need to watch this.
tfl - high. need to watch this.
fg - seems ok.
long runs - seemed legit, not a problem.

gonna play at least 3 more games before any changes. but the base is very solid. even as is, if nothing could be changed, it is a great playing game that's a lot of fun and realistic results, even if the stats are a little off.

[theharbinater]

Quote: Originally Posted by mcwups1

Ya know...I'm reading through this whole thread, to try and "make it as realistic as possible", becuase I want that too....but really, wouldn't it be easier if there were no sliders, and the game worked off of rating for each player? Wouldn't it be easier to take away the difficulty levels too? I mean, if you have an OLman that is 85 on pass block, and a NT rushes him with a Shed Block of 90, shouldn't the ratings just take over, and factor in the outcome? Sliders are so damn ignorant IMO, along with difficulty levels, because that stuff doesn't change like that on the field. I mean, the players are given their ratings, that you can change before the year starts if you think they are too low, and then the players should just play. Why can't EA get rid of these silly sliders and difficulty levels, and just let the ratings take over on the game? I guess you guys wouldn't have all that extra fun "testing" things, and then reporting every little detail. To me, it's a whole lot of wasting of time. However, given the state of the game, I will take this opportunity to thank you for your hard work. Hopefully, EA will fix this so we don't need sliders or difficulty levels, and make it a more realistic feel.

that's a good point, but it's also not the full story.

in theory, that's how it should be. ratings of individual players determine everything.

for the cpu, it makes perfect sense.

but when you incorporate humans, it throws it off. you can already see it in this thread. humans have different skill levels, and different places where they excel.

some, in the base game, can run well while others cant. ditto for passing, sacks, defense, etc.

that is where sliders come in. where 1 person may need to bump up rushing overall, another may need to bump it down. and without sliders that effect the game as a whole, they'd have to go into every single team and every single hb and adjust. and then test, and then readjust, etc until right.

sliders are a task in themselves, but that would take weeks, if not months just to get started.

it's took about 1.5 weeks to get named rosters, then another 3 weeks to get 1 set of re-rated rosters. and this was done by the best in the business, with multiple guys working in shifts around the clock, with the community providing significant input.

without sliders, you'd have individuals doing this alone to get it customized to themselves. so that's a month, at minimum, just to get started. then a week or so of testing. then adjusting again, to get it right. another month. so far, we'd be 2 months in and have a handful of games played.

not sure about you, but i'd lose interest changing ratings for 2 months around the clock just to get started.

not to mention the screw up that is ncaa shipped rosters.

and you're also missing that the player ratings do effect the game. but the difficulty/sliders/player ratings all have different levels of effects on the game.

think of them as tiers.

if im above average, and the basic settings arent giving me a challenge, then simply bump up difficulty. (in your idea, they would have to adjust every team and every player, and test, and adjust)

alright, im getting challenged, but i get somewhat staggered stats (too easy to pass, too hard to run, etc) ok, so i bump up cpu pass d and down cpu rush d, test, adjust. this is where we are now.

ok, for the average team, im getting challenged and getting decent/close to realistic stats, but my main rb is better in real life, while my cb's arent as good. now you go into your individual players and adjust, making rb better and cb's worse. but it isnt the whole game and every player.

this makes it have a wider range of results that will fit almost any person playing, with as little adjustments as possible.

basically, it's what everyone here screams for, more customization. more options.

[Oraeon1224]

the harbinator thanks for the post. Though I am probably not going to make further changes until the patch comes out (if run blocking is fixed I can make the running game perfect and stop the TFL excess), I noticed several things in your stats.

1. Punts for player are still excessive, I have noticed this myself and am going to decrease this on the front page.

2. QB completion percentage is still a bit high. Bradford averaged 67.9% last season and those statistics are padded by powder puff teams. Mid range teams average low to mid 50's on completion % against decent teams and high end teams are in low 60's. I am currently testing 20 and 25 on QB accuracy. Can you post what accuracy you were using when you posted these results.

3. Sacks are way too high. Interestingly I have not ever had this many sacks on the CPU (human sacks are based on playing style and I would suggest you take the dumpoff pass, set a blocker, or increase the pass block slider). I am curious if you were using jump snap or using a high number of blitzes or how you got so many sacks. One idea I have been toying with is reducing pass coverage since this slider has a direct impact on time to passing (i.e. coverage sacks). The real answer here is for the CPU to throw the ball away to avoid a sack but the programmers haven't worked on that.

4. Your running statistics were not bad for the CPU particularly in light of the sacks. Did you use run defense of 25 or 30 when performing this test. I am changing the front page to 25 but will not do more testing until the patch is issued since the ability to adjust run blocking would fix many issues with the running game (i.e. this impacts outsider runs which are responsible for the TFL and low yardage).

[theharbinater]

Quote: Originally Posted by Oraeon1224

the harbinator thanks for the post. Though I am probably not going to make further changes until the patch comes out (if run blocking is fixed I can make the running game perfect and stop the TFL excess), I noticed several things in your stats. 1. Punts for player are still excessive, I have noticed this myself and am going to decrease this on the front page. 2. QB completion percentage is still a bit high. Bradford averaged 67.9% last season and those statistics are padded by powder puff teams. Mid range teams average low to mid 50's on completion % against decent teams and high end teams are in low 60's. I am currently testing 20 and 25 on QB accuracy. Can you post what accuracy you were using when you posted these results. 3. Sacks are way too high. Interestingly I have not ever had this many sacks on the CPU (human sacks are based on playing style and I would suggest you take the dumpoff pass, set a blocker, or increase the pass block slider). I am curious if you were using jump snap or using a high number of blitzes or how you got so many sacks. One idea I have been toying with is reducing pass coverage since this slider has a direct impact on time to passing (i.e. coverage sacks). The real answer here is for the CPU to throw the ball away to avoid a sack but the programmers haven't worked on that. 4. Your running statistics were not bad for the CPU particularly in light of the sacks. Did you use run defense of 25 or 30 when performing this test. I am changing the front page to 25 but will not do more testing until the patch is issued since the ability to adjust run blocking would fix many issues with the running game (i.e. this impacts outsider runs which are responsible for the TFL and low yardage).

hopefully patch #2 comes out this week, so we can move on.

1 - punts are a little long, but some of that is due to the fact almost all of my punts have been landing inside the 10, where the cpu doesnt catch it in hopes it goes into endzone (most did). so that part of it.

2 - i was using whatever was on page 1. i was using k st, who didnt have the best pass coverage (bottom third in comp % d, #84). plus, his running game was killing me, so i was trying to stop that, and he ate me up.

3 - i noticed a lot of the sacks come on screens. in fact, i stopped going after the qb on screens just because i could get him after 1 step every time. if me other dline get him, that's fine/great, but i go after the rb/wr to try to keep it realistic. i also like to zone on 1st and 2nd down with occasional blitz, and press-man with at least 1 blitz on 3rd (usually from a 3-man front, so im still not out manning them).

im not worried about me getting sacked. i dont want to bump up pass block slider as the time to throw is realistic, and as you said, it has a lot to do with my style. i like the short passing game, and it works great, but i also dont like to only throw short. i try to keep it 50-55% short/30-40% med/5-10% long (short/med/long = <10/10-15/15<). it gets old and it's not realistic. i have noticed i need to find my quick hitter pre-snap in case they blitz heavy. also, part of my problem is i drop back too far. i never really looked at how far my qb dropped back, until every sack was around 10+ yards, which is too much. so i have made an effort to make sure i dont drop to far, keep it realistic.

4 - yes, the cpu run game, aside from game 1, has been great. i used 30 for the 1st 2.5 games, and at halftime of game 3 changed it to 25 to see what effect it had. not much noticed. im going to stick to 30 for a few more games at least, then try 25. maybe by then they will have patch #2 out, and this wont matter.

[Macc24JR]

Oraeon, you've recreated my post successful passing regime! Thanks! I'm only a quarter through my first try at it but everything appears to be pretty accurate and realistic. I'll be sure to post my results and feedback.