Parity Debate: what makes the most sense.

[BlackBetty15]

I wanted to create this thread with hopes various members of this community would contribute their thoughts and maybe get some hardline factual data on what speed parity makes the most sense in playing this game. Here are my two schools of thought:

1. NCAAF has way more dynamic plays and speed kills in terms of performance. With that in mind, even stemming back to the NCAA 14 days, the speed parity makes absolute sense to set at 20-25 if not 0 altogether. The separation is believe is that vast.

2. NFL plays a much more faster brand of football where everyone is fast. The separation is literally 4.3 to 5 flat on average so it really comes down to acceleration and explosion but for the most part, the parity is much more slim at the 90 range.

I know there have been multiple discussions on this, however with the game being hotly debated in just about every other category, this discussion gets “lost in the sauce” and I haven’t been able to find a central depository for this discussion. I know the game was developed and tested at 90 from what I heard? EA believes the same as above and have stated as much.

In any case, every opinion is warranted and values in this one as everyone feels different about it. The intent is maybe a moderator looks at this, pending traction and makes it viewable on the sticky side because this setting alone makes the game much more competitive and realistic in my opinion.

[Dagan]

Re: Parity Debate: what makes the most sense.

Before this year, I was on PS4 forever. My STS (speed threshold setting) was always 45. Year after year, that was solid.

This year, I upgraded to next gen, and BIG difference. In fact, I could almost be one of the guys who claims that slider was backwards the whole time because the absolute sweet spot for me is 84 STS. Moving it just one point in either direction has a noticeable difference to me, too. I'm basing this off of testing it in Play Now and Franchise, pre patches and per now and altogether over the course of probably 30 or so games played. I let the OCD get me on testing this one, haha.

I play as the Commanders, so I have McLaurin, Samuel, Jahan Dotson and even Dyami Brown is pretty fast. I kept playing against Green Bay over and over because they have about the fastest defensive backfield that I could find. I ended up settling on 84 STS because my WR were beating guys deep about 1 in 5 attempts and then in maybe 1 of 4 of those times truly catching the ball in stride and just burning it to the house. Keep in mind, even though I say that they are beating guys at said ratio, I base that off of having filmed the games with my phone and then watching back. In no way does this mean that I was actually seeing / reading these plays every time and always making the right throws to these guys. I think my overall to reading and hitting on a breakaway route might be 3 or 4 times a game at best, but again, this is also due to the 84 STS because combined with TACKLE at 100, I'm seriously at the right threshold for even having time to make my reads. The Washington line isn't so good.

[canes21]

Re: Parity Debate: what makes the most sense.

I have used 95 for the last two years now. It offers the most authentic experience in my opinion. It also helps that it aids the CPU in some areas that always bothered me like run defense. I can't run a simple stretch play for 10 yards every single time now because the LBs and even DL actually move like the elite athletes they are. On default 50 parity, your average LB was slower than the average poster here.

On default 50, any outside running play with half decent blocking gets good yardage. On 95, you will see athletic LBs making the types of plays they should to limit the gain or even keep it from being a gain in the first place.

Same thing in the passing game. With a lower threshold, WR's are often college or even high school open coming out of their breaks, meaning they have huge cushions around them. Deep threat WR's were running behind defenses too easily. On 95, your passing windows are tighter, more realistic. You can't just send McLaurin or Hill on a streak every play for an easy gain.

I can't see myself going back to anything lower. 95 works too well for me and what I want from the game, which is something that is as authentic as possible and a real challenge. At 95, I still see my speedy players making big plays as often as they do in real life, I just can't force it to happen over and over like I could on lower thresholds. McLaurin was a cheat code on the default 50 parity value and while it is fun to throw bombs to him, I want them to happen at a realistic rate when the coverage and route combos actually make sense.

[beeryooper]

Re: Parity Debate: what makes the most sense.

One person says 84 and another says 95. Is this AllMadden or AllPro? The last two weeks I’m pulling my hair out trying to figure out sliders and speed parity after the last patch. Before the patch i had parity on 75 (i play all pro) and it played pretty well, but now no matter the combination, gameplay is either too fast or too slow and animations aren’t great. Thanks.

[jfsolo]

Re: Parity Debate: what makes the most sense.

I have used 95 for the last two years now. It offers the most authentic experience in my opinion. It also helps that it aids the CPU in some areas that always bothered me like run defense. I can't run a simple stretch play for 10 yards every single time now because the LBs and even DL actually move like the elite athletes they are. On default 50 parity, your average LB was slower than the average poster here.

On default 50, any outside running play with half decent blocking gets good yardage. On 95, you will see athletic LBs making the types of plays they should to limit the gain or even keep it from being a gain in the first place.

Same thing in the passing game. With a lower threshold, WR's are often college or even high school open coming out of their breaks, meaning they have huge cushions around them. Deep threat WR's were running behind defenses too easily. On 95, your passing windows are tighter, more realistic. You can't just send McLaurin or Hill on a streak every play for an easy gain.

I can't see myself going back to anything lower. 95 works too well for me and what I want from the game, which is something that is as authentic as possible and a real challenge. At 95, I still see my speedy players making big plays as often as they do in real life, I just can't force it to happen over and over like I could on lower thresholds. McLaurin was a cheat code on the default 50 parity value and while it is fun to throw bombs to him, I want them to happen at a realistic rate when the coverage and route combos actually make sense.

I 100% agree with all of this.

I mean all that matters is that a person has fun playing the game with whatever settings they choose, but when I play my games and think about people who play on 50 or lower, I wonder how all of their games aren't 50-45 with 500 yards of offense every game.

[canes21]

Re: Parity Debate: what makes the most sense.

One person says 84 and another says 95. Is this AllMadden or AllPro? The last two weeks I’m pulling my hair out trying to figure out sliders and speed parity after the last patch. Before the patch i had parity on 75 (i play all pro) and it played pretty well, but now no matter the combination, gameplay is either too fast or too slow and animations aren’t great. Thanks.

All Madden. Here's what I am using currently. Still fine tuning.

Spoiler

User - CPU
QB Acc 21 - 26
Pass Block 36 - 32
WR Catch 45 - 45

Run Block 1 - 78
Fumbles 42 - 36

Reaction Time 90 - 95
Interceptions 6 - 6
Pass Coverage 90 - 90

Tackle 42 - 42