RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

[Aestis]

So much good work is being done on these forums with slider sets from Charter, Flazko, and all the others who put a lot of time into making solo franchise play a much more realistic experience. But for those of us in 32-man online leagues, quite frankly the game plays a LOT differently, and these sets do not lead to optimal gameplay.

Over the past 2 years, I have received feedback from many players & leagues that my sliders were the most realistic set they'd ever experienced for User v User games. There were several leagues here on OpSports & around the community running this slider set or basing theirs heavily on it.


The Methodology:

Dating back to M15, I've been measuring our league's User v User game stats & benchmarking against the NFL using per-play success metrics (e.g. Pts per Play, Yds per Attempt, Net Pass Yds per Drop-back, Air Yds per Pass Att, Sack & INT rates, many more) as well as NFL weekly medians (to understand volatility) to balance our sliders.

This means hard data from 32 humans across hundreds of games are what dictate my slider adjustments, NOT the subjective judgment by the slider creator on how they think they should be performing.

Spoiler

So if I'm personally having a hard time running the ball, but the league as a whole is tracking great vs NFL run success...the run game goes untouched. Without this visibility into league-wide stats in USER games only, there is no honest & objective way to balance a 32-man league.

Again, this is all benchmarked against NFL median per-play success, not just game-end point & yardage totals. Sim leagues who run 6-minute quarters where each team snaps 35-45 plays/game might end up with realistic looking 34-24 type scores, 280 yds passing by QBs, 90 yds rushing from RBs...but that's off 21 pass attempts and 13 rushes. Despite calling themselves "sim leagues," their actual gameplay is incredibly arcadey. Scoring is MUCH easier in these leagues. Scoring in the NFL is tough, teams have to punt often, and our sliders are designed to reflect this.

If you run this set, to succeed you will have to:

- Stop throwing it into the middle of sagging coverage. Hardest thing for most Madden players to learn. NFL QBs don't force it, and they don't try to thread tight needles 15 yards downfield at a huge risk of INT. Madden players tend to force it downfield into coverage no matter what then complain about INTs. NFL QBs check down & live to fight another day--even if it means punting.
- Get the ball out quick. Pass rush can come quickly. You better actually read Ds & have a progression. The "drop back 10+ yds and wait for someone to come open" age-old video game approach won't work.
- ID & adjust to possible blitzes. All the pass block sliders in the world won't make your 5 blockers protect against 6 rushers. In the NFL, 5 man pressure vs 5 blockers reaches the QB in 2.5 seconds or less about half the time. 4 man rushes vs 5 blockers reach the QB in 3 seconds or less about half the time. Better have your "hot" read ready when the D dials up a blitz.
- Get in 3rd & manageable. 3rd & long is just really really tough on these sliders, as it is in the NFL. Don't anticipate converting a whole lot of 3rd & 8+ on these sliders.
- Stop assuming a route will always get open because it always got open in previous Maddens. E.g. corner routes & outs are no longer automatic wins on these sliders. (But they can still be highly effective vs the right coverages with the right matchups!)

tldr; Good defense + limiting turnovers + field position = winning, with these sliders.

In short, this will be the slider set for online leagues who want their gameplay to be as realistic as Madden will allow.


What the passing game on these sliders looks like, in a few cool screenshots capturing animations you'll see more of:
Will update for M19 soon... but here's a few shots of M18 in the meantime:

Spoiler

Say goodbye to always finding WRs wide open. The NFL is a game of inches. On these sliders, a fast WR gets a step or two on a streak, not 10 yds (but a step is enough with a great throw!). An elite WR can make a contested catch. Your decisions have to be made QUICKLY or windows tighten.

QUICK PASSES:





MID-RANGE PASSES:





DEEP PASSES:

How this set is benchmarking statistically vs the NFL in our league:

Spoiler

We run ~110-115 snaps per game, NFL runs 125-128. So for the efficiency metrics, goal is to track about ~10-12% higher than the NFL to get the game-end totals about even. This is pretty close to NFL feel though slightly on the offensive side. Many leagues run 35%-80% more offensive than the NFL without even realizing it, which means actual gameplay looks & feels nothing at all like the NFL and is, in fact, very arcade.

Launching our league the week of Aug 20... stay tuned...

2023 SEASON

Updated: Mar 26

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

A note on SPD threshold:

For the second year in a row, ranta has given me a huge assist in doing some testing to see how game speed & speed threshold benchmarks against IRL speeds.

Here was the testing for Normal SPD 50 Threshold:
Avg WR (90 spd / 91 acc): 4.72s 40 yd time
Avg OL (65 spd / 78 acc): 5.32s 40 yd time

OL in this case was 13% slower, which is very close to the NFL target of 17%.

RE: 40 times. There's no hard data I could find comparing game speed to official 40 times. Estimates are that NFL players run .2 to .3 seconds slower in game than their 40 time. Obviously pads & are a reason, but also a major factor in 40 times is the initial jump. NFL players preparing for the combine practice their sprinter's stance launch for weeks prior to recording their time. In a game, obviously they are not doing this. So given the avg combine time at the NFL draft for a WR is 4.50 (based on 10+ yrs of data), I feel 4.75 is a solid in-game target.

So. Normal between 25 & 50 is going to get best results in terms of how the game benchmarks against the NFL. If offense isn't too good when we start our league, I will consider lowering threshold a bit. The sweet spot for NFL realism in isolation is probably around 30--again, that's if one were only considering this test as the way to balance. In Madden, other factors are at play, so we are starting with 50.

[gunit1225]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

Going all Madden, did you try all pro?

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

Going all Madden, did you try all pro?

My sliders have been AM since I started posting them in M17. Have yet to see an AP set that plays well in user v user. Typically too offensive to be realistic.

That said... every league is different. First step is knowing you who are and what are your gameplay goals. Some guys may simply enjoy All Pro more and I'm not here to judge. I don't really give my league a choice.

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

As I watch more 'test league' games, I feel run game is a little low. This is still based on feel looking at the stats, will have some hard data in about a week.

For our week 1 initial set:
Bumping RBK to 62
Dropping TKL to 47

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

First week of games is in!

Scoring was a tad low (20.5 ppg) but just barely. That's actually pretty close to NFL level on a per-snap basis, but we run 10% fewer snaps, so I want pts per snap to be ~10% higher.

Rushing was pretty close. Median YPC for wk 1 across 28 teams was 3.99, right smack dab where we want it.

Passing was a hair low. 6.6 net yds per play (includes sacks & sack yardage) is actually almost exactly NFL level, but we want ours a hair better. Sacks & INTs were sky high as expected, so we'll give the pass game a slight buff and leave it up to teams to take fewer sacks & make better decisions.

PBK 55 (+5)
PDRT 25 (-10)

We'll see if +5 is too much for passing. First few weeks is always tougher on offenses as guys learn the game, so the concern is that buffing too much will make offense very powerful in a few weeks.

I'm also dropping INJ to 25. This is a tricky one. Multi-game injuries do feel a tad high after 1 week but not excessively so. However, in-game there are a TON of injuries where guys are going out for some/all of the game. Conceptually this is a good thing, but still probably too high.

Adjusting OP with updated settings now.

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

Updated XP sliders based on tdawg's much appreciated research. I make estimates based on his sliders but geared for how 32 humans are very different than 31 CPUs. The past two cycles have turned out awesome, so here's hoping for a 3rd.

After week 2 finishes I will determine whether kicking accuracy needs to drop, as well.

[That_Dude_Again]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

Just curious as Im just seeing your post. What are you getting out of the running game with this set-up in terms of yards per carry and attempts?

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

Just curious as Im just seeing your post. What are you getting out of the running game with this set-up in terms of yards per carry and attempts?

See 2 posts up for wk 1 stat overview... Median YPC was 3.99 which is right in the sweet spot. Will monitor over multiple weeks to see if needs adjusting but should be close.

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

After wk 2, looks like passing still a bit low. In particular the pass rush seems a bit too harsh even at 55. Likely giving it a bump up to ~65.

Our targets here are for Pass Yds per Dropback (aka Net Pass Yds which factors in sacks & sack yardage) to be right around 7. These are based on median 57 offensive snaps per team across weeks 1-2.

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

Last year, I didn't get any real traction in reducing the pass rush until I started raising the CPU PBK slider.

This year just to be safe, I'm going to raise the CPU PBK slider as we raise HUM PBK.

HUM PBK: 65
CPU PBK: 60


We'll see how these affect passing over the next week of games.

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

More tweaks through week 3:

Rushing is in a very good place. 3.9 ypc every week so far. This could end up being a *hair* on the high side as league median for the year is 4.2 (target = 4.1) but it's pretty darn close. No changes until I see a definite trend.




Will have more info on how the recent changes to PBK worked soon--no update yet. Saw a dip in sack rate in week 3 after a small adjustment, but made the bigger change for week 4. We were still seeing just 6.3 net yds per pass play (net yds = sacks & negative sack yardage included) compared to our target of ~6.9-7.0. NFL is around 6.6.


3rd Down Conversion is pretty good. NFL median was 38% in 2017 and our median has ranged between 38-41% each week so far.


Rate of Fumbles Lost is just a hair too high. It's pretty close to NFL levels actually, but my target is to usually to be just a little below NFL due to artificially high INTs & fumble-returns for TD happening a bit too often. I feel a little below NFL level leads to the most realistic gameplay for this reason. Bumping it from 78-->80.

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

Updated with latest changes through wk 4 data. Passing much better (probably due to raising CPU PBK, lol). But still a hair low overall. Scoring was 23 ppg which isn't too high but now on the high side of 'target' so will have to monitor. Some of that is due to a lot of INTs, so the hope is that as offenses get safer, scoring doesn't necessarily go up yet.

Highlighted what changed:

[gunit1225]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

What slider would you recommend to change to help coverage on zone plays, players just sit there and react way to slow on zone coverage. Thx

[Aestis]

Re: RFF's M19 32-man CFM USER v USER Sliders

What slider would you recommend to change to help coverage on zone plays, players just sit there and react way to slow on zone coverage. Thx

Primarily that's going to be Pass D Reaction slider, and probably Coverage impacts that a bit as well as your zone defenders will be in better position to begin with.

PDRT is not a 'sensitive' slider, so if you dislike how it's playing now, I'd crank it way way up.

Unfortunately I wouldn't expect it to affect deep blue zones too much. They patched the game a while back and deep blue coverage became semi useless once again. It's a shame because it was sooo good in the beta & right @ release. If a receiver was the only deep route, that deep blue defender would 'attack' the route rather than just drop senselessly to nowhere.