I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

[spit_bubble]

What I had in mind was to boost the consistency of the offensive line, the QBs, and the WRs...

Heck, maybe even the whole offense, to help ensure good offensive numbers from the CPU in Human vs. CPU games. From what I understand if the consistency is low players have a greater chance to play below their actual ability...

And so if you boost the offense, and then lower the defense, perhaps it'd help...



I may just try this with the file I'm working on, but if anyone has any thoughts on the matter feel free to post them.

[baa7]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

I've always played with Consistency for all players between 90-127. I just think professional athletes would all perform at a minimum of 90% of their potential at all times, otherwise they wouldn't have a job.

[dan77733]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

I have a setup regarding consistency in which every player's overall rating is the same as the consistency attribute. For example, if a player is rated 95, his consistency is also 95. No player is lower than 50 overall except Long Snappers who are all rated 40.

I also have the composure attribute the same as well but only for QB's, K's and P's.

Personally, I like the way my setup plays and when you add in real team ratings, it makes it even better.

[daflyboys]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

I would love to have seen them build in more error with cpu punters. A muffed punt now and then would have been a good feature.

[utorde]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

I would love to have seen them build in more error with cpu punters. A muffed punt now and then would have been a good feature.

Yeah, stuff like that or botched snaps on FG tries, missed handoffs to the back, etc. would all be nice. The thing is, all of that would have to happen to the Human controlled teams as well as to the CPU, and if mistakes like those took place (even though they are realistic and we would love it) there would have been a whole lot of people whine about it. That's why I think they leave stuff like this out of games.

[spit_bubble]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?



Well, if anything should get a consistency boost I think maybe the offensive line should...

I don't know, it just seems that it might translate into them to playing more as a unit... As well as helping the pass and run...

Almost done with my file... I'll test it out and post my findings.

[baa7]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

I would love to have seen them build in more error with cpu punters. A muffed punt now and then would have been a good feature.

It's all in the ratings. Lower the accuracy and consistency enough and punters will regularily send the ball 20 yards and out of bounds. In fact, my CPU kickers miss so many extra points on TDs, I'm having to raise their ratings now.

[spit_bubble]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

...I'll test it out and post my findings.

I have to say raising offensive line consistency makes a slight but noticeable difference. I didn't seem to see the occasional bonehead play where o-linemen sometimes let guys through too easily.

The other thing it does is keep the overall rating close to where it was before. Whereas with a running back if you boost the consistency you'll see his overall rating go up quite a bit.

[FunNgun034]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

that is true with the concistency as well as composure ... Works great with the O-line.

[daflyboys]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

It's all in the ratings. Lower the accuracy and consistency enough and punters will regularily send the ball 20 yards and out of bounds. In fact, my CPU kickers miss so many extra points on TDs, I'm having to raise their ratings now.

I lowered the kick accuracy for punters, but not consistency.... I'll give that a look-see. But yes, kickers have to be bumped up to 127 max on accuracy. Too many cpu kickers are missing FG's in the 30's too often. Upper 40's I could see.

[SteelCityChamp]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

With all of these consistency settings and ratings changes isn't that going to eliminate the chance of a bad game here or there? I mean, if we are going for simulation, even the best teams have a bad game every blue moon. I would hate to see consistent stats throughout every single game of a 16-game season to be so close there is no true variation. Simulation is good but poor performance from time-to-time is part of that. Just my 2 cents.

[spit_bubble]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

^ In my testing the effects are relatively minimal, and inconsistencies are still there.

The general idea behind it was to help the CPU offense, which has a tendency to be too inconsistent and sloppy. It really is just another small way to raise the challenge.

[baa7]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

With all of these consistency settings and ratings changes isn't that going to eliminate the chance of a bad game here or there? I mean, if we are going for simulation, even the best teams have a bad game every blue moon. I would hate to see consistent stats throughout every single game of a 16-game season to be so close there is no true variation. Simulation is good but poor performance from time-to-time is part of that. Just my 2 cents.

My take on that: first, even with Consistency ratings at 90 minimum, players are still prone to mistakes. That said, my feeling is that the gameplay actually gets better when some of these "mental" ratings (Leadership is another) are raised up quite high for all players.

Think about it. A player who is not capable of maintaining a consistent 90% effort on the field would not be playing. He'd be cut from the team. The effect some of these lowered ratings have on gameplay is nothing short of ridiculous, as well as absolutely unrealistic.

Run tests with ratings that are easy to check: Run Route, for example. Many players have Run Route ratings in the 40, 50 and 60 range. Now go into practice mode and watch those players perform. They run totally, completely wrong routes as much as 50% of the time. Again, a player who screws up his route ONCE might not get benched. A player who screws up his route TWO DOZEN TIMES a game -- and some of these players are THAT bad -- would be flipping burgers at McDonalds, not playing football.

[spit_bubble]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

My take on that: first, even with Consistency ratings at 90 minimum, players are still prone to mistakes...

The thing that balances it all out is the overall player rating. In other words if you have an offensive line with a high consistency rating, you'll still see "mistakes" when big time defensive linemen blow by a guard or a tackle with a lower rating.

I've capped the defensive consistency at around 80, with lower rated players going even lower than that, and I like what I am seeing so far.

All in all I think the offensive consistency should be higher than defensive consistency, because they are the ones running the plays with the defense reacting.

And like I say, overall ratings will help the defense play up to their ability for the most part... You'll still see highly rated defensive players dominate like they should... Even to the point of shutting an offense down for an entire game... It's just that the consistency seems to give the computer offense that little boost that it needs.

edit: And then you balance it out with sliders, so that you aren't getting that same boost.

[kid_legacy]

Re: I know there is the aggression formula... Anyone ever try a consistency formula?

The best thing that Madden has been good for is their player attributes ratings. What i have done was downloaded the roster update that was created by Puja and changed the player ratings by using Madden 09 (I used 09 roster from Puja). What I have discovered is that it made the game that more realistic and I will continue to play 2k5 until they are allowed to make another 2k football game. The heck with Madden and I would strongly suggest that you all try this. For example, in Madden the player has an attribute called acceleration that equals to aggression for 2k, morale=composure, carrying=secure ball, trucking=break tackle, injury=durability, toughness=consistency, importance=leadership, pursuit=run coverage, awareness=pass read coverage, elusiveness=scramble and so on. Some of the attributes is self explanatory like catch, jump, tackle, pass block, etc and the other attributes like kick return, celebration, catch in traffic is worthless just like the Madden series. Great roster updates Puja and I thank you for doing such a good job and the time that is required to create the rosters.