 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by JoshC1977 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All good questions...
I have looked at fatigue settings...they need to match in the MM and CFM this patch or else the CPU play goes to crap. I've pushed it as high as 60...but 55 is better IMO.
OK....before the talk of thresh gets out of hand...I have historically had several major issues with high thresh. That said; I have seen several things change since the last patch in terms of functionality and I have not assessed threshold recently. My historical issues with thresh are as follows:
- It introduces more suction and warp blocking.
- It nullifies acceleration (which is not sim). Basically, a 90 SPD/90 Acc player is the same as a 90 SPD/80 Acc player.
- It affects the run balance. Typically, with higher thresh, the outside run game is too easy because it condenses that speed differential...allowing the O-linemen to get to blocks they shouldn't be able to get to.
- Coverage becomes too tight, resulting in the CPU QB throwing too often to the RBs and TEs instead of targeting their receivers downfield.
Now if you can tell me following a good sample size that none of these are issues, I would be willing to give it a try....color me VERY skeptical though.
I totally get the appeal of high thresh...it is visually very pretty...but I am 99% sure that the improved difficulty you are attributing to the thresh is more about the fatigue/injury sliders than it is the thresh.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
I am worried a well changing 3 different variables at once, not sure which one might truely help gameplay, I am willing to try 1 at a time to see. which one would be first I should try josh?
Xbox GT: Hunkerdown
Twitch: hunkerdownuga
Sports Franchises:
Madden - Falcons
FIFA- Everton
NHL - Lightening
NBA 2K - Hawks