Mcarovil wrote:
So dumb question regarding weights. Are you supposed to aggregate to 100 or can you make one attribute 100, another 50, another 75 and so on depending on what you feel is important?
Maybe I’ve been doing that wrong. Maybe I can be better????
raymattison21 wrote:
GrandadB wrote:
Warthog wrote:
Beercloud wrote:
How is this even possible. The QB is terrible but still. I gotta post this over at the beta league for jdb to see.
I was thinking the same thing. If this game is really trying to emulate real football, there is no way in **** a QB would ever go 0 for 55 with 9 interceptions. You could put any random player at QB and that wouldn't happen. So how does that happen to one that is bad, but still not horrendous. Was there something in your gameplan Grandad that caused this? Were these all Long Passes?
Nothing in the gameplan that would have had any effect, was same as from last game from last season, I didnt gameplan it or scout. As was posted above, amazingly there is one QB performance that is worse than mine, so there have been two games like that recently and Im guessing a patch or something in the code? I could have gotten a better passing game from one of the OL. Maybe due to the pass accuracy which is real low for a rookie... 22/64. Will be interesting to see how he does in the next pre-season game. His passing skills are better than a couple of other QBs I have that are doing pretty good, other than his low PA at this point and being a rook. Even with that, he should not have had an Ofer 55 attempts & 9 picks, that is more than ridiculous. My weights have him at 67 vs the Ai 63, but when it comes to QB play in 4.5, you never know what you're going to get. Comparing my 11 teams, there's not much difference, if any, between 60 level rated QBs and 90. Probably comes down to one or two primary attributes, PA being one of them, if not the most important.
We told him in 4.4. It's takes like a rating score of 50 to see anything like the nfl. More like 70 is a good minimum . My weights have one primary , and a secondary that is 1/3rd the value, anything else relevant is 1:6 or 1:8 ratio . ...the rest is between 1:15 ratio and 1:45 for particular scheme preferences
Max Speed
1
Acceleration
1
Strength
1
Intelligence
3
Discipline
1
Pass Accuracy
47
Hard Count
1
Arm Strength
15
Passing Release
8
Look Off Def
3
Scrambling skill
1
Field of Vision
6
Break Tackle
1
Ball Carrying
1
Avoid Fumble
4
Wrong right doesn't really matter but I made this switch recently . When doing an allocation I want guys to be balanced per say. If ai were to do your draft...who they pick? . Usually the result is not good. But better pending weights . .Not having most Gs higher and CBS lower in overalls when comparing value. I want cbs higher. Like there's no way to have kickers lowered , as thier overalls are leading the FAS after a seasons start, but a few pages down is that player your looking for..balancing actual value with overalls...if it makes sense .
If speed were overpowered one would think to raise that, but 100 being the max to achieve similar results you have to lower the others. I think most experienced owners go that direction . After 5 years of playing I have lowered them to similar ratios across all positions (I haven't done special teams yet) only to align things in terms .
Positions that require a multitude of ratings to be successful will have lower overalls cause a higher total of ratings selected will lower the discrepancy in ratios. Or a player will require more total (rating) points in order to receive a high overall. Imo it will pulls out elite players but after that it gets muddled .
Using a default weight for cb ..... an example might be adding a value of a 100 for bump when he had 50 before the change is minimal for overall. If I added 50 to mine the change would be drastic .
As for preferred ratings of mine I see certain ratios important . In general it speed for skill positions . I see them as at least 2 to 3 times more important than defaults . A 100 speed 50 skill set up for weights will get you a similar spread of players as the ratios are similar , but with none skill positions requiring less speed and a variety of skills to be successful I have settled on using these weights that total on 100 or so.
Having 50's and 75s everywhere along with 100s just will pull out different players. As the game play code gets more aligned with defaults my weights will reflect that but not now.
Like people are saying about 4.5. That guys aren't good any more. Calculations have been changed for game play that made less players successful in all senerios . Furthering the importance in getting the best players.
Really I wish position weights were done completely different , but that cause of where we are at in development . But my settings for SS are for tha specific senerios he play in. Players searched for here will only be good in those senerios . Same for my cbs or mlb. But most positions I set the weights more like run blocking G, or pass blocking T, RB is pure runner , FB is all purpose back, TE is H-back or 3rd down back, LDE is the edge rusher , RDE i
is a 3 technique DE, MLB is the zone backer, SLB is the 2 down backer, WLB is my cover LB....those are my personal preferences
I wish I could change the labels and or add new positions/searches to our weights , and adjust the desired wieght of the position .
As more ratings used when creating weights the logic will pull out slower players. Making searching out of position easier , In terms of how many pages you have to look down to see the adjustment of players weight . Good or bad these ratios change all that. Imo the system I use pulls out tier 1 and tier 2 players and leaves the muddled players for scheme preferences . Defaults kinda work the other way around , but like I said, only cause of where we are at I development of the game.
This began years ago with a quest to prove the ai could pick a legit team (with the correct set of weights). That really hasn't happened yet , but my recent allocations have been too bad when the ai was forced to make a pick.
