The Ratings Matter XP Project

[MassChaos]

The “Ratings Matter” XP Project

A XP Slider set designed to maintain the balance of gameplay throughout the course of a Dynasty

Player Progression has been a major issue for me since the release of the game. Gameplay shifts to be more run dominant, and the number of highly rated players balloons to the point where every team becomes overrated. Also depth becomes less of an issue, because underclassmen stay later and later into their careers.

I ran a series of simulations, using a variety of different XP sliders to try to determine if it was possible to fix the progression. My findings so far are that while we might not be able to "fix" the progression, exactly, we can improve things to a point.

I'm not going to post all of the data, mainly because I recorded everything with pen and paper, and reentering that data into an excel sheet would bore me to death. But here was my methodology.

Methodology
Each simulation was completed with the same User Team (Navy because they have a low draft rate irl) with default settings except Coach firing OFF and auto recruiting on(Because navy having a bad roster doesn't really impact the results.)
I simmed to the year 2030 to make sure all of the players were generated players. I then simmed to the transfer portal week, to look at the Draft results from that season.
I recorded the Position and Class (SO(RS)-SR(RS)) for each player in a table. Then tallied the totals at each Class and Position.
I then simmed to week 1 and counted the number of players that were rated over 87(making them draft eligible for the next draft) [some players will progress to the draft cutoff over that season, I aimed to be on the low side, to compensate for this.] I recorded both the values with and without the coaching bonuses, but ended up basing the set on the "with bonuses" number. At the end of the day, I want the set to maintain the balance in the gameplay, so those bonuses have to be factored in.

For comparisons, I started by recording this data after season 1 to get a base set of data based on the default in game roster.
I then ran the tests and recorded data based on setting the XP values at default, 0%, 300%, and 200% and then tested 17 custom sets before settling on the values posted below for version 1.

During the 17 tests, I changed values based on several findings and theories that previous data had led me to create.

Findings and theories
Positions that have a Left and Right version (T,G,DE,OLB) are given way too much XP. Those positions end up with nearly triple as many highly rated players if the values are kept near default.

Tackles and Guards get too much XP even at 0. Tackles should be set to like -10, Guards could be as low as -50. There's just nothing you can do to keep them low. I bumped up the DTs to compete a little with the increased skill of the Gs, (will need monitoring to see if it needs adjusted.

SS is too low even at 300. There will only be about half a dozen players rated over 88 in the entire country. (my guess is second string FSs get played in many cases around the country, but even FS needs a high setting to stay competitive with other positions.

There are soft tiers within a range of the settings that determine the total number of players that are highly rated. And within that range, the number of underclassmen that develop faster can be better or worse depending on the setting. (Example using easy fake numbers. XP setting of 100-150 creates 25 88+ Qbs, Setting of 151-200 creates 35. but setting 100 creates mostly Seniors, while setting 149 creates a variety of classes at that position.) This is mostly a theory but it helped shape the variety in values in the set. I kept getting either great draft results or good roster numbers, but not both, until I started to focus on this idea of tiers and worked on finding the right balance.

This one is also sort of obvious but if one position is getting too much or too little xp, it will throw off the draft numbers, causing either too many or too few players that are highly rated to be on the next years roster. This can also snow ball to an extent. The after 1 default roster had over 120 non SR(RS) players drafted. the highest I could reach with the sets was in the 80s. It's a problem with both players deciding not to go to the draft, but also players not transferring enough. If an over 86 overall player sits for 3-4 years, he's not getting the xp needed to go pro, that he could have had if he transferred somewhere else.


Final note: The default rosters have some weird ratings for depth players, which causes overall ratings to get a little weird in years 2-5. It's the worst in years 2-3 and starts to normalize in years 3-5 as more and more generated players get playing time. There's no way to really combat this, it's just something you have to live with.

Any questions or concerns feel free to comment. As well as letting me know how they go for you!

XP Sliders
QB - 170
RB - 52
TE - 124
WR - 80
FB - 0
T - 0
G - 0
C - 38
DE - 14
DT - 152
MLB - 66
OLB - 58
CB - 116
FS - 282
SS - 300
K- 240
P - 240

[TON1C]

Wow thanks for posting these and all of the info! One question that maybe I’m just not understanding properly - what was your target for the overall ratings? Was it to have a certain number of players drafted, team overall targets, etc?

[MassChaos]

Quote: Originally Posted by TON1C

Wow thanks for posting these and all of the info! One question that maybe I’m just not understanding properly - what was your target for the overall ratings? Was it to have a certain number of players drafted, team overall targets, etc?

The goal is to keep the player overalls around the same as they are in the base roster, so that the gameplay doesn’t change. I just used the draft data to make sure that enough underclassmen were getting good enough to leave early. If the settings are too high, “normal” players level up enough that “stars” and “elite” players don’t get a chance to see the field, so they don’t earn the xp necessary to be pro eligible until their senior season.

[TON1C]

Quote: Originally Posted by MassChaos

The goal is to keep the player overalls around the same as they are in the base roster, so that the gameplay doesn’t change. I just used the draft data to make sure that enough underclassmen were getting good enough to leave early. If the settings are too high, “normal” players level up enough that “stars” and “elite” players don’t get a chance to see the field, so they don’t earn the xp necessary to be pro eligible until their senior season.

Ahh gotcha, thanks! So then I’d also assume if the XP is too high, then there’s not enough rating separation anymore and too much parity across teams (especially G5 vs P5)? And if it’s too low, then the same thing would also apply I suppose in addition to not enough players leaving early?

[MassChaos]

Quote: Originally Posted by TON1C

Ahh gotcha, thanks! So then I’d also assume if the XP is too high, then there’s not enough rating separation anymore and too much parity across teams (especially G5 vs P5)? And if it’s too low, then the same thing would also apply I suppose in addition to not enough players leaving early?

Exactly, with these, G5 teams do occasionally get a 90+ overall player, but he’ll definitely be a “star” or better development guy. And their depth becomes an issue for them against the better P5 teams. Team overalls aren’t super accurate, but looking at those, I actually liked that I was seeing the top of the G5 basically overlap with the worst P5 teams. But there was still the low 70s overall teams as well.

The G5 is always going to end up being a little too good because the best players don’t transfer up to the P5 as frequently as they do in real life.

[honkylips]

This is awesome! If these help keep things in line closer to the default rosters, this will cure my dynasty woes. I was 5 seasons into my old one and the teams did seem messed up with how the talent was staggered. Also I admire your patience and thought into all the research. Thank you!

[Speedy]

Following!

I'd love to see the data you have, personally.

[MassChaos]

Quote: Originally Posted by Speedy

Following! I'd love to see the data you have, personally.

If I get a free afternoon at some point I’ll try. At least the data from the base sets and the final ones. There were a few of the tests that in hindsight, were a waste of time, although the whole process helped lead to the conclusions that were eventually made.