jespernohr wrote: Low Consistency is not necessarily a problem. Train his physicals and if he get high Strength and Speed then he could become a good defensive end. In my opinion the positions in need of high Consistency are mainly QB, MLB and K.

As long as he has good tackle skills..and thats it right?

Hey guys,

Thanks for all your input. It helps me see there is a big picture when it comes to your strategy concerning consistency.

that clarifies a lot of things up about consistency. i always thought on each play, consistency was rolled per player. i guess its not. so if a player gets an unlucky roll at the start of the game and loses skill value, it will be like that the entire game.

iMan24 wrote: that clarifies a lot of things up about consistency. i always thought on each play, consistency was rolled per player. i guess its not. so if a player gets an unlucky roll at the start of the game and loses skill value, it will be like that the entire game.

That is correct, I think you are reading it properly now. The ONLY thing none of us really know is what makes up the match game rating. I have talked with others who think the match game rating is made up mainly of primary skills and BPOS. THEN you take that number and if they are 20 con player, they adjust it only for TC and fitness levels (we know the TC adjustment and if it's 5*'s then there is likely no adjustment). so really there is probably just a moderate fitness level adjustment and presto, you have their start game rating.

If they are less than 20 con, then they adjust for consistency, then make the TC and fitness adjustments to get the start game ratings.

How the GE figures out games from there is complete speculation on everyones part and I'm sure we can all agree to disagree about what none of really know. I prefer to think that the game engine is quite simplistic from there, but I could be completely wrong. Either way, my only point that folks have been misinterpreting the consistency thing and since it's spelled out clearly in the FAQ's, I see nothing wrong with pointing that out to folks.

Regarding the admins responses to those questions, I sincerely think that this is just another example of the admins making a comment, response or post that is vague and not directly answering the question. It could be on purpose to keep everyone guessing on the 100% answer and then again, as I prefer to think, it's just a language difference (where the actual question is misunderstood by the admins and therefore the answer is not directly answering the original question properly).

Bottom line is low con is not a bad thing, it can be a huge game changer and likely the top reason for folks not being able to believe they just lost a game they feel they should have won.

oneknee wrote: Gatr22 wrote: The ONLY thing none of us really know is what makes up the match game rating. I have talked with others who think the match game rating is made up mainly of primary skills and BPOS. THEN you take that number and if they are 20 con player, they adjust it only for TC and fitness levels (we know the TC adjustment and if it's 5*'s then there is likely no adjustment). so really there is probably just a moderate fitness level adjustment and presto, you have their start game rating. If they are less than 20 con, then they adjust for consistency, then make the TC and fitness adjustments to get the start game ratings. Yes, I'd agree with his too. Just to clarify on the 'fitness' I think that energy is a factor before the match and stamina a factor during the match, with the random spice factor thrown in also.

Good point, I would agree with that too. In the final analysis the match game rating formula is locked in a vault and the one person who knows it is in the vault laughing while reading this thread.