Developer Chat

Gridiron Dynasty

JConte

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST


The LIVE portion of this chat will begin on

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 1:00 PM EST.

Welcome. Please feel free to ask any and all questions about Gridiron Dynasty, including the recent update, as well as offer suggestions moving forward.

Can you update us on the current impact of formation IQ, the impact of formation practice and also if players listed GPA's is a factor. Thanks (uscscott - Hall of Famer - 12:58 PM)

I hope the impact of formation IQ will be fully implemented in the near future. We are in the process of bringing more resources on board to help speed updates to all of our games as well as develop new games. This is the highest priority update for once we have the resource in place. At the time the impact in the game engine is fully realized, the formation IQs of all players will also be made available to coaches to help in making playing time decisions. In the meantime, the impact of formation IQ is small, but I strongly recommend utilizing formation practice to build-up the formation IQs of your players. Another thing to consider in building up formation IQs is that more intelligent players (indicated by GPA currently on the recruit profiles and will be added to the player profiles) will improve faster.

As players tire in this game are they losing skill / efficiency in the same manner or rate as the previous version of GD before the update? If not, can you explain the difference? (georgejd - Hall of Famer - 1:01 PM)

The rate of fatigue is different in this version of the game engine, however, the effects of fatigue are the same in that it causes players to perform at a level below their ratings. For example, in the current game engine it might take a player longer to get to 80% tired/effective than in the previous engine, but in both cases the end result is that a player who is rated 100 in speed is roughly playing at the equivalent of 80 speed due to the fatigue.

The upset rate seems to have been lowered a little bit, but my questions is this: How are upsets determined? Is it completely random and something that is just unavoidable? (team_fapn - Hall of Famer - 1:04 PM)

There is no "upset rate." The final result of each and every game is simply the result of the game playing out one play at a time. There is no pre-determination of upsets or anything of that nature. Each game is played out just like a real game -- one play at a time -- and however it unfolds is the final result. Upsets simply happen because the game unfolds that way.

There seems to be several decision points that have to be passed before any play can be called sucessful. Before you have said that a team with players 10 points higher than the opponent will have a 90% chance of sucess. Is the 90% an overall estimate, or is it 90% for each decision point (compounded to a much lower chance of sucess)? (redwolf95 - Hall of Famer - 1:07 PM)

What I meant was that a team with players 10 points higher than the competition at each rating category has a 90% chance of winning the game. This is based upon thousands and thousands of game simulations where the end result is the favorite winning 90% of the games.

As the current engine is written, and with an eye to its intended future, how significant are each of these factors as contributors to success on a play-by-play basis: talent/attributes, gameplanning, random variable. (bigegg - All-Star - 1:10 PM)

If I had to rank your 3 areas, I'd rank them as follows: talent, game planning, random. Talent is the biggest factor by far. The value in game planning is that you can both help and hurt your chances of success on each play by playing to your strengths and hiding your team's weaknesses while at the same time trying to expose the other team's weaknesses. The randomness that is within the game engine is a necessary component of the game simulation and does play a role, but it is a small one when compared to the other factors.

Is every play completely independent of other plays in the game (other than personnel fatigue and injuries) ? In other words, is there any kind of "game flow" or momentum factored in? (bhazlewood - Hall of Famer - 1:11 PM)

Each play is independent. There is no momentum currently factored into the game. This is definitely something that could be explored further in the future, but as of now does not exist.

Is there a way that we can manipulate our defense? As I understand the game currently, different formations only serve as personnel packages and aggressiveness settings serve as blitz frequencies. To stop a "WB passing attack", I would need my DBs to crowd the LOS, is there a way to do that? Is something in the works that will allow us to have more control over what zone is being played and where the blitz is coming from? (peanutjets - Hall of Famer - 1:17 PM)

Your understanding is not quite correct. The formation does make a difference in terms of stopping the run/pass. For example, the nickel defense is more likely to succeed stopping the pass than a 5-2 defense. Some of it is simply based on the players on the field 5 DBs vs. 4 DBs, but there is some impact from the formation itself. You can adjust the positioning of your LBs and DBs through the tendency setting on defense. If you used a balanced setting, then these players are in their normal spots. As you move the tendency more towards the always run setting, the LBs and DBs move up closer to the line of scrimmage to better defend the run. Likewise as you move the tendency more towards always pass, the LBs and DBs back off of the line into better positions for pass coverage. The style on defense determines your defense's blitz frequency. You cannot currently select who the blitzing player will be/where it will come from. When a player is selected to blitz, it leaves a whole to a certain extent in the area of the field he has vacated in order to send him on the blitz. This is a key thing to remember when setting your defensive style of play.

Will the depth charts be expanded to include a distinction between run blocking and pass catching TEs like we now have a "short yardage back" and a "slot WR"? (peanutjets - Hall of Famer - 1:19 PM)

This is a possibility. We did originally have this in the game but then took it out. In order to put it back in, we'd have to clearly define the situations in which each would be used in the game.

Are line battles still OL vs. DL averages on running plays or do DTs and DEs have bigger or smaller impact based on if the run is outside or inside? (edw1225 - Hall of Famer - 1:20 PM)

The DTs and DEs are used differently within the game and outside runs are more strongly influenced by the DEs and inside runs by the DTs.

Are there any plans to implement a deeper depth chart into the game? Not one like previously where it allowed for hockey-like line changes. But similar, where your WR, RB, TE would be formation specific, but not QB and OL? (team_fapn - Hall of Famer - 1:21 PM)

There are currently no plans for this type of change.

Interceptions seem to be occurring at a normal rate, but pick-sixes seem high. Is the low tackle rating of offensive players vs the relatively high SPD and ELU of defensive players to blame, or is it something else? (scrodz - Hall of Famer - 1:23 PM)

I don't have numbers on the rate of return TDs to look at right now, but if they are high I think your theory of high speed and elusiveness for the defensive player returning against the lower speed and low tackling of the offensive players is reasonable.

The last update included "improvements to the end game logic" - what improvements were made? What are the future plans for adjusting end game/half logic ? (bhazlewood - Hall of Famer - 1:28 PM)

The end of half/game logic is tremendously difficult to cover all the possible situations. As end of half/game situations come to my attention that may be a little suspect, I look into it and then make adjustmens to cover the situation if it is warranted. The chances center around clock management and play calling and this update was no different. I think this process for making changes will continue in the future and the logic will continue to get better and better. With that said, coaches have different opinions on what is the "correct" course of action and so it will never be to the point where everyone is happy and agrees with the call 100% of the time. I think if the game engine makes a decision that can be logically defended and the majority of coaches agree with, then it is on the right track.

Are turnovers being looked into at all? Over the past month turnovers seemed unavoidable, no matter how conservative you went on offense, or how good your team was. This has been a huge frustration. (jas_illini - Hall of Famer - 1:32 PM)

I think the release notes of the last update listed turnover as one of the items addressed and if it did not, it should have. Turnovers were a little off and have been adjusted to better account for player abilities. In particular, the game instinct and technique rating impact on interceptions for quarterbacks was ramped up along with hands and strength of ball carriers in determining fumbles. Also keep in mind that the defense plays a large role in turnovers as well. Tight coverage obviously helps produce interceptions along with pressure on the quarterback and great tacklers with good strength cause fumbles at a higher rate.

I have seen a lot of people asking this question on the forums, and seen many different answers, so I will ask it here: Can you please explain what conservative and aggressive means as it relates to both passing and rushing offense and defense? (team_fapn - Hall of Famer - 1:35 PM)

Style on defense is simply blitzing -- aggressive means more blitzes and conservative means less. Style on offense in terms of running shifts the focus of the running game -- aggressive means more outside and conservative means more inside. Style on offense in terms of passing controls the distance of pass attempts/routes -- aggressive puts more receivers in deeper routes and empties the backfield and conservative shortens routes and keeps backs/TEs in blocking more often. Additionally, it controls the mindset of the QB in terms of forcing throws into coverage -- aggressive means more forced throws and conservative means less forced throws.

There was preivously talk of an NFL dynasty down the road. Will that be put into motion when the additional resources you spoke of are in place? (jas_illini - Hall of Famer - 1:36 PM)

I hope so, but that is not my decision.

Will you be implementing a gameplan for inside your own 20 yard line? Safeties seem too common. (scrodz - Hall of Famer - 1:37 PM)

Safeties are too common. I'm not sure if another entire game plan is needed to adjust the playcalling to avoid safeties though. Either way, something does need to be done to correct this situation.

What are your thoughts on the success of QB's with very low traditional core values (generally from position switches)? Are there any plans to make it more difficult for a QB with GI and Tech in the single digits to be successful? (bigytalls1 - Hall of Famer - 1:38 PM)

The latest update should go a long way in addressing this situation. The low GI and Tech quarterbacks should have a much more difficult time finding their receivers, completing passes, and avoiding interceptions.

Can we get a. Specific for core ratings? What's the most factors for each position? (nsabannation - Hall of Famer - 1:39 PM)

There is an up to date list of what to look for at each position in the FAQ/Knowledge Base. Please look there.

Is blitzing (by using aggressive and very aggressive) more likely to force bad throws/bad decisions even when it doesn't force a sack? (iiandyiiii - All-Star - 1:41 PM)

If you get pressure on the QB, yes. If your team is constantly blitzing and not getting pressure, then you are simply leaving holes in your defense for receivers to get open and making it easier on the offense. Optimally, you want your team to be able to get pressue on the QB without having to blitz.

Penalties seem excessively high. If formation practice means very little currently, what then determines whether there is a penalty or is it just a totally random call. (gmckel - Hall of Famer - 1:43 PM)

The notion that penalties are too high is simply not true when you look at the stats. I don't know the numbers off hand, but I have posted them before and they are very much in line with real world numbers. The largest determining factor for penalties right now is the player's game instinct and technique. Like everything else, there is a necessary random component, but game instinct and technique rule here.

Are there additional plans being discussed to close the all pass WB & ND Box loopholes many coaches seem to be exploiting? Thanks. (laxfan1 - Hall of Famer - 1:44 PM)

I think the latest update will help in this area, but it needs to be monitored to make sure more changes aren't needed moving forward.

Do punts ever bounce in this engine? Punts that pin a team inside the 10 seem very common in this game when in real life a lot of them would bounce into the endzone. (bigytalls1 - Hall of Famer - 1:47 PM)

Yes, punts do bounce around. We carefully balanced the game engine to get realistic results in terms of average punt, fair catch frequency, return yardage, return TDs, and punts inside the 20. All of those numbers look good and this is the first I have heard of too many punts being downed inside the 10. I'll have to look into it further and see if adjustments are needed.

On your comment "Optimally, you want your team to be able to get pressue on the QB without having to blitz." Currently, unless we are getting sacks, we don't KNOW that we are getting pressure on the QB because the PBP doesn't tell us. What's the outlook for more detailed play-by-play? (bhazlewood - Hall of Famer - 1:48 PM)

I would love to get more details into the play-by-play. There is so much going on with each play in the game engine that coaches simply do know about that I want to make available. Each play simulation is extremely detailed and I think getting some of that out in some form would be great.

In the old GD engine, it was suggested that there is a progression in the run defense, where the DL gets first crack at the RB, followed by the LBs and then the DBs (assuming the RB got that far). Has that changed in the new engine? It would be nice if LBs and DBs can be the first ones to meet the RB in some running plays. (DKC - Hall of Famer - 1:49 PM)

Yes that has changed with the new game engine. LBs and DBs can easily be the first ones to have a shot at the tackle on running plays.

Why can't the AC provide any kind of halftime analysis? (andyjoemich - Hall of Famer - 1:51 PM)

No reason why he can't -- what would you be looking for in his analysis?

As I understand it, all pass defenses are currently a zone defense. Any plans to implement man-to-man coverages, and the ability to double-cover specific players / positions ? (bhazlewood - Hall of Famer - 1:52 PM)

There are not plans for this currently, but I wouldn't rule it out either.

Why do DLs seem to get FAR more tackles in the game than in real life? (iiandyiiii - All-Star - 1:53 PM)

DL performance is still a little too good. This needs to be adjusted to get the LBs more involved on a regular basis.

Is there any plans to re-institute distribution settings specifically for passing situations? Is there a reason they were done away with? I like to pass out of the ND Box especially to my TE's (who I recruit as pass-catching TE's) but I currently can't control what my QB's first reads are? It seems like we are being hand-cuffed on how we can control our personnel. (sqbj99 - Hall of Famer - 1:56 PM)

The distribution settings of the previous game version simply set the first look and didn't truly provide any more control than the current style setting. If you want more passes to go to your TE out of the ND box formation, then usually going with a balanced to conservative style will accomplish this. If you want to get more passes down the field to your WRs, go more aggressive. If you want to get your backs more involved, go more conservative.

"No reason why he can't -- what would you be looking for in his analysis?" Feedback regarding my gameplan vs. the opponent, player performance vs. his opposing man. Even vague comments would lend themselves to gaining insight into what is happening. (andyjoemich - Hall of Famer - 1:57 PM)

Thanks...just wanted to know where you were coming from.

You said, "Tight coverage obviously helps produce interceptions ..." How do we get tight coverage? (bigegg - All-Star - 1:58 PM)

The simple answer is better players. Coverage is determined by the receiver vs. defender matchup.

Do you intend to break apart DE/DT or ILB/OLB or CB/S for recruiting (gdmetz - Hall of Famer - 1:59 PM)

No. There are no plans to change recruiting away from the general positions.

Does special teams practice and thereby formation IQ fall into the same category as the other formations, i.e. very little impact right now? I seem to notice alot more onside kicks recovered, etc (sqbj99 - Hall of Famer - 2:00 PM)

Special teams practice is more influential for a team's performance on special teams than the other formatin IQs at the present time. I strongly encourage everyone to practice special teams.

Is there a plan to include Kickoff/Punt return stats in the stats we can view? (bhouska - Hall of Famer - 2:01 PM)

Yes. I definitely want to make these available.

Thanks for joining the chat today and taking time out to ask questions.

Search Options

View Upcoming Chat List

This chat session has ended.

For more information or to start your dynasty, visit the Gridiron Dynasty home page.

Gridiron Dynasty

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement Advertising Choices

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.