I like that the better team doesn't always win. Just like how the better team doesn't always win in real life either. The game wouldn't be any fun if it was simply Team A is better than Team B, so Team A wins. It also wouldn't leave any place for gameplanning. I know some coaches will say that gameplanning doesn't matter, but getting your team doing what they do best and preventing your opponent from being able to do what they do best is a key to winning in any sport (even a simulation about a sport.) While I would like to know more of what's going on on each play, I have certainly figured out more general trends I use when gameplanning. 

Just because the better team doesn't always win doesn't mean that they don't usually win. Just take the Oklahoma State vs Iowa State game from this past year (Not wanting to get a debate going, just the most recent example that comes to mind.) Oklahoma State was obviously the better team between the two, but they still lost. I don't think being a human means I should automatically have a better team than any sim, especially to the point that its an outrage if I ever lose to a sim. 

Posted by gt_deuce on 7/25/2012 6:09:00 PM (view original):
If you know how to recruit at the lower three levels, you'll win many more than you lose, still. Talent does matter, just not in the ways that we used to think of it under the previous engine.

There are some really, really ****** outcomes that come out of nowhere. Many more, in fact, that I would prefer to see. I had a Top-3-talent, Quarterfinal team lose to a first-year-human-previously-all-Sim team in the regular season, recently, that went on to lose multiple games to horrible Sim teams and finished 5-8. In lopsided fashion (like three TDs, IIRC). Inexcusable. I'd have been seething, even if it was a one-score loss on a fluke turnover or something, but at least I could wrap my mind around it.  But that way... by three scores... with horrible coaching and horrible talent?  I mean... just complete and utter bullshit.

If I never see another loss like that, for myself or anyone else, I would be ecstatic. And I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll get that with GD 3.0. Cautiously.

Basically what I said... Just more expanded for all the people who actually think they know what they're doing with Random Dice GD 2.0

Posted by bisoneer on 7/25/2012 9:39:00 PM (view original):
I like that the better team doesn't always win. Just like how the better team doesn't always win in real life either. The game wouldn't be any fun if it was simply Team A is better than Team B, so Team A wins. It also wouldn't leave any place for gameplanning. I know some coaches will say that gameplanning doesn't matter, but getting your team doing what they do best and preventing your opponent from being able to do what they do best is a key to winning in any sport (even a simulation about a sport.) While I would like to know more of what's going on on each play, I have certainly figured out more general trends I use when gameplanning. 

Just because the better team doesn't always win doesn't mean that they don't usually win. Just take the Oklahoma State vs Iowa State game from this past year (Not wanting to get a debate going, just the most recent example that comes to mind.) Oklahoma State was obviously the better team between the two, but they still lost. I don't think being a human means I should automatically have a better team than any sim, especially to the point that its an outrage if I ever lose to a sim. 

Who says the better team hasn't gameplanned as well?

If they both equally gameplan, better team wins 100% of the time. This is a number, code driven simulation.

If that's not the case, then some randomizing or normalizing code is in place to add suspense.

It's just logic. But I know a lot of people have no idea what that is.

So I understand if you disagree

Posted by gt_deuce on 7/25/2012 6:09:00 PM (view original):
If you know how to recruit at the lower three levels, you'll win many more than you lose, still. Talent does matter, just not in the ways that we used to think of it under the previous engine.

There are some really, really ****** outcomes that come out of nowhere. Many more, in fact, that I would prefer to see. I had a Top-3-talent, Quarterfinal team lose to a first-year-human-previously-all-Sim team in the regular season, recently, that went on to lose multiple games to horrible Sim teams and finished 5-8. In lopsided fashion (like three TDs, IIRC). Inexcusable. I'd have been seething, even if it was a one-score loss on a fluke turnover or something, but at least I could wrap my mind around it.  But that way... by three scores... with horrible coaching and horrible talent?  I mean... just complete and utter bullshit.

If I never see another loss like that, for myself or anyone else, I would be ecstatic. And I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll get that with GD 3.0. Cautiously.

This is happening to me in the playoffs almost every season.  Even some of the ones that I barely win are redicoulously skewed from my season averages.  I am numb to it now though.  I'll start reading the the PBP and be thinking ,

"ohhhh ok, its going to be an upset game. hmmm, didn't think it would happen this early in the playoffs but ok."  14 perfectly timed penalties to allow a horrible team to upset my well oiled machine that has averaged 3 penalties all season.  Yes, yes I see it now. I see where I made my mistakes.  I should have benched my 20 seniors, plugged in 100% run for my qb and wr, and played all my sophomores to a very tired point.  I am such a fool to allow the top rated senior players in the land onto the field against the 1984 Flutie lead Boston College team (Which I seem to hit every single year in the playoffs).  

This new update better put an end to the upset games and if Norbert gets on here and ssays there are no upsets I sware I am going to pitch a fit and go  off!

I don't know how to properly explain my thoughts, but could the number of upsets during the playoffs be a result of less games being simed?

Posted by jhard70 on 7/26/2012 11:57:00 PM (view original):
I don't know how to properly explain my thoughts, but could the number of upsets during the playoffs be a result of less games being simed?

I don't believe that has anything to do with it.  Each game is independent of the other.

I think that its simply a matter of talent "equalization".    Lets use D3 as an example.  You won't find the #1 talent playing the #228 talent.  You will have essentially top 35 talent levels playing each other, and the talent gap at that point is much less than the overall regular season.

When the talent advantage is reduced, even by a little bit, now the effects of gameplanning, FIQ, and single game chance become more significant.

And lets face it.....some coaches, even some that have won NCs are very, very predictable.  I have not won a NC, but I have completely shut down some of those NC winning coaches in the playoffs (and regular season) because they are predictable.  Give me a predictable opponent and decent talent and I'll at least make the game close.

Posted by harriswb3 on 7/27/2012 9:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jhard70 on 7/26/2012 11:57:00 PM (view original):
I don't know how to properly explain my thoughts, but could the number of upsets during the playoffs be a result of less games being simed?

I don't believe that has anything to do with it.  Each game is independent of the other.

I think that its simply a matter of talent "equalization".    Lets use D3 as an example.  You won't find the #1 talent playing the #228 talent.  You will have essentially top 35 talent levels playing each other, and the talent gap at that point is much less than the overall regular season.

When the talent advantage is reduced, even by a little bit, now the effects of gameplanning, FIQ, and single game chance become more significant.

And lets face it.....some coaches, even some that have won NCs are very, very predictable.  I have not won a NC, but I have completely shut down some of those NC winning coaches in the playoffs (and regular season) because they are predictable.  Give me a predictable opponent and decent talent and I'll at least make the game close.

And anyone with 2 teams in the same world will tell you that it would not of mattered how u gameplanned. if the game was meant to be close u could of played your punter at qb with the same outcome materialize. btw. i heard this through the grapevine

If you have a more talented team they should already have an advantage but it doesnt seem as if that is the case. For example if you throw every down and your opponent  plays dime/nickel with lesser talent he should be able to slow you down but not stop you. On the flip side,  I played a team who threw every down out of trips. My team was full of seniors and was a top ten school, his was not nearly as good. My DB's averaged about 72 speed and his wideouts about 50. I ran nickel with a little dime "always pass". The guy completed like 39-53 passes for 480 yards and NO PICKS. So a superior team playing all pass against a 100% pass team and we couldn't stop them. I agree with Tiger if the game was meant to be an upset or close you could have thrown anyone out there and it would not have made a difference. The engine has some holes in it.

As has been discussed - when jconte revised us out of the GD 1.0 to the current 2.0 he devised a Sim that relied on numerous checks (% occurance) to determine the outcome of a play, with player ratings only determining the extent of a positive outcome. Unfortunately for all us players, this resulted in a watered down player vs player match-up in the engine - too many opportunities for a lower rated player or groups of players to produce a negative result for higher rated players. Norbert has read enough about this to hopefully be programming a player vs player match-up for positive/negative result with play result based on the disparity of the player cores for that specific type of play.

This said - it will be very important for coaches interested in producing correct outcomes to thouroghly dissect the GD3.0 during the beta test world WHEN it comes out.