Posted by mayottek on 3/1/2012 8:42:00 PM (view original):
norbert I really appreciate everything you are doing for the game, but I am against the specific plays selections.  I would, however, like to see more control as has been mentioned. 

For example: If I have depth at the OL and the team I am playing has a weak link along the DL I would like to have the ability to exploit it by either running outside left, inside left, inside right, or outside right.  In terms of passing I am on board with the GDI type distribution, I thought that allowed for a lot of creativity in terms of setting up depth charts and tendencies for each formation.

If I have a stud LB and the other teams OL has bad GI I would like to be able to blitz inside causing confusion among the line giving my LB or DL a better chance of making a positive play for the D.  If the O Tackle on my stud LBs side has no athleticism and bad technique I would like to be able to blitz him to the outside making it difficult on the tackle and thus raising the opportunity for my LB to make a positive play for the D. 

Pass defense if your guys have good speed elu tech you can play tight man if your secondary is more GI driven than you will likely play zone.

I think this needs to be a "common sense" driven update.  Nothing too drastic

If you don't have specific play selections, then how would you want to tell the engine that you want to run left or right or inside the tackles?  I'm listening to any ideas here, but I need to ask questions to flesh out these ideas.  You might be thinking how you would like something to work but sometimes it needs help in "getting from here to there".  If you want to be able to tell the engine to do something, think about how you would have to tell it to do that.

For passing, one of the reasons the pass distribution was taken out was that with the new formations, certain players in certain slots would be more apt to be deep than short and vice-versa.  Combined with the Aggressiveness, it would give a tendency to target one play over another depending on if you are looking deep or short.  With the distribution settings, you could get conflicting options.  The issue with this is that it's not very clear which receiver is which in each formation, and I've looked to try to decipher that and it's tough to read.  You actually do have some control on which players are targeted, but it's so hidden in the settings that I can't really call it control.

If we add distribution settings on the plays, based on slot or player, then I'd like to see us get rid of the Aggressiveness setting.  If we had some way of telling the "aggressiveness" of each player, then between that and the distribution, that would determine your overall style of play.  For instance, if the main target (highest distribution) was set to run deep, the next was short, and the next medium, that would sort of determine how your play plays out.  You wouldn't need an Aggressiveness setting on the play itself.  I guess the question is do you pick your target first or do you pick your distance first?  If you pick your distance first, like it currently does, then distribution settings can be difficult to implement.

In the old engine, it didn't matter, as there was no concept of field location or defenders.  It basically just picked distance randomly from the Aggressiveness setting and then target randomly from the distribution settings and there was your receiver and how far the reception was.  YAC was just one check against the team defense.  There was no concept of a defender, because all defense was just one team rating, so there was no way to get mismatches on offense or defense.  There was still very little control, but you could get more receptions for one player over another.

These settings are by no means locked down, so feedback is welcome.

Is it more acceptable to see these incompletions as a mix of these reasons than just a bunch of "incomplete pass" plays??

Yes, it ABSOLUTELY is.  Right now, it could be any number of the following:

1. OL didn't keep the DL/LB off the QB, so the QB got hit, affecting his throw
2. QB threw a bad ball
3.  QB threw to the wrong spot (slightly different than the previous)
4.  WR ran wrong route
5.  DB broke up the pass
6.  maybe other scenarios I'm not considering in this hurried response

In the absence of any further detail, I'm left to guess and that's both a losing proposition and a waste of time here. Even though the boxscore gives me PD data of the defense, I have zero way of attributing it to specific plays. So unless I'm literally always throwing with the same aggressiveness on every play, I can't draw any conclusions.

My response to an inordinate amount of #1 is completely different from my response to an inordinate amount of #2... and so on.  Clearly, there is some threshold when we'd be saturated with information and anything additional would simply be overwhelming, but we're a long way off from that threshold at this point.  A start point, for me, would be giving us information like what I'm suggesting in my six points above.

If my QB is sacked, was it a corner blitz that the QB/RB failed to recognize and pick up/adjust... or was it that the DE bull-rushed my weak-link RT and got to the QB before he could get off a throw?

If my runs for 25 yards, was it because he outran the defense to the edge and turned the corner... or did he break a tackle after five yards and subsequently the play opened up downfield?

We don't need to know that OL1 successfully blocked his man and OL2 successfully blocked his man and OL3 successfully blocked his man and OL4 successfully blocked his man and OL5 successfully blocked his man and LB1 was too far away and LB2 got caught in traffic and LB3 couldn't get to the edge to contain and CB1 was running man coverage downfield with WR1 on a fly route and CB2 was on the other side of the field and S1 was doubling the fly route and S2 was spying WR2's deep out, so all this opened up for the RB.  That's, clearly, entirely too much.

I believe the running could work in the same manner  pass distribution did.  If my right side of the OL is strong and the left side of the DL is weak and I have a fast RB I might want my rushing distribution to be something like

Outside Left: 2
Inside Left: 1
Inside Right: 2
Outside Right: 5

So I could say out of 10 rushing plays I targeted the right side of the line 7 times be cause my opponent is weakest there.  I also targeted the outside 7 times because my RB is fast and I want to keep the D honest.

I completely agree with you norbert that just because you are better does not mean you win every match up every time, but it does need to matter.  I understand if this was an NFL simulation that the "heads and shoulders" better is not actually that.  You can have the best pass rusher in the game against the weakest OT and 2 sacks would still be a good game.  However the Offense also game plans to protect that OT.  This however is a college SIM and there are some teams just should not win against others.  The difference between teams is too great. 

I thought one of the issues with GDI was it was driven too much by talent.  If you had the better team you were winning, but GDII too little reflection of talent.

Little more control and a happy medium between talent and randomness and you have a happy customer.

Norbert - I think we are getting closer to the same page of the same book. Here are my responses to your response to to my response of your post - or something like that.

I think there is some misconception about what random means.  Random can still occur with other factors taken into consideration.  The engine currently uses random checks with comparisons between player ratings.  If it's not random, then all those factors you describe would be the same for basically every play, except fatigue, and the results would end up the same for each play.  I think we may have a syntax problem in our wording between the term randomness and variability. Results can be absolute A>B for each decision point, however the factors determining the value for A or B can change after each iteration so that the A>B comparison changes enough to supply changing values to the outcome. (Faster fatigue for RB vs LB, rotation of freshest def player to take on RB, use of different attributes for inside vs outside plays etc.
 
Every time your RB runs we have to decide how many yards he gets.  If there's no randomness in determining that result then he's going to always get the same yardage on every play.  When the engine decides the gained distance it may use the total difference in combined attributes to determine a specific range of a gain, and then the proportional attribute over the lower limit to determine how much of that range is the calculated gain. Again, variable - but not random.

You might say that different players would be involved in the play, but then how do you determine that?  How do I know one defender is trying to tackle the RB on one play and a different one is trying to tackle him on the next? It is random, but based on the likelihood of each being in on the play.  Once we decide the defender, or defenders, how do we know they stop the RB?   Based on the location of the play we would know the specific offensive player (say RB) and the specific defensive players (DL or LB) involved would be pulled from the highest rated player based on the specific attributes needed to counter the attributes and location of attack of the RB. Defender hierarchy would be a specific algorithm built into the engine and directed by the depth chart.  

If it's not random, then it will be the same result every play, they tackle or they don't.  There HAS to be a chance that they tackle the RB, not a flat result. If variations in attribute usage occur for inside runs and outside runs and variation in fatigue degradation of players in differing positions, the outcome will change. DL and LB being in the right position (GI) run less and get less fatigued that a RB on a sweep going 20 yds to get around end and just to the LOS. A dominant RB would fatigue and give up any advantage to less fatigued defensive players. Same with strength for inside runs. Add in many attributes that are not used a primary cores now (use durability for inside runs, athleticism for outside etc )and you have many attributes that would cause variation without being random. 

In the passing game, if the DL > OL and ALWAYS win and the DL > QB and ALWAYS sack him, then what kind of simulation would that be?  42 sacks in the game and another 30 tackles for loss?  I'm not sure if this is what you are suggesting or if I am misinterpreting your suggestion. This would be the same case of attribute usage dictating changes and variability of the outcome without randomness. During passing, let's just say that OL have less fatigue standing in the way of DL, than the DL has trying to get around them. A dominant DL would wear down allowing the game play to change and passing to improve. Also, QB would wear down less during a game as they would only succumb to fatigue penalties if they are scrambling or getting sacked. (This may be way to temper the throw every down strategy, as running every play would wear down your RB - hmmmm - more coaching and planning needed). Coaches would have to game plan and team/roster plan for this occurance.

We have to introduce more of what you are saying, and that is what I was getting to in my last post, to get to smaller ranges of what can happen randomly, but there has to be some amount of randomness in the result.  There's no possible way to just add up the factors and spit out a result.   I beleive with changes to the engine and use of more of the available player attributes in different situations, we can almost eliminate the randomness factor and replace it with variability based on factors that the coaches can control. Spit -  spit.(You play your best RB at 90% carries, he is going to get tired and not be very effective in the 4th quarter). The differeneces in values and creation of ranges will be the difficult part to smooth for efficient game play, but I feel the generation of "67% chance of this vs this" random event generation could be eliminated for all player match ups. The only time this may need to be used is for fumbled punts, KO, chances of making or missing a FG from certain distances, etc.

Keep pushing the envelope of ideas, Norbert, we are all here to help.

POPULATE HEISMAN!

In the old engine, it didn't matter, as there was no concept of field location or defenders.  It basically just picked distance randomly from the Aggressiveness setting and then target randomly from the distribution settings and there was your receiver and how far the reception was.  YAC was just one check against the team defense.  There was no concept of a defender, because all defense was just one team rating, so there was no way to get mismatches on offense or defense.  There was still very little control, but you could get more receptions for one player over another.

Personally, I like the way that worked....random distance from the aggressiveness setting and random target from the distribution setting.  Is there any way to check against a certain defender for YAC depending on distance or some other method as opposed to team defense?  I see no reason why we can't implement GD1 things into GD3, if they worked and were a good idea.  Especially if you can improve on them, like the defender thing I just mentioned.

Posted by mayottek on 3/2/2012 9:51:00 PM (view original):
I believe the running could work in the same manner  pass distribution did.  If my right side of the OL is strong and the left side of the DL is weak and I have a fast RB I might want my rushing distribution to be something like

Outside Left: 2
Inside Left: 1
Inside Right: 2
Outside Right: 5

So I could say out of 10 rushing plays I targeted the right side of the line 7 times be cause my opponent is weakest there.  I also targeted the outside 7 times because my RB is fast and I want to keep the D honest.

I completely agree with you norbert that just because you are better does not mean you win every match up every time, but it does need to matter.  I understand if this was an NFL simulation that the "heads and shoulders" better is not actually that.  You can have the best pass rusher in the game against the weakest OT and 2 sacks would still be a good game.  However the Offense also game plans to protect that OT.  This however is a college SIM and there are some teams just should not win against others.  The difference between teams is too great. 

I thought one of the issues with GDI was it was driven too much by talent.  If you had the better team you were winning, but GDII too little reflection of talent.

Little more control and a happy medium between talent and randomness and you have a happy customer.

LOVE this idea of run distrubution

Posted by flexmagnum on 3/3/2012 4:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mayottek on 3/2/2012 9:51:00 PM (view original):
I believe the running could work in the same manner  pass distribution did.  If my right side of the OL is strong and the left side of the DL is weak and I have a fast RB I might want my rushing distribution to be something like

Outside Left: 2
Inside Left: 1
Inside Right: 2
Outside Right: 5

So I could say out of 10 rushing plays I targeted the right side of the line 7 times be cause my opponent is weakest there.  I also targeted the outside 7 times because my RB is fast and I want to keep the D honest.

I completely agree with you norbert that just because you are better does not mean you win every match up every time, but it does need to matter.  I understand if this was an NFL simulation that the "heads and shoulders" better is not actually that.  You can have the best pass rusher in the game against the weakest OT and 2 sacks would still be a good game.  However the Offense also game plans to protect that OT.  This however is a college SIM and there are some teams just should not win against others.  The difference between teams is too great. 

I thought one of the issues with GDI was it was driven too much by talent.  If you had the better team you were winning, but GDII too little reflection of talent.

Little more control and a happy medium between talent and randomness and you have a happy customer.

LOVE this idea of run distrubution

Why be so detailed?  Why not just use Inside and Outside?

Do we ever know what players are on what side?
Do we ever know our position on the field (left hash, middle, right hash)?  Makes a big difference if you are running outside.

Posted by bhouska on 3/2/2012 11:47:00 PM (view original):

In the old engine, it didn't matter, as there was no concept of field location or defenders.  It basically just picked distance randomly from the Aggressiveness setting and then target randomly from the distribution settings and there was your receiver and how far the reception was.  YAC was just one check against the team defense.  There was no concept of a defender, because all defense was just one team rating, so there was no way to get mismatches on offense or defense.  There was still very little control, but you could get more receptions for one player over another.

Personally, I like the way that worked....random distance from the aggressiveness setting and random target from the distribution setting.  Is there any way to check against a certain defender for YAC depending on distance or some other method as opposed to team defense?  I see no reason why we can't implement GD1 things into GD3, if they worked and were a good idea.  Especially if you can improve on them, like the defender thing I just mentioned.

+1

How about something like this to get started...


On passes, the style is selected first.  Then using the WR distribution, the #1 look has to run that style of pass.  The higher the style percentage, the more WR's run that style of rout. 

What do you think?

Posted by stingray002 on 3/3/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
How about something like this to get started...


On passes, the style is selected first.  Then using the WR distribution, the #1 look has to run that style of pass.  The higher the style percentage, the more WR's run that style of rout. 

What do you think?

This is a good, simple way of getting the message across and giving coaches control. Great job sting. I'm assuming this would be available for down and distance and field position. Norbert will still have to devise internal engine decisions regarding player match-ups to take effect of attributes for an inside vs outside run, and what is needed in short, medium and long passing (DL vs OL, WR/RB/TE vs LB/CB/S).

Posted by katzphang88 on 3/3/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stingray002 on 3/3/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
How about something like this to get started...


On passes, the style is selected first.  Then using the WR distribution, the #1 look has to run that style of pass.  The higher the style percentage, the more WR's run that style of rout. 

What do you think?

This is a good, simple way of getting the message across and giving coaches control. Great job sting. I'm assuming this would be available for down and distance and field position. Norbert will still have to devise internal engine decisions regarding player match-ups to take effect of attributes for an inside vs outside run, and what is needed in short, medium and long passing (DL vs OL, WR/RB/TE vs LB/CB/S).

Some thing like this looks good for the formations.

Posted by stingray002 on 3/3/2012 1:36:00 PM (view original):
How about something like this to get started...


On passes, the style is selected first.  Then using the WR distribution, the #1 look has to run that style of pass.  The higher the style percentage, the more WR's run that style of rout. 

What do you think?

+1
Simple and should do the job.

What do you guys think about setting left and right positions?  If we are going to do it, it would be now.  This would be used for offensive line and defense (I'd have to review how that would affect DBs).  If that happens, then I would definitely see it affecting the play settings like splitting those inside/outside into right and left as well.  I don't know if we want to bring up weak/strong side as well. I want to provide more control, but I also don't want to see it getting too complex.

The one thing I warn against percentage type settings is that it can get awkward with validating the inputs.

I don't think left or right is needed.  If you do that, then position of the ball (left hash, middle, right hash) would also need to be known and we would have to be able to set left or right based on ball position.

I do agree with you on validating percentages.  You could change the pcercentages to "distribution numbers" and you determine the percentages while simming the game.

I equate the current passing "distribution" system to trying to type on a keyboard by sitting 10 feet away and throwing marbles as the key you want to "type."  It's complete garbage.

So, we set an aggressiveness and there's a CHANCE the QB throws to an area of a field (but there's a CHANCE he does something else that we don't intend).  And we set a receiving depth chart (WR, TE) and there's a CHANCE certain receivers will be in certain areas of the field (but there's a CHANCE they are not).  And then after all that CHANCE, maybe I throw to a TE for 1 yard, when I've got All-American-level WR up and down my lineup, with a stud QB throwing the ball and I've set Aggressive as my passing level to get over the top of a pulled-in 4-4 defense that's trying to clog my run.  Yeah... LOVE that.

It's an insult to call this control. What we had in GD 1.0 was light-years ahead of this garbage.  And anyone who didn't think that was control simply wasn't putting in the mental effort to figure out how to utilize those distribution settings. I got the ball to the guys I wanted to get the ball to the most.  Always. And I had the controls to exploit weaknesses in my opponents' defenses if I put in the time to scout and gameplan. Now... well, let's just say it's really hard to hit that 'A' key from ten feet with this marble.  My best players only rack up the most stats as a function of being on the field for the overwhelming majority of plays - not because I've got anything resembling controls to get them the ball.