I, for one, am suprised to see a post by Grindi with what I am sure some will say has a 'negative or pessimistic' angle to it.  Where is the lovable lug we have all come to embrace?

Thank you Harris.  You put it much more eloquently than I did.  The balance is closer for the run/pass mix but it is not for the balance which way I'm going.  I realize Balance for that means it should hit all the options about equally but it is picking predominantly aggressive.  I am not code versed for this type of computer,  I taught and programmed for PLCs.  Similar but different.  But why can't they put a couple counters in to keep track of what you ran then compare them with simple equal to or greater than logic to kick the play to the balancing factor?  That way you would never get but a couple plays skewed.  What do you think we are getting defensively?  I'm sure the same type of logic is being used.  We could have aggressive in for our call and the dad gummed game is calling very cons half the time. Or you could have very cons in and the engine is running very aggressive.  We can't even see that but you know they didn't code the defense different from the offense.  In PLC logic that would be extremely simple to monitor and to control. 

Posted by partyrock on 5/12/2012 10:01:00 AM (view original):
I, for one, am suprised to see a post by Grindi with what I am sure some will say is a 'negative or pessimistic' angle to it.  Where is the lovable lug we have all come to embrace?

You get the prize.   First troll to show up.

Gotta agree with all of the above. I've tried VA in both pass and run. Consistently get runs up the middle and short 2 yard dump passes. Way more than 15% and way more than acceptable.

There is NO fun in game planning now and it seems to be almost useless.

norbert this is for you. You'd better get this garbage fixed in this update or you will see your low participation numbers drop significantly lower. We, meaning those on my accounts, are attatched to the teams we have but if YOUR update doesn't fix this it will be hasta la vista baby. Consider this a dire warning. So far your updates have been mere window dressing and imo the game play is worse than it was a year ago.

note: this is not caesari

Grindi, my old friend.  You knew I would be the first to show up.  I got your back on this one camping buddy.  I knew that when I saw your post something that had a negative twist to it that something must be wrong.  That is something we aren't used to.  Whining and continuously pointing out the obvious is a trait you have never possessed.  Remember that time your zipper got stuck on your sleeping bag?  You never went on complaining over and over about how it got stuck and exposed your legs to those harsh enviroments.  And, it sure as hell aint something that I have ever heard come out of your mouth while sitting around the campfire whittlin' sticks into various shapes.

I appreciate the prize, but all I need is your friendship. 

Posted by timberdrive on 5/12/2012 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Gotta agree with all of the above. I've tried VA in both pass and run. Consistently get runs up the middle and short 2 yard dump passes. Way more than 15% and way more than acceptable.

There is NO fun in game planning now and it seems to be almost useless.

norbert this is for you. You'd better get this garbage fixed in this update or you will see your low participation numbers drop significantly lower. We, meaning those on my accounts, are attatched to the teams we have but if YOUR update doesn't fix this it will be hasta la vista baby. Consider this a dire warning. So far your updates have been mere window dressing and imo the game play is worse than it was a year ago.

note: this is not caesari

Timber: I think a dire warning is appropriate.  Thank you for taking it to the level of 'douche chill' to get the point across to those good-for-nuthin' skally-wags at computer development with this game.  They better start pushing some more buttons and get this thing on the right track.  If not, I'll drive up to their office and unplug the computer machine - that'll show them!

Keep the flame of dire warning burning Timber - keep 'em burning!

Posted by grindi on 5/12/2012 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by partyrock on 5/12/2012 10:01:00 AM (view original):
I, for one, am suprised to see a post by Grindi with what I am sure some will say is a 'negative or pessimistic' angle to it.  Where is the lovable lug we have all come to embrace?

You get the prize.   First troll to show up.

You said you were done with the forums.  Look who can't keep away.

People may troll you, but it's not like you don't like the attention.  If you truly don't, then please stop with all the negativity.

Posted by muddapucka on 5/12/2012 10:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by grindi on 5/12/2012 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by partyrock on 5/12/2012 10:01:00 AM (view original):
I, for one, am suprised to see a post by Grindi with what I am sure some will say is a 'negative or pessimistic' angle to it.  Where is the lovable lug we have all come to embrace?

You get the prize.   First troll to show up.

You said you were done with the forums.  Look who can't keep away.

People may troll you, but it's not like you don't like the attention.  If you truly don't, then please stop with all the negativity.

Anddddddd, Troll #2 puts in his useless commentary.  Party, I would rather be castrated than for someone to consider me your friend.

Can't we all just get along?

I agree with grindi and the current % chances of run/pass options. It seems that settings for aggressiveness just add confusion to the planning the game doesn't need. Norbert has mentioned he was going to try to get away from this during his conversations. It would be much more obvious and realistic to call a play like "outside", "off-tackle" (where the play could break off to go outside or inside), and "inside". What coach would send in plays for the QB to run and say "OK, I'll leave it up to you, but I feel you should consider running outside about 60% of the time." Game play match-ups are hard enough in this game without the game engine mucking it up more. I'm sorry to say that the more Norbert has revealed about how the current engine works, the more I know that JConte had no clue how to simulate a game.

LOL.  L I ended up winning by 7.  I'd be p oed if I was the other coach.  It was the old punt return for a TD that did him in.  My QB who hit well over 60% of his passes all season only hit 33% today.  Although his backup was 3 for 3.  The defense he shredded in the first half shut him down in the 2nd half and I made no changes.  I think that when I stop trying to make any rational sense of this a lot of the frustration will go away.

ITT: We discover that grindi is unable to comprehend random variance.

Posted by katzphang88 on 5/12/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
I agree with grindi and the current % chances of run/pass options. It seems that settings for aggressiveness just add confusion to the planning the game doesn't need. Norbert has mentioned he was going to try to get away from this during his conversations. It would be much more obvious and realistic to call a play like "outside", "off-tackle" (where the play could break off to go outside or inside), and "inside". What coach would send in plays for the QB to run and say "OK, I'll leave it up to you, but I feel you should consider running outside about 60% of the time." Game play match-ups are hard enough in this game without the game engine mucking it up more. I'm sorry to say that the more Norbert has revealed about how the current engine works, the more I know that JConte had no clue how to simulate a game.

The percentages to run a certain play over another is due to the fact that you're not sitting there calling in a play like a real coach.  We have to set up our game plans before the game and those plans have to tell how to run the entire game.  So it would be really tough to have one single play call as in "run outside" and that would take care of your game plan.  For instance, on 1st down play settings, you wouldn't just one single play that is "run outside" or you would run outside every single 1st down.  So let's say you then throw some other single call plays into the mix, like "short pass".  Well now you won't just run outside on 1st down, but you now leave it up to chance on running outside or attempting a short pass.  Those percentages are essentially doing this, just a little more efficiently in that you can have one play that represents both of these single plays.

The problem is really in the percentages and what they represent.  If I had the above play designed so that there is 50% chance of an outside run and 50% chance of a short pass, it doesn't mean at the end of the game I would end up with half my 1st downs rushing outside and half short passes.  It's saying that on every 1st down you have a 50% chance of calling one or the other.  So you could actually end up with all rushes outside or short passes on 1st down.

There are going to be some significant playbook changes coming with the update, but there will still be the idea of a random chance of picking from a list of plays for a given down and distance.  What I would like to do is get it to make that call based on what it has called before, so those percentages would represent more of the distribution of calls on downs.  However, it would still be random calls that you can't set to specific situations, so if you look at a point in the game and think that would have been a perfect time to call the short pass over the rush outside, you aren't going to get that.  We would have to somehow tie the play calls to some other conditions and that's not something we can do with this update. 

First priority is to get the engine focused more on team and player match ups and add a little more variety to game plans.  If we get those to a good state and get some good testing in, then I might have some time to add in these play call distribution checks.  If not, they would most likely be in one of the next updates after this.  But you should understand that the play tendencies are the chance of a play being called and not the distribution, and that rush and pass aggressiveness (inside/outside and short/deep) are currently tied together.