I just had a GDgasm.

I may actually start winning when game planning makes a difference.

Posted by caesari on 6/17/2012 1:04:00 PM (view original):
I just had a GDgasm.

I may actually start winning when game planning makes a difference.

 ROFL.....   Thanks for the laugh Caesari  :)

Norbert I would love to be a beta tester for this if at all possible.

Posted by plptoolbox on 6/21/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Norbert I would love to be a beta tester for this if at all possible.

The plan is to have an open beta, which means it will be open to everyone to join.  It is still a fair ways off and we are still working on how we want to implement it and if we need to limit teams for testers, but when it is ready we will make it widely known how to join in.

Outstanding

Posted by norbert on 6/21/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plptoolbox on 6/21/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Norbert I would love to be a beta tester for this if at all possible.

The plan is to have an open beta, which means it will be open to everyone to join.  It is still a fair ways off and we are still working on how we want to implement it and if we need to limit teams for testers, but when it is ready we will make it widely known how to join in.

Sign me up and I am going to dedicate my beta team to steinrat.....

Posted by donald3030 on 6/21/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by norbert on 6/21/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plptoolbox on 6/21/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Norbert I would love to be a beta tester for this if at all possible.

The plan is to have an open beta, which means it will be open to everyone to join.  It is still a fair ways off and we are still working on how we want to implement it and if we need to limit teams for testers, but when it is ready we will make it widely known how to join in.

Sign me up and I am going to dedicate my beta team to steinrat.....

Good go. :-)

I love the ideas norbert, but one concern that I have and maybe it has been addresses in one of the threads and I missed it, is the OL in these different depth charts.  One of the issues with the past depth charts that was totally unrealistic is that you could have a different OL for every formation, so you could realistically run a new, fresh set of OL out on every play.  The whole idea of breaking down the depth chart on the skill players is long overdue, but have you thought about setting something more concrete for OL across the different formations.  With the old depth chart you could actaully get starts for more than 5 OL a game and that's not realistic either.  Keep up the good work!!!

I noticed a couple of seasons ago I was having better success running out of trips, so I started running more. I lost a game because a guy came out in the second half and made a great tactical move by going to a 4-4. In real life if someone runs a 44 against my spread or trips or Ace as I call it I will check to a pass. If I can catch someone in cover 3 I throw to the flats before the lbs get there. I throw posts against cover two. If they switch to a dime against my trips I would check to a run. I am saying that I wish we could make secondary plans to adjust to the scheme the other team is using and vice versa. I know this is not a realistic idea as the game is simply simulated instead of real time. Finally is there any way we can get a rb shotgun package? My base offense in real life is gun midline and veer option. 

Posted by donald3030 on 6/21/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by norbert on 6/21/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plptoolbox on 6/21/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Norbert I would love to be a beta tester for this if at all possible.

The plan is to have an open beta, which means it will be open to everyone to join.  It is still a fair ways off and we are still working on how we want to implement it and if we need to limit teams for testers, but when it is ready we will make it widely known how to join in.

Sign me up and I am going to dedicate my beta team to steinrat.....

Coming up on the 2nd anniversary of his passing, July 25th.   RIP Chris,  you are missed my friend!!  

This all sounds pretty good.  One thing that sticks out to me and may have been addressed somewhere here is that players purposely left off depth charts manage to sneak into games.  Why does this happen? 

Posted by samson75 on 7/9/2012 3:40:00 PM (view original):
This all sounds pretty good.  One thing that sticks out to me and may have been addressed somewhere here is that players purposely left off depth charts manage to sneak into games.  Why does this happen? 

Currently, all players are considered able to play in the game and on your bench.  The depth chart is your way of predefining how players are called into the game at each position.  If you do not set any players (or don't set enough), then the engine just pulls them into the game off of the bench picking a player from the position it is looking for.  If all of the guys that you set in your depth chart are at their resting points (fatigue level), it will pull someone off the bench.  There is currently no way to mark a player as unavailable for a game.

Since we are changing the depth chart settings and how the engine uses them, this might be something I try to work in.  But there needs to be some caution in doing this as we don't want to introduce any glitches.  It might be something as simple as allowing players to play while needing rest before pulling players from the bench.  We might also be able to do something with the player role settings to make it a little smarter in picking players off the bench.

Makes sense.  I am sure this is not an issue as the seasons progress, but for beginners, we end up with some roster spots filled by less than optimal players as we learn the intircacies of recruiting.  In some of these cases, one of our starters, or even the backups, playing at a reduced capacity would still be better than these players.  Anyway thanks for the prompt response! 

If you get stuck with SimAI recruits and want to prevent them from seeing the field under any circumstances, you could always position switch them to a spot so deep in the chart they'd never get in (e.g., 4th QB or TE).

Posted by norbert on 6/4/2012 10:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sammyboy4022 on 6/3/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):
Norbert I definitely think it would help to differentiate between arm strength and difficulty to tackle strength for qb's. As for starters and this may be too difficult but would there be a way for the engine to determine which players are used most and itself compile them into each teams starters?

And may have missed this but is the roles just for skill positions? i.e bruising rb vs scatback and blocking TE vs receiving TE? Or will you have roles for DL and OL? Not sure about OL roles but possibly pass rushers versus run stoppers on DL. Such as DE's who are better run stoppers being subbed out for your less stout but faster and more elusive DE's on passing downs. Of course am assuming on the update of the engine  speed and ELU for pass rushing DE's more important than it seems to be now.

All in all thanks for all the input and time Norbert.  

You will be able to set different Roles for all positions, not just the offensive skill positions.  Yes, this can bring back the hockey line style changes, but unless you are carrying 10 OL, we're really probably talking about 1-2 subs, and if you really do make the commitment to have 10+ OL out of 50 players then good luck.

I assume then since the offence will be dictated by personnel that the defense as they would in real life can adjust?  Otherwise I just see offensive juggernauts and whoever has the ball last will win.