All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Beta update for those not involved...
6/21/2013 12:07 PM
Posted by cadelu on 6/17/2013 5:32:00 PM (view original):
First team took some time to figure out but the last 2 took 10-15 minutes tops because I knew what I was doing and what I was trying to do.
Same here...
6/21/2013 2:14 PM
Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 12:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cadelu on 6/17/2013 5:32:00 PM (view original):
First team took some time to figure out but the last 2 took 10-15 minutes tops because I knew what I was doing and what I was trying to do.
Same here...
I agree. Once you have it figured out it is quick. I remember even 1.0 took some time when I started.

But v 3.0 is far from ready to roll out.
6/21/2013 5:28 PM (edited)
Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 6/17/2013 8:33:00 AM (view original):
Based on where this was at 2 days ago I think some are a bit hasty in declaring that "it's getting close".  I know of at least one very well established GD coach who doesn't neccasarily  share this opinion.
Of course everyone has their own opinion, but then again nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!
Yes I have my opinion. I am no longer playing Beta. It was a mess when I did and from almost all credible accounts it is still a mess.

As for your comment of "nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!", You are wrong. V 1.0 was good enough for me and many others. With a few minor tweaks it was a great game. However should we have to settle for this? This is hardly worth ones time yet alone ones dollars. Some people bought into norberts line hook line and sinker, some did not. I did not. As bad of a game as 2.0 was norbert made it worse. That gave me little confidence that he would pull 3.0 off. He is now history and his invention looks too much like the Edsel.

6/22/2013 3:35 PM
Anecdotal evidence of tweaking is not sufficient for me. What do the developers have to say about changes?
6/22/2013 6:21 PM
Posted by badaxe on 6/22/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Anecdotal evidence of tweaking is not sufficient for me. What do the developers have to say about changes?
They are doling out information at an almost Conte-like level.
6/22/2013 7:46 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 6/22/2013 6:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by badaxe on 6/22/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Anecdotal evidence of tweaking is not sufficient for me. What do the developers have to say about changes?
They are doling out information at an almost Conte-like level.
Are you trying to say that they are a sleep? 
6/22/2013 9:21 PM
Posted by jibe on 6/21/2013 5:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 6/17/2013 8:33:00 AM (view original):
Based on where this was at 2 days ago I think some are a bit hasty in declaring that "it's getting close".  I know of at least one very well established GD coach who doesn't neccasarily  share this opinion.
Of course everyone has their own opinion, but then again nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!
Yes I have my opinion. I am no longer playing Beta. It was a mess when I did and from almost all credible accounts it is still a mess.

As for your comment of "nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!", You are wrong. V 1.0 was good enough for me and many others. With a few minor tweaks it was a great game. However should we have to settle for this? This is hardly worth ones time yet alone ones dollars. Some people bought into norberts line hook line and sinker, some did not. I did not. As bad of a game as 2.0 was norbert made it worse. That gave me little confidence that he would pull 3.0 off. He is now history and his invention looks too much like the Edsel.

jibe, the same coaches that are screaming "game planning shouldn't matter" and "10 points better talent should off set any game plan" are the same coaches that liked V 1.0. The team with the best running game won the NT. Game planning meant nothing, passing was almost non existent, ect. The truth is many, many people, myself included, did not like V 1.0, which is why changes were made...
6/22/2013 11:23 PM
Did you even play 1.0?

You are wrong on every point of your appraisal. 1. The team with the best running game didn't win the NT. Not always. You could and guys did win with passing. Teams won by playing D. It was a copycat game however and gearing your team towards running was the easiest and quickest path towards winning but not the only way. 2. Gamplanning meant a lot. No a #150 rated team was no how no way going to beat a top 5 team. They could with proper GP keep it close for a time but the talent difference would eventually quash the lesser team. However, a #25 team could and did upset the top 5 teams. I saw no problem with this it forced you to build up your talent and schedule teams non con that you could have a chance to beat. 3. Again passing was well used by some coaches and done so quite well. I played a 60/40 run/pass myself. true I never won an NC under 1.0 but I felt competent to be able to win most of the time once I had my team recruited.

The truth is many people whined the way you just did and the game became a "everyone deserves a chance to win just because they play".

6/22/2013 11:28 PM
Posted by jibe on 6/22/2013 11:23:00 PM (view original):
Did you even play 1.0?

You are wrong on every point of your appraisal. 1. The team with the best running game didn't win the NT. Not always. You could and guys did win with passing. Teams won by playing D. It was a copycat game however and gearing your team towards running was the easiest and quickest path towards winning but not the only way. 2. Gamplanning meant a lot. No a #150 rated team was no how no way going to beat a top 5 team. They could with proper GP keep it close for a time but the talent difference would eventually quash the lesser team. However, a #25 team could and did upset the top 5 teams. I saw no problem with this it forced you to build up your talent and schedule teams non con that you could have a chance to beat. 3. Again passing was well used by some coaches and done so quite well. I played a 60/40 run/pass myself. true I never won an NC under 1.0 but I felt competent to be able to win most of the time once I had my team recruited.

The truth is many people whined the way you just did and the game became a "everyone deserves a chance to win just because they play".

btw deen, I think game planning should matter greatly. But talent should matter greatly too. I however don't believe any team should be able to beat any other. Some teams have the talent of 0-13 and should be so. Some of these are human teams.

3.0 however appears to have turned itself into 2.0.

6/23/2013 10:40 AM (edited)
Posted by coach_deen on 6/22/2013 9:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 6/21/2013 5:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 6/17/2013 8:33:00 AM (view original):
Based on where this was at 2 days ago I think some are a bit hasty in declaring that "it's getting close".  I know of at least one very well established GD coach who doesn't neccasarily  share this opinion.
Of course everyone has their own opinion, but then again nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!
Yes I have my opinion. I am no longer playing Beta. It was a mess when I did and from almost all credible accounts it is still a mess.

As for your comment of "nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!", You are wrong. V 1.0 was good enough for me and many others. With a few minor tweaks it was a great game. However should we have to settle for this? This is hardly worth ones time yet alone ones dollars. Some people bought into norberts line hook line and sinker, some did not. I did not. As bad of a game as 2.0 was norbert made it worse. That gave me little confidence that he would pull 3.0 off. He is now history and his invention looks too much like the Edsel.

jibe, the same coaches that are screaming "game planning shouldn't matter" and "10 points better talent should off set any game plan" are the same coaches that liked V 1.0. The team with the best running game won the NT. Game planning meant nothing, passing was almost non existent, ect. The truth is many, many people, myself included, did not like V 1.0, which is why changes were made...
If you're calling me out, you better check your history.  I won NCs without throwing a pass all season, without calling a running play all season and with teams running the spectrum of mixes between the extremes.  I can also name several coaches who have also won multiple NCs with different strategies.  Gameplanning was essential.  But only when talent was relatively evenly matched, as it should be IMO.

3.0 is terrible.  norbert got canned and the new guy hasn't done anything.  It's nowhere near being a competent game, let alone a good one.  
6/23/2013 6:04 PM
Posted by coach_deen on 6/22/2013 9:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 6/21/2013 5:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 6/21/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 6/17/2013 8:33:00 AM (view original):
Based on where this was at 2 days ago I think some are a bit hasty in declaring that "it's getting close".  I know of at least one very well established GD coach who doesn't neccasarily  share this opinion.
Of course everyone has their own opinion, but then again nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!
Yes I have my opinion. I am no longer playing Beta. It was a mess when I did and from almost all credible accounts it is still a mess.

As for your comment of "nothing will ever be good enough for some coaches!", You are wrong. V 1.0 was good enough for me and many others. With a few minor tweaks it was a great game. However should we have to settle for this? This is hardly worth ones time yet alone ones dollars. Some people bought into norberts line hook line and sinker, some did not. I did not. As bad of a game as 2.0 was norbert made it worse. That gave me little confidence that he would pull 3.0 off. He is now history and his invention looks too much like the Edsel.

jibe, the same coaches that are screaming "game planning shouldn't matter" and "10 points better talent should off set any game plan" are the same coaches that liked V 1.0. The team with the best running game won the NT. Game planning meant nothing, passing was almost non existent, ect. The truth is many, many people, myself included, did not like V 1.0, which is why changes were made...
deen, imo gameplanning is overrated and carries way to much emphasis in the way some coaches want to see it implemented in the new version.   Over emphasizing GP only makes it more of a "guessing game" approach to winning. (A coach with a less talented team that switches from one offensive or defensive set to trick their opponent doesn't mean they out gameplanned the other coach)  Since this is a simulation game, if I am "10 points better" than my opponent, they should be able to slow me down if they call the correct defensive set, but if they don't have the right players on their roster or in the game...they should get beat! Same logic applies for defense.  If I am "10 points better" on defense, my opponent will convert some plays, but if they don't have the right players on their roster or in the game...they should get beat!
In the earlier version of the game, the three major factors imo were recruiting, player growth, proper depth charting and then GP.  Playing the right players at the right time in the right formation using the right style is the reason that you won the game. Most coaches selected the offensive and defensive sets of their choice, recruited the best/right players for their system whether it be for run or pass, 4-3, 4-4, or 5-2  placed them in the proper position in their depth chart and used them with the right style which resulted in them having the most success.  The reason that GP didn't appear to matter as much to those that weren't as successful is because of the factors I listed above.  It was hard to beat guys like nelsonba, slid64er, cravedogg, plague, gt_duece, ddingo, dublinuf, scottso, livemike, and vizlahunter, to name a few, because they mastered it. 
6/23/2013 7:38 PM
I don't really like to hear all this new (old) debate on the new version of the game...and I did not know that Norbert was gone (that is very disheartening).  However, the common theme that I have heard for the last few years that I have been playing is this:

How many "upsets" are acceptable in the game?

For those who end up on the losing side of the upset, then its bad.  For those on the winning side, its good.    Gameplanning advocates generally believe that upsets should happen if they do a really good job of gameplanning (and I do not like the word "trick").  Talent advocates generally believe that if their team is more "talented" by some margin, then they should never lose that game.    IMO, neither one is fully correct.

Actually the current engine provides me with an example of both of the above philosophies.  Recently completed Heisman season, D1AA.  I have a reasonably talented team, and this was my 5th season at a minor rebuild.  I made it to the NC game and lost 10-7.  I NEVER CHANGED MY DEFENSIVE SETTINGS the entire season, until the semifinal game.  At that point I made many, many changes in hopes of beating a much more talented (#1 GUESS) team.  I did the same thing in the NC game against a somewhat more talented team.  I came within a fumble into the endzone of winning the NC with a team that overachieved in the playoffs.

Personally, I think the outcome of my specific team was probably appropriate.  I don't think the team was really good enough to have won the NC.  However, I have solid gameplans that have won me many games and my major changes to defense when needed, clearly helped me win that semifinal game.  

In my 2+ years of playing I don't think I have an example of a game that I could not explain the outcome.  I might not have liked the outcome, but I could explain it.  Yes, the engine has "streaks".  Yes, there are things that should be changed (I want to throw from the Gun with my passing QB...and run out of the Gun with my running QB).  But, UNTIL WE SOLVE THE DEBATE OVER HOW MANY UPSETS ARE APPROPRIATE, all of this back and forth banter will continue and will confuse the developers regarding what we want and what is best for a good/great football simulation.
6/24/2013 1:57 PM
Posted by harriswb3 on 6/23/2013 7:38:00 PM (view original):
I don't really like to hear all this new (old) debate on the new version of the game...and I did not know that Norbert was gone (that is very disheartening).  However, the common theme that I have heard for the last few years that I have been playing is this:

How many "upsets" are acceptable in the game?

For those who end up on the losing side of the upset, then its bad.  For those on the winning side, its good.    Gameplanning advocates generally believe that upsets should happen if they do a really good job of gameplanning (and I do not like the word "trick").  Talent advocates generally believe that if their team is more "talented" by some margin, then they should never lose that game.    IMO, neither one is fully correct.

Actually the current engine provides me with an example of both of the above philosophies.  Recently completed Heisman season, D1AA.  I have a reasonably talented team, and this was my 5th season at a minor rebuild.  I made it to the NC game and lost 10-7.  I NEVER CHANGED MY DEFENSIVE SETTINGS the entire season, until the semifinal game.  At that point I made many, many changes in hopes of beating a much more talented (#1 GUESS) team.  I did the same thing in the NC game against a somewhat more talented team.  I came within a fumble into the endzone of winning the NC with a team that overachieved in the playoffs.

Personally, I think the outcome of my specific team was probably appropriate.  I don't think the team was really good enough to have won the NC.  However, I have solid gameplans that have won me many games and my major changes to defense when needed, clearly helped me win that semifinal game.  

In my 2+ years of playing I don't think I have an example of a game that I could not explain the outcome.  I might not have liked the outcome, but I could explain it.  Yes, the engine has "streaks".  Yes, there are things that should be changed (I want to throw from the Gun with my passing QB...and run out of the Gun with my running QB).  But, UNTIL WE SOLVE THE DEBATE OVER HOW MANY UPSETS ARE APPROPRIATE, all of this back and forth banter will continue and will confuse the developers regarding what we want and what is best for a good/great football simulation.
+1

Upsets suck when you are the upsetted.  But how many times did you game plan against the opponent that beat you?  And I don't buy the some teams deserve to be 0-13 thing.  Look at NC State beating FSU last year.  NC State is not a good team, and that loss cost Florida State a chance at the title.  This has to be the same as a SIM beating a good team.  This shouldn't happen every year, but every so often it can.  The problem that people see in this game is that we don't have 120 teams playing 12-13 game schedules, we have 120*10 playing 13-18 game schedules in a much faster time frame.  So more upsets occur, or at least appear to.  The best teams generally win the game.  Some people just find it easier to blame the engine instead of themselves for taking an opponent lightly or just having a bad day.
6/24/2013 2:26 PM
Posted by citizenkane on 6/17/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):
I quit the beta. It's too time consuming, all while there are no rewards for playing. If you have free time, which nobody should in this world, if you are a true producer, the kind who doesn't mooch off of the looters who steal from the true producers, then play. 
+1.  But sometimes I come on the forum for a laugh or two...
6/26/2013 10:56 AM
Based on my experiences playing all three versions, 2.0 generated the most ******* contests, 1.0 was the toughest for newbies to learn, but by far the most fun once you did, and the 3.0 code should be used by the Defense Dept because that code is unbreakable. If you put the 3.0 code on an LP album and play it backwards, you hear a scratchy recording of JConte offering to sell cheat codes to Kim Jong "Mentally" Il.


of 3
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Beta update for those not involved...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

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.