I don't have a clue as to what goes into programming this game, but it seems to me they are making it more difficult then it needs to be. I would start by using the KISS method(Keep it simple Stupid). If you want the attributes to mean something, make a number value for each attribute for each position and multiply it by the rating value. I suggest using 1-10 where ten is the best for that position, use .01 for 10,.009 for 9 etc; Once you have all your values for each player, you would have a total number value for Offensive and Defensive lines. If for example you have a running play and the defense picks correctly they get 25 points added to the total. If they pick incorrectly, they lose 25 points. You could also have values for formations. If it is a passing play and you choose nickle or dime, you would get 25 points more. If it was a running play and you choose 4-4 or 5-2, you would get 25 points more. You get the picture. Ok now that we have all the numbers lets discuss a plays outcome. If on a passing play you had a 50 point advantage, you have a 50% chance of completing a pass. If you pass very short it would be 1-3yds,short 2-5yds,medium 5-10yds,long 10-20yds,and deep 15-30yds. This doesn't include YAC. The more advantage you have on offense the better completion percentage will be. You could have the same thing on running plays except have a different value for the advantage. If there is a disadvantage, there obviosly would be a decrease in pass completion percentage and shorter runs. I'm not sure how turnovers and penalties would be added in, but the way they have them now seems to be ok. I think it has a lot to do with formation IQ. You could add points for formation IQ too or subtract if they don't practice the formation they are using. I'm just throwing this out there in case it can be used, but maybe the programming isn't that simple LOL.

I have been a programmer and still do a little bit now and then.

The problem with the rewrite of this game is that it was done from the outside in instead of the inside out.  WIS was more worried about the "bells and whistles" than they were about the gameplay.  Now the game looks "pretty", but still doesn't work.  As you can tell by the empty worlds, people want a game that works more than they want all the "bells and whistles".

Posted by stingray002 on 2/7/2014 10:19:00 AM (view original):
I have been a programmer and still do a little bit now and then.

The problem with the rewrite of this game is that it was done from the outside in instead of the inside out.  WIS was more worried about the "bells and whistles" than they were about the gameplay.  Now the game looks "pretty", but still doesn't work.  As you can tell by the empty worlds, people want a game that works more than they want all the "bells and whistles".

Going from 1.0 to 2.0 and now 3.0, I think for a game that you pay per season - they want both.

I'm no programmer, just a simple grease monkey. But I always stress to my guys that the proper function of any machine should always trump how pretty it looks. There is an old saying in biker circles tbat goes "Chrome don't getcha home."