All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > Hope you complainers are happy.
6/16/2013 12:15 AM
This is really getting worse as the updates go.  Too many complainers have wined about upsets and everything has now gotten toned so much down that my DIAA teams with a full 8 point OL advantage over the opposing DL can't run the ball consistently enough to win.  Great job, now we are back at 2.0 again.  Awesome!!!!!! 
6/16/2013 4:06 AM
Out of curiosity, what did you expect? They should have ran the beta testing through a few computer simulations to see what needed to b fixed or tweaked before they unleashed it to all of us. Enough coaches griped about rushing so they fixed that, then it was about passing and now that has been tweaked, and in the middle of this they pull Norbert off and put in Oriole fan and Redhawk. So it's easy to see why there is complaining/gripping. Now it's to the point where half of us are pointing out obvious issues that should have/could have been fixed before it got to us while the other half has given up hope. I'm to the point where I'm fine with V2.

Here is what I feel needs to change to make V3 really good:

1. Make the position ratings be effective. There is no reason that a team with a 48 OL should be able to hang with a team that has a 65 DL or vice versa.

2. Get rid of having to set your starters twice

3. Keep the Test Game feature as is. It's the closest thing this game has to scrimmages and/or watching film.

4. Offer this version and version 2 so to give us a choice.

5. Add these 6 worlds to what we currently have
6/16/2013 3:11 PM
I think this is the problem... The Defense.... Instead of fixing the defense - they dumbed down the offense to run and pass based on a lifelike average - no matter who you are playing... The defense is whats broke - not the over powered offense that nobody could stop!!! Fix the defense already!
6/16/2013 3:35 PM
starfinder77...About 2 weeks before we started beta Norbert told all of us that he wanted to get more of it "right" before getting us involved. A HUGE % of the coaches disagreed, saying we wanted to test it sooner rather than later, that we understood it was beta and expected a lot of problems but would be willing to help fix them. Now that we're here and these problems really exist everyone is screaming about how terrible this is! We got EXACTLY what we ask for. As a group we agreed to help fix these problems, but we've become more of the problem instead. I'm asking you and everyone else, for the good of the game, PLEASE quit putting the game and the people that are trying to make it better down and try to help with the problems.
It's simply human nature to do less than your best when you're trying to make the game better and everyone is telling you how bad of a job you're doing. I just don't see it. We all knew this was going to take time, we were asked from the beginning to be patient, but now it seems like more than not want 3.0 to fail. If that's the case why was everyone screaming so loud how 2.0 was broken and we HAD to have a new engine or the game was going to die?

6/16/2013 3:44 PM
Deen,

Very well said, I for one like alot of the changes, but am very concerned over the amount of time it is going to take for each and every game to game plan. I am also concerned with the realization if you come across some crazy coach that does everything the total opposite of real football to the point that if it is 3rd or 4th and long (10+) they can constantly get a 1st down, or in a short yardage situation constantly get a big play. The game changing plays need to be minimized or reduced.

I also hate what we have to go thru to set a starting lineup. Let's have it in one(1) place only and include it where we set the depth chart.
6/16/2013 6:17 PM
I like the new features for depth chart, player settings, formations and game planning. It is an upgrade of V1.0 where you just had complete different line-ups for each formation to take advantage of numbers.

But problems in the engine abound, which is what we are trying to get fixed. I think Norbert had the right idea in mind, but had some difficulty conceptulizing how it should have been done. I agree with the above posters who are for first balancing out player game attributes before introducing more complexity of defensive coverages and WR patterns. We didn't have the balances down to acceptable range and then the game code was made more complex and will be more difficult to fix.

With the hand-off to Oriole - we seem to be back in the dark about what is going on. Deen - I agree we need to be more constructive to the programmers - BUT we began giving input in Jan 2012. Norbert rolled out his game 14 months later and we are still having to give more constructive comments as the game has seemed to have "stalled". I can genuinely sympathize with those who have just given up on this beta. I don't want to, but I don't want to feel like I am whistling into the wind either. --- Defense is wimpy, player match-ups are still too hazy, stamina isn't effective, passing can game the game, running with an advantage is still not in balance - and we can't seem to get any feedback on what is going on.

Test season FOUR is starting and we still don't know about injuries and penalties, which shouldn't even be considered until running, passing and defense can all be balanced and used as a coach sees fit to win games.
6/16/2013 10:39 PM
Posted by coach_deen on 6/16/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
starfinder77...About 2 weeks before we started beta Norbert told all of us that he wanted to get more of it "right" before getting us involved. A HUGE % of the coaches disagreed, saying we wanted to test it sooner rather than later, that we understood it was beta and expected a lot of problems but would be willing to help fix them. Now that we're here and these problems really exist everyone is screaming about how terrible this is! We got EXACTLY what we ask for. As a group we agreed to help fix these problems, but we've become more of the problem instead. I'm asking you and everyone else, for the good of the game, PLEASE quit putting the game and the people that are trying to make it better down and try to help with the problems.
It's simply human nature to do less than your best when you're trying to make the game better and everyone is telling you how bad of a job you're doing. I just don't see it. We all knew this was going to take time, we were asked from the beginning to be patient, but now it seems like more than not want 3.0 to fail. If that's the case why was everyone screaming so loud how 2.0 was broken and we HAD to have a new engine or the game was going to die?

I'm doing my part in testing the game like you and others. I'm not putting the game or any coaches down, I simply responded to a sarcastic post that implied that all of us that r trying to make beta better r the problem
6/18/2013 9:26 AM
Posted by starfinder77 on 6/16/2013 10:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 6/16/2013 3:35:00 PM (view original):
starfinder77...About 2 weeks before we started beta Norbert told all of us that he wanted to get more of it "right" before getting us involved. A HUGE % of the coaches disagreed, saying we wanted to test it sooner rather than later, that we understood it was beta and expected a lot of problems but would be willing to help fix them. Now that we're here and these problems really exist everyone is screaming about how terrible this is! We got EXACTLY what we ask for. As a group we agreed to help fix these problems, but we've become more of the problem instead. I'm asking you and everyone else, for the good of the game, PLEASE quit putting the game and the people that are trying to make it better down and try to help with the problems.
It's simply human nature to do less than your best when you're trying to make the game better and everyone is telling you how bad of a job you're doing. I just don't see it. We all knew this was going to take time, we were asked from the beginning to be patient, but now it seems like more than not want 3.0 to fail. If that's the case why was everyone screaming so loud how 2.0 was broken and we HAD to have a new engine or the game was going to die?

I'm doing my part in testing the game like you and others. I'm not putting the game or any coaches down, I simply responded to a sarcastic post that implied that all of us that r trying to make beta better r the problem
Sarcastic post?  Really, this is the same thing that happened to version 2 where everything was getting normalized.  Lets look at the results, I have a 79 rated offensive line against a 69 rated defensive line.  Yet, I can only manage 3.5 per carry.  Really, this is progress.  Maybe just maybe, we should have waited to dumb the game down until after penalties and fatigue got added in instead of before.  That would have changed things dramatically.  Now, this game is version 2 level as far as I am concerned with the running game being dumbed down again.
6/18/2013 11:46 AM
 Lets look at the results, I have a 79 rated offensive line against a 69 rated defensive line.  Yet, I can only manage 3.5 per carry. 

When the beta first came out, I had long discussions with Norbert about what the results of ratings should mean. I stated that I thought if a player match-up produced an obvious advantage (say 10%) that higher player would win all the time. Norbert countered with statements about that the higher player would win most of time, but the lower ranked player would have some chance of making the play.

This is what I think is still wrong. Every decision point which takes away from an obvious player match-up advantage (>10% - in dewagne's case 14.5%) negates what we are trying to create with player superioity being the main factor and random game generated outcomes leveling the playing field artificially. Take a look at the detailed PBP match-ups and notice how many time a large advantage is called equal or for the lower scored player group. It is more than 50% some times. I really can't tell what the real match-up is because with modifiers such as IQ, fatigue etc it is muddled. This is foundation that needs to be fixed.
6/18/2013 1:03 PM
Test games have to change. I like the idea, but you can't let it be used to scout the other team's game plan, otherwise, the last guy online will end up winning.
6/18/2013 2:23 PM (edited)
Name Year Pos Starter A SPD D WE ST STR BLK TKL H GI E T TOT
Philip Robles Sr. RB   36 55 53 59 61 62 50 6 55 39 75 50 601
                                 
Willie Armstrong Jr. OL   36 14 52 67 60 80 58 17 20 51 52 48 555
Matthew Thomas Jr. OL   56 27 75 84 55 69 68 1 28 38 50 43 594
Theodore Anderson So. OL   31 22 50 82 44 70 65 27 15 41 50 36 533
Jose Harris Sr. OL   49 23 49 51 63 68 59 21 20 40 42 43 528
Charles Orr Sr. OL   43 28 59 68 63 82 55 1 34 36 30 47 546
Mario Perkins Jr. TE   30 40 54 48 58 50 66 1 47 41 48 59 542
Gerald Torres So.* RB   46 49 62 74 58 61 41 4 45 39 67 30 576
                                 
 OL        43.00  22.80  57.00  70.40  57.00  73.80  61.00  13.40  23.40  41.20  44.80  43.40  
 TOTAL        41.57  29.00  57.29  67.71  57.29  68.57  58.86  10.29  29.86  40.86  48.43  43.71  
                                 
Joseph Brantley Jr. DL   57 32 49 46 39 48 9 55 17 48 42 47 489
John Maynard Sr. DL   57 23 47 48 56 53 1 68 26 26 45 48 498
Joshua Hagen So. DL   32 12 37 54 64 60 33 46 15 50 26 54 483
Zachary Price So. DL   34 32 66 46 51 53 11 43 19 45 40 37 477
Paul Cruz So. LB   35 37 45 41 42 52 18 51 20 48 52 40 481
Arthur Daniels Sr. LB   41 42 48 46 50 49 5 45 39 44 47 45 501
Jerry Hall Fr. LB   32 40 53 54 52 61 15 48 21 29 41 22 468
                                 
 DL        45.00  24.75  49.75  48.50  52.50  53.50  13.50  53.00  19.25  42.25  38.25  46.50  
 TOTAL        41.14  31.14  49.29  47.86  50.57  53.71  13.14  50.86  22.43  41.43  41.86  41.86  



OFF: I-Formation: IR DEF: 4-3: 4-3
100 QB Michael Martinez
98 OL1 Willie Armstrong
98 OL2 Matthew Thomas
98 OL3 Theodore Anderson
98 OL4 Jose Harris
98 OL5 Charles Orr
98 TE Mario Perkins
97 RB1 Philip Robles
98 RB2 Gerald Torres
99 WR1 Nathaniel Bennett
99 WR2 Jim Webb
97 DL1 Joseph Brantley
98 DL2 John Maynard
98 DL3 Joshua Hagen
98 DL4 Zachary Price
97 LB1 Paul Cruz
98 LB2 Arthur Daniels
98 LB3 Jerry Hall
98 CB1 James Strickland
98 CB2 Thomas Murphy
98 SS Benjamin Allen
98 FS Daniel McGuire
Philip Robles takes the handoff and rushes wide. [Pass Defense - medium cover]
[STEP:1 LOC:InsideLine ACT:Rushing]
[BLOCK: 62-53 (-0.1) ADV:Equal RESULT:EqualBlocking ]
[TKLATT: No Tackle Attempt ]
[STEP:2 LOC:OutsideLine ACT:Rushing]
[BLOCK: str:61-45 agi:36-37 (0.3) ADV:Equal RESULT:EqualBlocking ]
[TKLATT: No Tackle Attempt ]
Robles gets to the line.
[STEP:3 LOC:OutsideShort ACT:Rushing]
[BLOCK: 40-39 (-0.8) ADV:Equal RESULT:EqualBlocking ]
[TKLATT: 53-46 (0) BLKResult:EqualBlocking ADV:Equal MOM:0 RESULT:GoodTackleAttempt ]
[TACKLE: 54-42 (0) MOM:0 ATTResult:GoodTackleAttempt ADV:Equal RESULT:WeakTackle ]
Joseph Brantley gets a hand on Robles to bring him down at the RPI 13. 5-yard gain.

Despite what I consider a significant advantage on the lines and in the box (including +20 STR on the line and +15 in the box), all I garner is ADV:Equal and RESULT:EqualBlocking.

IMO, player ratings do not matter enough and there's not enough separation.
6/18/2013 8:20 PM
Despite what I consider a significant advantage on the lines and in the box (including +20 STR on the line and +15 in the box), all I garner is ADV:Equal and RESULT:EqualBlocking.

IMO, player ratings do not matter enough and there's not enough separation.

This! At what point in this game is an advantage going to be an advantage! It is (was) written to be very mushy for comparisons. Now don't go all real world on me - we're talking about GD the game. Any deviation of >10% should always go to the better match. Modifications for fatigue, tech, athl, game plan and IQ should show up as included the comparison #'s. If <10% then give some variable/random/possible outcome to throw some variety into the game. (If 10% being the variable difference is too high/low we can tweak, but make such a difference always the benefit of the higher valued match-up).
6/18/2013 10:25 PM
+1 - this is what I meant when I said this:

Instead of fixing the defense - they dumbed down the offense to run and pass based on a lifelike average - no matter who you are playing...
6/19/2013 8:22 AM
Posted by katzphang88 on 6/18/2013 8:20:00 PM (view original):
Despite what I consider a significant advantage on the lines and in the box (including +20 STR on the line and +15 in the box), all I garner is ADV:Equal and RESULT:EqualBlocking.

IMO, player ratings do not matter enough and there's not enough separation.

This! At what point in this game is an advantage going to be an advantage! It is (was) written to be very mushy for comparisons. Now don't go all real world on me - we're talking about GD the game. Any deviation of >10% should always go to the better match. Modifications for fatigue, tech, athl, game plan and IQ should show up as included the comparison #'s. If <10% then give some variable/random/possible outcome to throw some variety into the game. (If 10% being the variable difference is too high/low we can tweak, but make such a difference always the benefit of the higher valued match-up).
I understand what you're saying and why, and though I agree with all most all of your posts/ideas, this one I don't, at least not 100%. That said, i do believe there should be a clear advantage for the better player, and I also believe the higher the % the bigger the advantage there should be. What I have a problem with is giving any player an advantage on every play (if that's what you're saying). Every player takes a play off every now and then, or simply has a bad play, or maybe just makes a bad read. My point is even a lessor player should have a chance of making a big play every once in a while...or why play the game?
6/19/2013 8:24 AM
Whoops, there's that billyb again! coach_billyb & coach_deen the same...
of 5
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > Hope you complainers are happy.

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.