All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > cebrake, katzphang88, bhazlewood, fastec27...
6/23/2013 9:53 AM
And all of the other coaches who care enough about GD to get on these forums and at least make an honest attempt to help get the game right, I just want to say thank you. We may or may not agree with each other, but at least we all give a dam. This said, I have a question for all of you guy's. How do you think 3.0 would be if we just took the new abilities we have to set the offense and def. positions in 3,0, the "test" game, maybe a little more...but stick with the actual 2.0 engine? Was 2.0 that bad? Would it at least be an improvement if we could put our pass catching TE in the game when we wanted, our blocking back, etc....but use the 2.0 engine to actually play the games?
IMPORTANT: I AM NOT SAYING THIS WOULD WORK, I AM ASKING ALL OF YOU WHAT YOU THINK...Thanks you!
6/23/2013 12:05 PM
Under the 2.0 engine, a sim won the D1A NC.  It didn't gameplan flawlessly or make halftime adjustments or even have the best talent.  It won because neither gameplanning nor talent matters in 2.0.  No f'ing way.  
6/23/2013 12:12 PM
The effects of player rating normalization still dampens better players and teams against lower ranked teams (BAD). I think the improvements in 3.0 for the game application are great, and would really help if added to 2.0. But the big stinkin' monkey in the room is the fact that the engine is still not able to capture the differences in player ratings enough to provide consistent came simulation, and THEN add some modifications for other factors (fatigue, "playing out of your mind", formations, bolcking, blitzing, water breaks or whatever) to add some depth.
6/23/2013 12:12 PM
2.0 was flawed from the get go and 3.0 looks like it has the same innards. You just have more ropes to pull and whistles to blow to make you think and feel like you have more control.

Maybe 3.0 can be made into the game we want. Maybe it needs to be scrapped. But the worst thing now is that we the users are just left out here in LF by the developers and by WIS.

6/23/2013 12:23 PM
Posted by jibe on 6/23/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
2.0 was flawed from the get go and 3.0 looks like it has the same innards. You just have more ropes to pull and whistles to blow to make you think and feel like you have more control.

Maybe 3.0 can be made into the game we want. Maybe it needs to be scrapped. But the worst thing now is that we the users are just left out here in LF by the developers and by WIS.

I agree 100%. At least, in the beginning, Norbert was letting us know what was happening step by step and I/we felt like we at least had some input. This is starting to feel like jconte all over again. Hopefully this will change, I honestly believe there is a decent chance that the "powers that be" will start communicating with us again, at least enough to keep us semi informed. If not I'm afraid there is no hope!
6/23/2013 12:25 PM
Posted by katzphang88 on 6/23/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
The effects of player rating normalization still dampens better players and teams against lower ranked teams (BAD). I think the improvements in 3.0 for the game application are great, and would really help if added to 2.0. But the big stinkin' monkey in the room is the fact that the engine is still not able to capture the differences in player ratings enough to provide consistent came simulation, and THEN add some modifications for other factors (fatigue, "playing out of your mind", formations, bolcking, blitzing, water breaks or whatever) to add some depth.
Yeah, katz, I get it. You're right. If I understand your take it would be better but still nowhere near good enough? If so I'm afraid you're 100% correct...
6/23/2013 3:11 PM
I think the 2.0 engine is fundamentally flawed.  Things like the offense and defense positions, the test game feature, the "custom" game plans and the like are all nice cosmetic additions.  It doesn't change how the application determines the results of football games, and THAT is what is broken.  

So no, I don't think it would change the overall game enough to make a difference.
6/23/2013 6:30 PM
bhazlewood, I agree, but I've heard a lot of coaches ask "What was wrong with 2,0?" and say "2.0 was fine, it shouldn't be changed", etc., so I was just wondering what the overall consensus was...
6/23/2013 10:31 PM
Posted by bjaygee on 6/23/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Under the 2.0 engine, a sim won the D1A NC.  It didn't gameplan flawlessly or make halftime adjustments or even have the best talent.  It won because neither gameplanning nor talent matters in 2.0.  No f'ing way.  
i don't even know how you can say this

the sim won because it knows the sim

so the way you can win is to learn the sim

or, you know, you can learn football
6/24/2013 7:21 AM
Posted by bagchucker on 6/23/2013 10:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bjaygee on 6/23/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Under the 2.0 engine, a sim won the D1A NC.  It didn't gameplan flawlessly or make halftime adjustments or even have the best talent.  It won because neither gameplanning nor talent matters in 2.0.  No f'ing way.  
i don't even know how you can say this

the sim won because it knows the sim

so the way you can win is to learn the sim

or, you know, you can learn football
Even the designer of the game said that the SIM coach does not play a good game.  It recruits based on total scores instead of cores, and it does not game plan.  It only uses the default "balanced" game plan for offense and defense.

The sim won because the random variability factor in determining the results of each play has too much weight in the formulas, and it got lucky that day.
6/24/2013 7:59 AM
Posted by bhazlewood on 6/23/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):
I think the 2.0 engine is fundamentally flawed.  Things like the offense and defense positions, the test game feature, the "custom" game plans and the like are all nice cosmetic additions.  It doesn't change how the application determines the results of football games, and THAT is what is broken.  

So no, I don't think it would change the overall game enough to make a difference.
Bob, I'm certain you have a better grasp on the how the code works than I do, but why wouldn't some of the new features make 2.0 better.  I mean my biggest gripes with 2.0 would be the random situations where on 3rd and 3, the engine would decide to chuck it deep for an interception, instead of the safe and conservative short pass I was trying for with the "very conservative" setting... or, on 4th and 1, the engine would run outside with my slow "FB" (for lack of a distinction) for a loss of two rather than inside.  With specific gameplan abilities to limit random idiotic engine decisions and personnel choices, like the ones mentioned above, I'm not so sure 2.0 wouldn't be significantly better.

Both versions are broken, but 3.0 seems like the bastard step-son at this point...  forgotten and without direction, and seemingly even possibly more random than 2.0.  I toy around with a lot of gameplans, and my primary gameplan evolves based on the results I get from the various test game results.  I can run test games with my primary gameplan and win 20 or 30 consecutive games by 35+ points, yet when I let that gameplan go into the schedule and the halftime results come out, I find myself down by 7 and none of that working...   And no, I'm not talking about vs. humans.  I'm talking about vs. sims, who make no adjustments.  I just don't get how anything can get so badly out of whack..

In any event, 2.0 is certainly flawed, but maybe the ability to plug in specific gameplans and personnel would guide the application a little better in how the results play out.
6/24/2013 8:29 AM
I didn't say those things wouldn't make version 2.0 better.  I said they wouldn't make enough of a difference to make the game good.  Or at least, that's what I was trying to say.
6/24/2013 9:30 AM
The very first thing the developers need to do is make talent equal across the board.  I mean, when you run a test game with two of the same teams, the results are always going to be extremely close.  When you test a game against a team slightly worse, the better team will always win, regardless of game plan or fatigue settings.

THEN, once that is implemented, that's when you start adding the extra stuff.  Start accounting for fatigue.  Allow certain players to play above/below their level a small percentage of the time.  If a Shotgun offense is throwing against a 4-4, they should have more success, etc.

That way, the foundation is built on the fact that talent always wins (which it should be).  The extra stuff allows lesser teams to try and adjust things in their favor, and even get lucky every so often with a big game from some marginal players.  Ironically, I think this is how 1.0 was built, or at least it acted like it.
6/24/2013 11:40 AM
Posted by bagchucker on 6/23/2013 10:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bjaygee on 6/23/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
Under the 2.0 engine, a sim won the D1A NC.  It didn't gameplan flawlessly or make halftime adjustments or even have the best talent.  It won because neither gameplanning nor talent matters in 2.0.  No f'ing way.  
i don't even know how you can say this

the sim won because it knows the sim

so the way you can win is to learn the sim

or, you know, you can learn football
I can say it because it happened.  A sim (UConn) won the D1A NC in an existing non-Beta world (using the 2.0 engine) over human coaches that gameplanned and had superior talent.  I'm not sure what part of that sentence confuses you, but I'm willing to use shorter words if you think that might help....
6/25/2013 2:45 AM
In the yesterday's game I was down 10 points at half, I changed my game plan from my normal one to the built in generic 4-3 general and lost in 4OT. This was in a beta world. Both teams were evenly matched and the other is human coached as well. I knew and expected that there would be upsets with 2.0, and when I would take over a team (which were rebuilds 95% of the time), the upsets were here and there. As the seasons progressed the times that I got upset by sim outnumbered the times that I upset a sim. Obviously I was favored in the latter so the opportunity wasn't there. At least with 2.0. I could explain the "head scratchers" and rely on the theory of that the more I built the program up the better it would be. With 3.0 most everything is in the dark and because changes r being made on the fly, we're blindly adjusting on an immediate hindsight.

There isn't any programmer that is going to be successful because they r trying to please everybody at the same time. I originally thought that 3.0 would be 2.0 with improvements, not a whole new game. At this point I would say if you can't implement these changes to the 2.0 format, then "scrap it" and we as coaches can figure out wat we need to do.
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > cebrake, katzphang88, bhazlewood, fastec27...

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.