All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > Standardized game testing framework suggestion
7/26/2013 11:57 PM
Can we establish the following as standard testing procedures:

* an offensive game plan that throws 100% deep
* an offensive game plan that throws 100% short
* an offensive game plan that throws 100% to TE
* an offensive game plan that throws 100% to RB
* an offensive game plan that runs the QB 100%
* an offensive game plan that runs 100% inside
* an offensive game plan that runs 100% outside

Defensive formations should include:

* a defensive game plan that runs 100% deep coverage
* a defensive game plan that runs 100% short coverage
* a no-blitz game plan
* an all-blitz game plan
* a defensive game plan that runs 100% run defense

There are wrinkles that we can look at, but the offense should run against standard defensive schemes. (i.e. no customization) and the defense should run against standard offensive schemes. What I expect to see is:

* pass attempts go to the positional players they are supposed to 100%.
* run attempts are to the appropriate area 100%
* ball carriers are 100% correct.

defensively I would expect:

* pass attempts to strongly defensed areas should be difficult.
* pass attempts to weakly defensed areas should be relatively easy.
* no-blitz results in conservative gains, few breakaways.
* all blitz results in sacks/negative yards or breakaways/scrambles at an acceptable rate.
* runs against "all run" should be result in poor gains.

Can we create a report of.. say 10K games run under these conditions to get a feel for what kind of numbers are being produced in the round. Then when you make a change, produce a report and we'll consider the results. I don't want to deal with special cases or skills inequities. We should pick two comparable teams and look at the base numbers based on simulation and get some hard facts to deal with. Then we can do performance variation based on skills inequities and compare them to the baseline.

The type of thing that I would expect to be able to successfully create is a graph of yardage gained for a particular situation and have it look like a normalized curve with a reasonable mean and a reasonable standard deviation. Running these tests in larger numbers should remove bias in smaller sample sizes which may focus the conversations going forward.

Let's take some of the guesswork out of the process.

Anyone have any additional game plans and/or expectations that they would like to include?
7/27/2013 10:42 AM
I really like this idea. Sorry to ask, but is suthsc one of the people working on the engine or just a coach with a great idea? Either way, I'm in...
7/27/2013 11:52 AM
I don't think that you v3 lovers want to hear my suggestion. 
7/27/2013 12:28 PM
Not true, it's just a shame that a coach of your caliber isn't being more help...
7/27/2013 1:39 PM (edited)
I have seen requests for such stadardized testing back when we started. I think it would be a great idea to get those results for evenly matched teams. Then - skew the attributes so that the QB has higher or lower attributes by 10% and compare, then the RB, TE, OL, all the way though all positions and the defense and see if the differences are visible. If the differences are not visible then we would know if LB or TE or whatever attributes need to be bolstered to get the expected results. I like it, I really do!

It would also be good for understanding what attributes compare for penalties and injuries when they start happening. If we lower durability for OL, a higher percentage of OL should get injured? If we lower GI for LB, more penalties on LB? And use for hands for WR, and whatever other attributes need to be compared for situations.

(We need to keep this one bumped.)
7/27/2013 2:03 PM
I'm just a coach, but I'm glad that you like the idea. I'm hoping that we can get to a point where oriole can get some workable data from the sim in order to eliminate surprises. I'm also hoping that we can look at the results within terms of a large sample size so we don't get caught up in paying attention to outliers.

Creating a testing framework which does this should be in WhatIf's wheel house, but I haven't seen their dev organization thinking about things like this -- though that doesn't mean that they haven't.
7/27/2013 2:19 PM
Posted by cebrake on 7/27/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
I don't think that you v3 lovers want to hear my suggestion. 
Im not in love with V3, but it does help to get it off ur chest.  I feel that there is plenty of issues after we get the engine fixed that need to be looked at.  This isnt the time or the place to bring those up.

P.S.  I have to learn to like V3, because per ticket its this or nothing.  So for any of us that hoped V2 would stick around as an option are SOL.
7/27/2013 3:09 PM
What about any coaches that want to be involved get together and share their players attributes? This was we could play each other in test games and have our choice of attributes to test? Maybe my RB's & OL are strong and I want to run against a better DL, etc...???
7/27/2013 3:10 PM
And we could set the offenses/defenses to what is needed...
7/27/2013 6:21 PM
Nothing we, as coaches, have to say will do any good. This can be proven by the advances that WIS has made with v3 since Feb. In my opinion they are just about where they started. I have seen probably a hundred suggestions over the months, and I haven't seen any implemented that have improved the game over v1 or v2. The only thing that has changed is that passing has been toned down, lowering scores. And a team that has all SIM recruits can still beat a team with human recruited players and a human game plan. Hell, I still have starters playing 100% of the game ******** about not starting or not enough playing time, losing WE. All I can do is check the starter box and put them at the top of the depth chart. I have spoken with coaches that I have known for years playing WIS, and took a poll that says that if what we have now is anywhere close to the v3 end product, 23 coaches will be will be leaving, and they have teams in 2 to 6 worlds. Worlds that I am in are currently from 26%-37% full. So you're talking about another 5% drop, and that is just in folks that I know real well. I'd say that WIS (or FOX) better get it in gear, or they'll be shutting it down. Just my opinion folks, we all have one, and that's mine. I'll play v1, v2 or v3, if it ever gets to the point that I enjoy taking the time to play the game. But my Texas beta team is currently on auto pilot, win or lose, until someone says "here are the changes that we have made, let's try it out". But I am finished with experimenting to find something that works, only to have it changed tomorrow. Wake me up when that point is here.
7/27/2013 10:57 PM
LOL...I get it cebrake. I would also bail faster than you can blink if 3.0 was brought out anywhere close to what it is now, and I agree that very little, if any progress has been made to this point. I haven't given up on it getting fixed, though. I just have a hard time believing WIS or FOX would allow this product to roll out in the shape it's in. At least I hope they wouldn't!
7/27/2013 11:30 PM
I've part of this for 1.0 and 2.0 and now 3.0. I consider myself to be an experinced coach, and at least, fairly productive. To me the fairest, and most fun was 1.0. Yes, there was way too much success with the running game, but you always knew where you stood. The game was one of recruiting / game planning, and you could analyze from the box scores why you won or lost. At least you knew what you had to do to win. With 2.0 we constantly have weird results, too many upsets, and much of the time it does seem to be incredibly random. Now we come up with 3.0 that is supposed to be the "magic bullet" that will make everything better. We change this, and we change that, and we add this, and subtract that, and are assured that everything is going to be okay...But...we don't seem to be any closer to realism that we were way back in 1.0.

My questions have been asked by many of you coaches, but never have been answered.
Why didn't we from the beginning just keep what was working, and change what wasn't? Why does every change have to be major, and seemingly restructure of the entire game?
7/28/2013 12:40 AM
Posted by coach_deen on 7/27/2013 3:09:00 PM (view original):
What about any coaches that want to be involved get together and share their players attributes? This was we could play each other in test games and have our choice of attributes to test? Maybe my RB's & OL are strong and I want to run against a better DL, etc...???
Biggest problem with this deen is that it would be hard to control all the potential variables and it would be very time consuming to run and compile enough games to give a good sample of all the possibilities. AND THEN - WIS would still have to care a to listen to us. It's like training a cat - you can plead and plead to the cat, but the cat will only do it when it wants to.
7/28/2013 4:12 AM
Posted by ez37 on 7/27/2013 11:30:00 PM (view original):
I've part of this for 1.0 and 2.0 and now 3.0. I consider myself to be an experinced coach, and at least, fairly productive. To me the fairest, and most fun was 1.0. Yes, there was way too much success with the running game, but you always knew where you stood. The game was one of recruiting / game planning, and you could analyze from the box scores why you won or lost. At least you knew what you had to do to win. With 2.0 we constantly have weird results, too many upsets, and much of the time it does seem to be incredibly random. Now we come up with 3.0 that is supposed to be the "magic bullet" that will make everything better. We change this, and we change that, and we add this, and subtract that, and are assured that everything is going to be okay...But...we don't seem to be any closer to realism that we were way back in 1.0.

My questions have been asked by many of you coaches, but never have been answered.
Why didn't we from the beginning just keep what was working, and change what wasn't? Why does every change have to be major, and seemingly restructure of the entire game?
The most logical post I've seen yet! Why didn't they take 1.0, make passing more relevant, and run with it? BUT 20/20 hind sight I guess...
7/28/2013 4:14 AM
Posted by katzphang88 on 7/28/2013 12:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by coach_deen on 7/27/2013 3:09:00 PM (view original):
What about any coaches that want to be involved get together and share their players attributes? This was we could play each other in test games and have our choice of attributes to test? Maybe my RB's & OL are strong and I want to run against a better DL, etc...???
Biggest problem with this deen is that it would be hard to control all the potential variables and it would be very time consuming to run and compile enough games to give a good sample of all the possibilities. AND THEN - WIS would still have to care a to listen to us. It's like training a cat - you can plead and plead to the cat, but the cat will only do it when it wants to.
Myself and a few coaches are trying it. I'll let you know how it goes, kat, but I get what you're saying 100%...
of 2
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty Beta > Standardized game testing framework suggestion

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.