All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Planned Update - Later this Year
7/6/2012 7:53 AM
players to get bigger and taller as they get older and for size to matter in matchups.
7/6/2012 12:43 PM
More recruits especially in DT, OL, and OLB.  I'm sure there are more, but those mainly are the toughest for me to even get one.  Recruits actually being more refined to positions like OLB and DT max amount of spots used for certain positions.  There is still hoarding going on that has never been fixed.  I went up against a guy for an OLB and looked at his roster and all he had were OLB's about 5 of them.  If you switch them from DT to DE, there could be a slim change on some aspects.
7/7/2012 8:30 PM

regarding position changes - a player gets a lot less penalised if his position is changed as a freshman.

7/8/2012 8:47 AM
Not sure if this has been brought up already. I would like to see teams have the ability to be able to specify defensive positions. Right now we can select short yardage backs, slot rcvr, etc, etc on offense. I would like to be able to specify the Will and Mike backers, Nickel CB, etc, etc...
7/8/2012 2:16 PM
I would like to see the Shotgun offense have more options. You could keep the 4WR 1TE we have now and add a 5WR set,  4WR 1RB set, and a 3WR 1TE 1RB set. This would allow teams to run kind of a spread offense. It would also let you run some draw plays out of 2 of the 4 sets with your running back to catch the defense off guard.
7/9/2012 7:22 AM
to enable back ups to cover multiple positions on depth chart. eg corner and safety
7/9/2012 10:19 AM
Posted by kensei44 on 7/9/2012 7:22:00 AM (view original):
to enable back ups to cover multiple positions on depth chart. eg corner and safety
See Norbert's post on position roles.
7/9/2012 11:00 PM

I would like to see a seperate "Max FG Distance" to be used only when tied or trailing by 3 points or less at the end of the game. This would only be applied late in the 4th quarter using end of game logic. It could become active inside of maybe 2:30 minutes remaining, give or take a bit depending on your number of timeouts remaining, and could also be applied for the final 30 seconds of the 1st half.  

As an example, lets say that you have your current FG distance set at 55 yards. The vast majority of the time that is perfectly fine. If it's midway through the 3rd quarter of a close game and you find yourself facing 4th down on your opponent's 41 yard line, then it is probably wiser to punt than to attempt a 58 yard field goal. Under the current system, with your max distance set at 55 then there wouldn't be a problem there. Now lets say that you're at the same spot on the field, only this time there are 10 seconds left in the game and you're trailing by 1 point. In that scenario I would much rather my kicker attempt the 58 yard FG as opposed to having one shot at a Hail Mary. The only way to accomplish this is to have a seperate adjustable number for game winning or end of half field goals.

I apologize if this has been discussed. I haven't really followed this thread as closely as I should have.   

 

7/21/2012 6:21 PM
my only thought on entire update is more consistency with ratings  see countless times since new engine things such as superstud rb ( let's say top 5 in country at his level ) with at least good to very good ol that gets stuffed along with the other stud rbs the entire game vs mediocre dls and av lbs   the top rbs  just like wrs dominate game in game out vs av teams  and play very well vs even the good-great ones    there are letdowns in college but teams like florida don't struggle to move ball vs ball state

how about a mediocre qb ( qbs almost never get hurt in this engine ) with lousy wrs throwin for 300 vs a far far supeior def

in the old engine yu had idea of how yur team would perform  don't think i'm alone of those who have played a lot that are totally unsure many times of games /results

7/22/2012 4:29 PM (edited)
Well some of these suggestions have been made already, but since they are good and I have thought these would be good additions to the game before I read them, I will repeat them in addition to my own suggestions. 

1) I would like to see backups have more functionality.  A backup running back with solid yet not specific ratings should be able to backup both the fullback and tailback.  This applies to defensive backs,  linebackers & defensive line as well.  Why should a backup be limited to one position?

2) Changing positions is too heavily penalized.  Players change positions frequently in college.  They change from outside linebacker to inside linebacker, safety to outside linebacker, cb to safety, WR to tight end.  Sometimes we see tackles become tight ends, defnsive linemen become offensive linemen and vice versa, and RBs become cbs.  Kickers often punt and vice versa.  While I agree there should be a penalty, it should not be so large that the player is far less useful, especially if it is done early in the career (freshman or sophomore).

3) The addition of individual coaching minutes to the practice plan would be excellent.  Coaches often spend time with individual players to improve their game.  Obviously time is limited, so make this one player per week (or add some other safeguard to limit the coaching minutes spent in comparison to team plans).   This would allow coahces to develop a superstar or address the weakest link on the team.  More customization makes for a more interesting game experience.  

4) Formation packages would be excellent although I do understand the issue with fresh offensive line.  Nevertheless, more control of personel in paticular packages, especially for defense, would be a welcome change.  

5) An option specifying when to go for it on 4th down would be useful.  If you have an unreliable kicker, and you are in your opponents territory, and you set it to avoid long field goals, you often end up punting.  In this situation, going for it could be a much better choice...  

6) If there are multiple players who have you as their number one choice on the final day of the signing period, why does the assistant coach seek out inferior players to sign when recruiting money runs out?  I think this should definitely be changed.  In some cases, where there are three schools in the running, it makes sense to lose the player.  However, when only one school is listed and it is the playe'rs only choice, why can't the assistant coach be relied upon to sign that player?  I think this is something that should be changed.  In addition, perhaps instituting some sort of walk on system to eliminate the assistant coach from signing bad players would be a good idea.  In this scenario, the assistant coach offers prefered walk on status instead of a scholarship.  This way, no scholarship is resinded later and coaching reputation is not hurt.   If we have to get stuck with a couple bad players while learning the recuriting ropes, we should have the option to cut them without being hurt by it.  Walk on players should be expendable, just like they are in real college football.  This still keeps the penalties intact for resinding scholarships though which is a good feature outside the above quirks...     

7) I don't think players who do not appear on the depth chart should play.    


Keep up the good work and sorry if I echoed suggestions already made.  :)    
7/24/2012 10:57 PM
A little off topic based on the update that is talked about and not sure if anyone put this down or not, but seeing as this is a computer calculated rankings and all.  A D1A bowl projection would be fun to see.  You could start it up after the non conference games have completed.
8/9/2012 4:31 PM
are we getting close to a Beta test. It would be nice to get at least a weekly update, but I know your working hard Norbert at getting it done :o)
8/16/2012 7:48 AM
Agreed, vikes.  I have perused the last five pages of this topic and can't see anything about a date for Beta other than the original "August" date that Norbert gave at the beginning.  Just a curiosity thing, I guess.  I'm having a great deal of fun just the way it is.
8/16/2012 11:25 AM
Posted by loganw3 on 8/16/2012 7:48:00 AM (view original):
Agreed, vikes.  I have perused the last five pages of this topic and can't see anything about a date for Beta other than the original "August" date that Norbert gave at the beginning.  Just a curiosity thing, I guess.  I'm having a great deal of fun just the way it is.
http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=41&TopicID=458481&ThreadID=9951561#l_9951561
8/24/2012 2:31 PM
This may have already been stated, but got bit by this one yesterday. 

I had a game go into OT--1st OT, opponent had ball first and threw INT.  I get ball and ultimately end up with a 3rd and goal at the 9 yard line.  GP is set to mostly throw passes here, as makes sense, even in OT.  If I'm down a TD, I def want to throw here, just like I'm going to go for it on 4th down regardless of my general tendency to go for it on 4th down.

I throw a pick, so we go to the 2nd OT.  How does this make sense?  There needs to be some very general, logical football decisions built into the engine.  My FG settings were to kick up to 50 yards away...one could make the argument that in the 2nd round of OT, after the first team doesn't score, 3 runs up the middle and a kick are in order....hell, many coaches, in my situation, would kick the FG on 3rd down in case of a bad snap.

No way to tailor the OT packages based on situation and that seems too detailed to mess with--just seems like there should be some standard OT logic built into the engine that all teams follow...like don't pass on 3rd and 9 from the 9 yard line if you 3 points can end the game.
of 31
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Planned Update - Later this Year

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.