3/16/2013 3:44 PM
Posted by bjaygee on 3/7/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
I've had the chance to sample the new engine and play a few games. Quick impressions:

1. Norbert, you gave us mostly what we asked for.  Coaches have greater control over formations and it's clear in a world populated by essentially equal teams that gameplaning makes a difference.

2. The set up screens for starters, formations, playbooks, etc. are a lot of work and initially confusing.  That said, once you work with the screens a bit they're not terrible.  Pull downs and simplification would help, but that's pretty small criticism and suggests tweaking rather than a make over.

3. The engine itself is pretty solid, with few outliers.  Cause and effect are reasonably well correlated. Are there too many return TDs?  Probably.  Do sacks need adjusted?  Maybe a bit.  Again, we're looking at tweaks and not a full make over.

4. I wrote off GD when a SIM team (UConn) won an NC over human competition.  I get the sense that the potential for that kind of travesty is significantly lessened in this iteration of the game.  I haven't really seen any 'coin flip' games, although it's hard to be sure when the testing universe is composed of SIM recruited, equally talented teams.

My assessment is that the new engine's certainly imperfect and needs tweaks.  But do I think the output is much better than 2.0? Absolutely.  Not even close.  3.0 needs a few changes and some improvements to the set up process, but I think you've done a heck of a job and deserve recognition for the effort.
I agree with the above and so far the results have been what I expected.  The only question I have is how is any coach that runs the basic setting going to be able to compete with those that run the advanced?  Some coaches are busier than others and may not have the time to dedicate to the advanced settings.  I feel that if my life gets to busy I will have to give up GD, because its not right to buy seasons when you dont have the time to put in as some other coaches do.
3/17/2013 3:04 AM
starfinder  "I agree with the above and so far the results have been what I expected.  The only question I have is how is any coach that runs the basic setting going to be able to compete with those that run the advanced?  Some coaches are busier than others and may not have the time to dedicate to the advanced settings.  I feel that if my life gets to busy I will have to give up GD, because its not right to buy seasons when you don't have the time to put in as some other coaches do."

I understand this issue, but truthfully don't think it's going to be quite as bog of a problem as some think. For one, I believe Norbert will probably simplify 3 a little bit, though not a tremendous amount. The main reason I feel like I do is the fact that I just don't think it's going to be that time consuming once we're used to it. More than 2? Yeah, but not a whole lot more, and not any more once we have our initial settings completed.
3/17/2013 1:40 PM
Why should coaches who don't put in the time and effort be able to compete with ones that do?  I don't understand the concern Starfinder.  How can Norbert possibly guarentee that people who put in less time and effort on their team will still be able to compete with ones that put in more?  That is essentially asking him to take away the purpose of all the options he has given us. 

I don't think that coaches who use the basic will get run over entirely, but against coaches who have found advanced settings that really work for them, I don't think coaches that use the basic should expect to win.  I understand everyone has different time allowances, but generally, people who put more effort into a hobby get more out of it. THat is how it should be.  If you go to the gym 2 times a week and socialize and drink smoothies, you are not going to get as much out of exercising as the guy who diets, runs, and sticks to a routine 4 days a week.  Nevertheless, 2 times can still be fun, perhaps even more fun than the other guy is having,  and there will still be health benefits!  Effort will be rewarded though when it comes to results.  The same could be said for writing, shooting hoops, coin collecting, or just about any hobby you can think of.  The hobby isn't neccesarily less fun because you can't devote the time to being the best.  Just don't assume a result oriented mindset.        
3/17/2013 11:24 PM
Can a coach make up his own formations? I'd like to run a two TE set. I haven't dived into the beta like I thought I would since my regular life has gotten crazy.
3/18/2013 12:06 AM
Posted by ksbillsfan on 3/17/2013 11:24:00 PM (view original):
Can a coach make up his own formations? I'd like to run a two TE set. I haven't dived into the beta like I thought I would since my regular life has gotten crazy.
The ND Box is a two TE set.
3/23/2013 2:41 PM
Posted by samson75 on 3/17/2013 1:40:00 PM (view original):
Why should coaches who don't put in the time and effort be able to compete with ones that do?  I don't understand the concern Starfinder.  How can Norbert possibly guarentee that people who put in less time and effort on their team will still be able to compete with ones that put in more?  That is essentially asking him to take away the purpose of all the options he has given us. 

I don't think that coaches who use the basic will get run over entirely, but against coaches who have found advanced settings that really work for them, I don't think coaches that use the basic should expect to win.  I understand everyone has different time allowances, but generally, people who put more effort into a hobby get more out of it. THat is how it should be.  If you go to the gym 2 times a week and socialize and drink smoothies, you are not going to get as much out of exercising as the guy who diets, runs, and sticks to a routine 4 days a week.  Nevertheless, 2 times can still be fun, perhaps even more fun than the other guy is having,  and there will still be health benefits!  Effort will be rewarded though when it comes to results.  The same could be said for writing, shooting hoops, coin collecting, or just about any hobby you can think of.  The hobby isn't neccesarily less fun because you can't devote the time to being the best.  Just don't assume a result oriented mindset.        
That is true, however every coach has to playing on an even playing field as far as what they have the ability to do. A hobby implies enjoyment to people and this a bit different because there is a goal of winning involved. Most hobbies there is no score and your competing against yourself. This is more like two people going to the same place yet one of them can only take a slower route or one can only go a certain speed. How in the world can the slower route or the slower speed get there first? Hence this is not a hobby, but a form of online gaming. I'm 100% sure that in the end what we get is a product that almost everybody can be happy with. Players that r advocating that coaches using advanced settings should be allowed to play coaches using basic settings are simply looking for "cheap wins".
3/23/2013 3:25 PM
Norbert, I think 3.0 is definitely on the right track.  Gameplanning matters.  A ton.  Rushing seems a little high and passing low (which I know you're working on) but this is light years ahead of the 'coin flip' 2.0 engine.  
3/23/2013 9:40 PM
Absolutely agree with bjaygee, Norbert.
of 2

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.