6/10/2013 8:05 PM
katz: Sorry, you're right, I misunderstood. Now that I do understand, as usual I agree with what you're saying.  IMHO, just as you said, strength should determine how far the QB can accurately throw the ball. I also believe strongly that GI should determine how often he throws to the correct receiver and tech how accurate he throws the short & medium passes and have a role in the deep passes.

johnnyluv151: I get what you're saying, buy I think it's anything but a "role of the dice". If it were we would be seeing the QB have a great game one day and a terrible one the next. That's not the case, and I'm glad it's not. I do believe the ratings have a big impact, but I also think they're out of whack right now. That's fixable. If it were truly a role of the dice that would mean the ratings meant nothing, which would be really BAD news, but again, that's not the case. I think we're heading in the right direction even though we've been slowed down a lot by Norbert's departure, but hopefully things will get back on track with oriole_fan working on the project daily.

6/10/2013 8:24 PM
Coach deen, what evidence do you see that it's not a roll of the dice?  Do you see bad quarterbacks struggle?  I don't.  Have you seen anyone under 50% for a game?  I have not.  The reason we don't see a great game followed by a bad game is the chart of the dice rolls is complete, complete, complete, incomplete.  Somebody said something about Strat-O-Matic style results.  That is exactly what this is.  There is one generic chart for pass results FOR ALL TEAMS.  QB RATINGS HAVE NO EFFECT ON THIS CHART.
6/10/2013 10:33 PM
Not sure how it can be either strato matic or APBA style as those games are based on stats from the previous season.
6/11/2013 1:14 AM (edited)
Posted by johnnyluv151 on 6/10/2013 8:24:00 PM (view original):
Coach deen, what evidence do you see that it's not a roll of the dice?  Do you see bad quarterbacks struggle?  I don't.  Have you seen anyone under 50% for a game?  I have not.  The reason we don't see a great game followed by a bad game is the chart of the dice rolls is complete, complete, complete, incomplete.  Somebody said something about Strat-O-Matic style results.  That is exactly what this is.  There is one generic chart for pass results FOR ALL TEAMS.  QB RATINGS HAVE NO EFFECT ON THIS CHART.
I'll defend deen on his one. He is saying that with a dice roll you have the probability of a good game for a bad QB or a bad game. What he is saying agrees with you johnny - even with a bad QB there is currently very little chance that they will have a bad game. It's not a dice roll, it's an ace and jack for 21 every time right now! For the game to make sense - a bad QB must consistently post bad results and a good QB must consistently post good results against even defenses. Good defenses should make a bad QB's life terrible and a good QB to have some trouble. The fact that a bad QB gets consistently good results mean that the game recognizes the QB and performs without random deviations. The problems are that Oriole needs to get bad QB's to play - ummm - bad.
6/11/2013 7:55 AM
Exactly katz. I agree with you johnny that the QB's are WAY to good across the board. Every QB looks like Payton Manning...on one of his better day's! But...I think the problem is just as much in the defensive side as the offensive. If the DB's & LB's ratings meant more maybe they shut the bad QB's down and slow the good ones? I honestly feel like we're heading in the right direction. We are still a way's away, but if we can get the passing game in check this version becomes the best yet...
6/11/2013 9:56 AM
Michael Butler Jr. QB 53 75 56 61 54 55 18 21 72 65 70 70 670
James Martin Jr. QB   73 69 66 24 52 42 18 36 46 70 65 50 611
James Sampson Jr. QB   53 43 48 44 58 31 21 27 56 40 49 43 513

I tested Butler versus Sampson against the same sim ai team 8 times each.  The results were:

Butler (good qb): 170/327 6,661 yards (52%, 20.37 YPA) 

Sampson (bad qb): 173/345 6,317 yards (50.1%, 18.31 YPA)

Good QB had a 3.8% better completion % (52/50.1) and an 11.25% better YPA (20.37/18.31)

Good QB has 62.7% better tech (70/43), 62.5% better GI (65/40), and 77.4% better strength (55/31).

Personally I think the difference in the quality of these QB's should produce more divergent on-field results.  Anyone else have the time to do a larger sample size?

6/11/2013 11:28 AM
I'm seeing guys breaking tackles downfield way too easily.  Medium pass, broken tackle, TD.  Distance to the goalline after the tackle is immaterial. Wondering whether STR is now a critical attribute for DBs.
6/11/2013 2:52 PM
Posted by starfinder77 on 6/10/2013 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Not sure how it can be either strato matic or APBA style as those games are based on stats from the previous season.

The MECHANICS of those games are based on a "results chart" for each play.  I believe I'm the one that used the phrase initially, and that's the meaning I intended.  Generate a random number ("roll the dice") and refer to the card to get the results.  (That's obviously greatly simplified.)   You might have an OCCASIONAL second dice roll (it's been a long while since I played the board game, but I seem to recall, in SOM anyway, results that might be 1-10 LONG GAIN, 11-20 SHORT GAIN) and a third when the long/short gain result was referenced.  But many times, the result was simply "+3 yards" or "incomplete".  One random generation to get the result.

This engine is built more along the lines of, for lack of a better description, a very long series of IF/THEN/ELSE statements, each of which must be checked until the play finally comes to an end.  


6/11/2013 7:03 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 6/11/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by starfinder77 on 6/10/2013 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Not sure how it can be either strato matic or APBA style as those games are based on stats from the previous season.

The MECHANICS of those games are based on a "results chart" for each play.  I believe I'm the one that used the phrase initially, and that's the meaning I intended.  Generate a random number ("roll the dice") and refer to the card to get the results.  (That's obviously greatly simplified.)   You might have an OCCASIONAL second dice roll (it's been a long while since I played the board game, but I seem to recall, in SOM anyway, results that might be 1-10 LONG GAIN, 11-20 SHORT GAIN) and a third when the long/short gain result was referenced.  But many times, the result was simply "+3 yards" or "incomplete".  One random generation to get the result.

This engine is built more along the lines of, for lack of a better description, a very long series of IF/THEN/ELSE statements, each of which must be checked until the play finally comes to an end.  


Then use a blackjack or Vegas analogy, but please don't bring down the integrity of sports simulation games compared to this. There is no comparison
6/13/2013 12:45 PM
I hate to bring this up too, but quarterbacks are not the only problem.  Most of the running backs i test against rush for 200+ and there are some bad ones  in the mix too.  My D is not great but decent.  I have a monster DL, tackle 91, who never does anything.  The whole game is broke.  Ratings are not part of the results.  Actually Strat-O-matic is much better than this because the players have individual cards, and they usually perform close to their statistics.  If the ratings are statistics, these guys are all hitting .350, on offense that is.  Maybe crapshoot would be a better term for this.
6/14/2013 10:00 PM
Posted by johnnyluv151 on 6/13/2013 12:45:00 PM (view original):
I hate to bring this up too, but quarterbacks are not the only problem.  Most of the running backs i test against rush for 200+ and there are some bad ones  in the mix too.  My D is not great but decent.  I have a monster DL, tackle 91, who never does anything.  The whole game is broke.  Ratings are not part of the results.  Actually Strat-O-matic is much better than this because the players have individual cards, and they usually perform close to their statistics.  If the ratings are statistics, these guys are all hitting .350, on offense that is.  Maybe crapshoot would be a better term for this.
+1000
6/14/2013 11:57 PM
johnnyluv151, what team(s) are you coaching in beta? What level...DII, DIII?
6/19/2013 2:07 PM
Recruiting is one of the the, if not the best, part of this game.... IMO - the best part of the game. Based on these tweaks from the last update... It is really worth putting the time in to recruit that Stud DL, LB, RB etc??? Results based from Chance??? Wasnt that one of the biggest complaints? or is everyone OK with that?

- Tweaks to passing and rushing matchups - Adjusted the amount of influence that ratings have to avoid high passing yards and high rushing yards against slightly lower rated teams.

- Adjusted the scoring potential - teams with a greater rating will still have high scores, but the likelyhood of blowouts will also depend on strategy and chance rather than just ratings.

I personally would rather see an adjustment of more influence on ratings. Especially from the defensive side of the ball. I am OK with 110-0 scores when playing a team that is 20 pts less in talent. Especially when the right game plan was used. What I was seeing were scores of 110-105 from teams of similar to the same rankings... with none to very little influence from the defense side of the ball. Defensive game Planning helped some (it should). The talent did not seem to make a difference. (ie... a defense with the same talent as the offense was useless - no matter the game plan)

I read these threads - QB rating doesn't matter -every QB is good, My Stud DL doesnt do squat.... etc... Defense was broke - not the offense.

Instead of tweaking the defensive influense- the 'Real Life' averges were put in play. We are back to version 2. Where we won't be able to explain why the RB with A+ cores averaged the similar to the same results as the RB with B- cores. And chance?? Might as well just stick with version 2. 
6/19/2013 2:45 PM
In my opinion, v3 is more screwed up than v2. The last 5 months have been a waste for everyone testing this disaster. It has, OVERALL, gotten no better than it was when Norbert took this great idea in Feb. All of you who think that v2 is to random, do you really feel that this is better, or ever will be? Teamville is correct. Recruiting a good team doesn't help. Now with superior talent, you only win by 14 vs a SIM, if you win at all. Everyday it's something new and I'm about ready to give up. If you haven't noticed, old timers are leaving,and new players won't be here long, the game is to difficult to understand for the new coaches. Leahy 40% full, Rockne 38% full & Dobie 26%. If Fox still owns WIS they can't be to happy, if they even care.
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.