7/19/2013 12:30 AM
Posted by slid64er on 7/19/2013 12:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by 0bigzeke0 on 7/18/2013 11:54:00 PM (view original):
Also the QB fatigue thing is the wrong way to go. It is not realistic that after 6 or 7 plays my QB is so fatigued. Change the QB fatigue back and work on boosting DB abilitites to tone down passing. Plus it hasn't reaaly worked as my 75% fatigued QB still completes about 75% of his passes.
This is what happens when you fix specific problems instead of taking a holistic approach.  All they had to do was make talent and fatigue matter and I would bet passing would have been fine.  Instead, they only fixed one part of one problem.  Run an all pass gameplan and you'll see DBs are not noticeably affected by fatigue while the QB fatigues extremely quickly and gets hammered because of it.
It makes no sense to try to fix the long pass problem by basically making the QB fatigue faster and more than other positions. It's been said over and over, but if you will make the DB ratings as relevant as they should be it should fix itself. If it doesn't, look at all of the QB, WR & DB ratings, not just fatigue. Also, who would fatigue more running long routes...the QB or the WR?
7/19/2013 1:03 AM
What happened to the advanced formations. The one's I created are still there but can't edit or create new one's. I have also found that TE's are a non factor in the passing game.
7/19/2013 1:07 AM (edited)
So far - after quick review - UPDATE = botched. I don't see any positive improvements. QB's still regularly over 75% (had one test game - two QB's went 25 for 25 overall), OL advantages over DL still not very relevent for YPC or sacks (which as stated by oriole are way off with PD and INT).

The main item still remains - player ratings mean very little to this game as for now.
7/19/2013 1:16 AM
A lot of this looks cosmetic and really is no bueno.   I'm with deen... how do you change to advanced?  That was the primary thing 3.0 had going for it, strip that and you have a cosmetically confusing 2.0.  
7/19/2013 4:48 AM
"katzphang88..."look under position roles and click the use advanced settings to the right side.
7/19/2013 7:10 AM
oriole fan:

Some thoughts on the new update:

I still have to set depth charts and starters separately = redundant

I still have to scroll through each position to set starters = cumbersome, put the whole team up with their position rating on one page and it would be much better.
7/19/2013 8:36 AM
Yeah, I agree with most of you, this update makes the game much worse.  Crappy qbs completing 75%.  Long passing obsolete.  For those of you who say 2.0 is random, this season will be a nightmare.  I can see every game being a diceroll.  Teams that are severely less talented will win 50% of the time.  Running game still off the charts.  Quarterback fatigue is not nearly as important as game instinct-finding the open man, or technique-delivering the ball accurately.  Last beta season was actually kinda fun, because you could crush inferior teams by throwing the bomb.  I am almost ready to quit this testing.  Ratings are 95% meaningfull in 2.0.  Probably 5% in 3.0.
7/19/2013 8:51 AM
I don't know what you guys are seeing.  

I'm finding the results to be much more consistent after the update compared to before it.  Yesterday (before the update), I ran 20 games of my D2 team facing off against my old D3 team, out of curiosity.  My D2 team is a title contender, while my old D3 team is a middling playoff team for their respective divisions.  I went 17-3, and a few of the wins were very close games (within a touchdown).  Only a couple were legitimate blowouts (which honestly, it should be nearly every time with that kind of talent difference).

Now, when I did the same test today after the update, I went a resounding 20-0 with almost every game decided by 20+ points.  This is a much better result.

It's not the largest sample size ever, but it has to count for something.  I've run other test games too and the results seem to be much more in line with talent than before.

Am I missing something?
7/19/2013 9:08 AM
Try playing other d2 teams that are not as good as you.
7/19/2013 9:24 AM
Ok, thanks for constructive feedback some of you guys :)  I'll look in to the tight end stuff, something must have been left out. And the fatigue stuff needs to be refined. I haven't looked in to defensive back fatigue ratings, but the changes I have made make it easy to go in and mess with the numbers on my side. I'm adjusting the base completion percentages to depend more on quality of the QB and the DBs. 

one of the things I was hoping you'd be able to provide is use cases. If anyone could give me the generic player ratings for the schools that are problematic with the scoring, that would help.  I can dig into the issues with straight matchups and find out if and why lesser schools are winning more often.

thanks again. 


7/19/2013 10:03 AM
Also, oriole_fan, can you look into putting back the starts and playing time percentages back on the player settings page?  That way we know who needs to start.
7/19/2013 12:14 PM
Posted by oriole_fan on 7/19/2013 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Ok, thanks for constructive feedback some of you guys :)  I'll look in to the tight end stuff, something must have been left out. And the fatigue stuff needs to be refined. I haven't looked in to defensive back fatigue ratings, but the changes I have made make it easy to go in and mess with the numbers on my side. I'm adjusting the base completion percentages to depend more on quality of the QB and the DBs. 

one of the things I was hoping you'd be able to provide is use cases. If anyone could give me the generic player ratings for the schools that are problematic with the scoring, that would help.  I can dig into the issues with straight matchups and find out if and why lesser schools are winning more often.

thanks again. 


I think you should stop making situational corrections (i.e. QB fatigue in passing) and make sure that talent is working as intended.  Make player attributes and fatigue work across the board and I'll bet most of the complaints disappear.  You're attacking the problem like jconte and norbert and both of them failed at updating the game.
7/19/2013 12:37 PM
I agree with slider - set fatigue across the board - just make it relevant for a 70 stamina player to play much more than a 35 stamina vs the 3 -5 % we have now.

You need to look at each match-up/decision point and adjust the games decision to be a ratings match-up. JConte couldn't figure this out, Norbert made it way to broad an outcome so that it was meaningless. You are messing with the wrong end of the animal too. If after all of the modifiers are brought into play (IQ, fatigue, specific attributes, play call etc) if player A is better than player B player wins - the bigger the difference the bigger the win. I can't see why this should be so easy for us coaches to see and you game developers not to see.
7/19/2013 1:51 PM (edited)
Posted by oriole_fan on 7/19/2013 9:24:00 AM (view original):
Ok, thanks for constructive feedback some of you guys :)  I'll look in to the tight end stuff, something must have been left out. And the fatigue stuff needs to be refined. I haven't looked in to defensive back fatigue ratings, but the changes I have made make it easy to go in and mess with the numbers on my side. I'm adjusting the base completion percentages to depend more on quality of the QB and the DBs. 

one of the things I was hoping you'd be able to provide is use cases. If anyone could give me the generic player ratings for the schools that are problematic with the scoring, that would help.  I can dig into the issues with straight matchups and find out if and why lesser schools are winning more often.

thanks again. 


10:56 14 3-6
I'll apologize for the length of this post - but oriole asked for examples. 

Team ratings:
RATINGS  Boise St  U S C
- QB (1) 67.0                 69.0                 
- OL (5) 78.2 84.4
- RB (2) 74.0 74.5
- WR (2) 78.5 77.5
- TE (1) 77.0 78.0
- DL (4) 72.5 74.5
- LB (4) 75.0 76.8
- DB (4) 67.5 69.0

Note OL vs DL matchup in red - all others about the same. USC 16+ % better on the line.

Charles Watson takes the snap and drops back to pass. [Pass Defense - medium cover]
[LINE: ins:81-71 str:80-66 agi:62-48 (0.2/-0.2) ADV:SlightAdvantage/SlightAdvantage RESULT:EqualBlocking/EqualBlocking ] - Engine defined problem - the 81-71, 80-66, 62-48 advantages for the offense gives only slight advantage? Equal blocking? This should defininately be able to generate a good offensive advantage or even an offensive push.
The defense is starting to get pressure on Watson. - But yet with those advantages the defense gives the QB pressure? No logic or ratings advantage noted here.
[STEP:1 LOC:InsideLine ACT:Passing]
[LINE: ins:80-72 str:84-65 agi:65-52 (0.2/-0.2) ADV:Equal/SlightAdvantage RESULT:OffenseModerate/DefenseModerate ]
The defense has heavy pressure on Watson. - Still with offensive ratings advantages from 11% to 29% on compared attributes. Engine throws out equal and slight advantage then Offense Moderate AND defense moderate - seems very random to me. And with that random, against given ratings now the defense has HEAVY pressure??? That QB should be back in the pocket reading a book with that advantage.
Camp (Godfrey, Thomas, Wood) is covered at the BSU 16 (long).
[STEP:2 LOC:InsideLine ACT:Passing]
[LINE: ins:81-71 str:80-66 agi:66-46 (0.2/-0.2) ADV:SlightAdvantage/SlightAdvantage RESULT:EqualBlocking/DefenseModerate ] - With very similar numbers to the last step but now shows slight advantage then  Equal blocking? and still defense moderate? Random again. Offense vs Defense on the line definately in favor of offense but not iterated in the game response.
[PASSThrow: Loc:Medium (-2) Open:Open Pressure:NotSet Throw:SlightlyOffTarget ]
Watson throws to Smith (Godfrey) at the BSU 16 (medium). Smith pulls in the catch.
[STEP:3 LOC:Medium ACT:Receiving]
[BLOCK: 64-54 (-0.5) ADV:Equal RESULT:DefenseModerate ] - 64 to 54 in favor of offense - why is defense moderate? What in game modifiers switch that ratings advantage around?
[TKLATT: No Tackle Attempt ] - Even the game can't figure itself out, Moderate defense but no tackle attempt?
[STEP:4 LOC:Medium ACT:Receiving]
[BLOCK: 58-59 (-0.3) ADV:GreatDisadvantage RESULT:DefenseModerate ] - 58 - 59 is a great disadvantage here but at the line a 10 - 20 point advantage pulls an equal?
[TKLATT: 78-40 (0) BLKResult:DefenseModerate ADV:SlightAdvantage MOM:1 RESULT:WeakTackleAttempt ]  - So a 38 point advantage gives a weak tackle attempt. That should be a see ya - no tackle - not even close.
[TACKLE: 41-47 (0) MOM:1 ATTResult:WeakTackleAttempt ADV:SlightAdvantage RESULT:StrongTackle ] - Now we see a weak tackle attempt and slight advantage for the offense (even though they lose the attribute battle by 6) result in a strong attempt for a tackle? No logic.
Smith is brought down by Ben Thomas on a strong tackle at the BSU 1. 13 yards on the play.
[STEP:5 LOC:Long ACT:Receiving]

0 0  

So the moral of the story is: the engine and decisions are so screwed up and results so unrelated to the attributes that the game can't even figure itself out. All of the above examples should be looked at and be re-presented in the PBP to be final comparisons for all attributes (one set of two numbers to compare with ALL modifiers included for OFF vs DEF) and all results should be consistent with the outcomes. Maybe if these are investigated we will be able to find out why some of the match-ups we are complaining about now are happening. Until this part runs logically and consistently, messing around with all the other components of the game will lead us back to more of the same complaints.
7/19/2013 1:55 PM
Bad thing about the above post is I have breaking the PBP down as being illogical since February and it is now July and still the same random, unrelated BS.
of 4

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.