All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Ok.It's time for Wis to eliminate most GD worlds !
9/22/2013 5:50 PM
Posted by slid64er on 9/22/2013 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by scrodz on 9/22/2013 3:44:00 PM (view original):
"Bad coaches like the random part of the game to help them out"

Sorry, slid64er. I didn't buy this back then when v2.0 came out, and I'm not buying it now, either. Please, give it a rest. If I remember right, according to you experts, good coaches weren't supposed to be able to win consistently with a random engine. Didn't quite work out that way, did it? Most of the top coaches now were top coaches with the old engine.

That said, there were a lot of things about 1.0 that were superior, namely the ability to see what you were doing wrong so you could correct it (causality?), the situational depth charting (line changes), and the increased emphasis on stamina. All of these would be great to have re-introduced. On the other hand, 1.0 wasn't particularly realistic, which I don't miss at all. Maybe "realistic" isn't the right word anyway, because there was a time when 3 yards and a cloud of dust defined college football.

Anyway, both versions have their good points and bad points. It's a pity that 3.0 doesn't seem to be aiming in between the two.


Reread my post.  I know NC winning coaches in 1.0 were still winning NCs in 2.0.  That's not the reason they left.  

fwiw, after some limited testing, 3.0 is much more playable after this last update.  It's still a long ways from being a good game, but at least it's moving forward, albeit at a glacier like pace.
I read your post. Unfortunately, back when 2.0 started, it was just "random lover bad coach", "I don't get to play for free any more", and "real coaches can't win with this crap". Unfortunately, the "bad coach" labeling still persists.
9/22/2013 6:24 PM
Posted by dream76 on 9/22/2013 5:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by starfinder77 on 9/22/2013 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tooslim on 9/19/2013 8:05:00 PM (view original):
Am I the only one that basically likes version 2.0? Though it seems to me that is does have some problems. Passing efficiency needs to be dropped by 10 to 15% or so.
Turnovers need to be decreased by 20 to 25%. But after that it seems like a fun game. Yes, you win some games you probably shouldn't and also lose some games to teams you shouldn't but that seems like football to me.

I never played version 1.0 but it seems like a ridiculous and totally unrealistic game to me. From what I have read--you could win by running 100% of the time and never throwing. Coaches who found that method of recruiting great running backs, offensive lines, and defensive lines and running all the time won all the time. That is supposed to be a great game? So you build up a team like that with great prestige and you can't be beat and that us supposed to be good? How unrealistic can you get?
This won't be a popular statement--but it seems like a bunch of whiners who figured out how to beat an unrealistic game to me. Then they change to version 2.0 where passing actually matters and a lot of people could not adjust and went back to their mommy's couch and pouted.
It does though seem like they went overboard and made passing a little too dominant of a feature.

I just started in the Beta world for version 3.0 and it scares me. The one thing about 2.0 is it does take a lot of time and effort to set up and run a team. Version 3.0 is going to take a lot longer and is a LOT more involved. If the game is better--I would still play and invest the time but would probably cut back from 3 teams to 2. I am afraid though--that a newbie coach would be overwhelmed with how complicated it is. They could set their team to the basic mode--but would get killed by coaches who take the time to put in the advanced mode coaching.

I certainly don't have all the answers to the GD woes but it just seems to me like a few simple tweaks to the 2.0 would be better than trying to re-invent the wheel.
I for one--enjoy the version 2.0.

+1,000,000
I'm with you for most of this--I did play 1.0 (under another id), and it was much more unrealistic than the current engine.  The easiest way to build a team was to load up on OL, DL & RB, switch them around according to Box or Bone, and you were pretty much guaranteed to beat every Sim team, and after a few seasons of good recruiting, you would be a competitive team in the playoffs.  Were there other ways to succeed?  Sure.  Did it bear much resemblance to how real football game outcomes are determined?  No. But it was also more fun. 

One thing you've missed in characterizing the change from 1.0 to 2.0 is that the 2.0 that was first released was *much* worse than the 2.0 engine we see today.  (So the whining was more about the ridiculous results than the actual scores, at least at the beginning.)  The forums basically exploded with people wondering why their top10 QB in their world all of a sudden threw 3 pick-6s in the first half. ....why their RB fumbled the ball 8 times.  How a team could score 130 points, etc.  The substitution controls were even more limited than they are now.  The attitude of customer service/developers was that the engine was either working as intended, or only needed a few minor 'tweaks'.  No beta testing was done.  The exodus from the game is exactly what they deserved.  No one should pay for that product.

Within a few weeks/months, improvements were made to make the game playable as we see it today.  But most (including me) believe it is less fun--partially because it is less deterministic--it is harder to see what to do to control the outcome, take advantage of other teams weaknesses, etc.  That seems to be the crux of the problem to me--how do you balance realism with game-like qualities? 

Of course, if WIS can't even figure out how to get TEs the ball, or tell us who is getting the start....well, that's why I'm not playing any more, and just getting my (free) entertainment from these forums. :)  The Beta version is just not far enough along yet to have even been released into beta in my opinion.

Well I never played V1 so i cant comment on that.  I was agreeing with "tooslim"
9/22/2013 8:31 PM
Posted by dream76 on 9/22/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):
I can't help but also add--One of my favorite *quirks* of the v1 game was seeing successful, NC caliber teams not have any QBs at all on their roster so they could save the space for more OL & DL.  They'd have the punter give the hand offs and never throw a single pass the entire season.  LOL.  That is why it was really the 'single-wing dynasty'!
I've never seen that before.  And if you did see that, that coach wasn't winning NCs.  If you didn't have a player in a position group (except for P or K), you couldn't save your depth charts.  Stamina and personnel substitutions were critical, so anyone who didn't have someone at every position was at an insurmountable disadvantage when playing a decent coach with similar talent.
9/22/2013 10:50 PM
Posted by bhouska on 9/22/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):
""I think it's pretty odd to attack 1.0 when you never played it.  You have some serious misconceptions about it.  You could win running 100%, passing 100% or anything in between.  Coaches won because they had talent and gameplanned well.  There were clear cause and effect relationships that you could exploit.  The more talented team usually won, but gameplanning was the difference between making the playoffs and winning an NC.  

The coaches who were winning NCs in 1.0 were still winning NCs in 2.0.  They were "whining" even though they were still winning NCs.  They were "whining" because talent mattered less, gamelanning mattered less and there were fewer controls to manage your team and those controls had little cause/effect relationship with game outcomes.  They left because they didn't want to pay for a game where too many seasons ended with an unexplainable loss.  Bad coaches like the random part of the game to help them out, good coaches want skill to be the determining factor.  Most coaches want to know why they won or lost and what they can do to improve, 2.0 offers little in that regard.  

I'm glad you and a few others like 2.0.  Most other coaches liked 1.0 and left.  It's sad to see the worlds so empty.  There was a time when you had to be up when worlds rolled over to get a new D3 team.  I hope the game gets back to that kind of vibrancy, but 2.0 is not a game for coaches playing to win and 3.0 is a long way from being a good game.""


+1
I agree
9/22/2013 10:56 PM
Posted by bhouska on 9/22/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):
""I think it's pretty odd to attack 1.0 when you never played it.  You have some serious misconceptions about it.  You could win running 100%, passing 100% or anything in between.  Coaches won because they had talent and gameplanned well.  There were clear cause and effect relationships that you could exploit.  The more talented team usually won, but gameplanning was the difference between making the playoffs and winning an NC.  

The coaches who were winning NCs in 1.0 were still winning NCs in 2.0.  They were "whining" even though they were still winning NCs.  They were "whining" because talent mattered less, gamelanning mattered less and there were fewer controls to manage your team and those controls had little cause/effect relationship with game outcomes.  They left because they didn't want to pay for a game where too many seasons ended with an unexplainable loss.  Bad coaches like the random part of the game to help them out, good coaches want skill to be the determining factor.  Most coaches want to know why they won or lost and what they can do to improve, 2.0 offers little in that regard.  

I'm glad you and a few others like 2.0.  Most other coaches liked 1.0 and left.  It's sad to see the worlds so empty.  There was a time when you had to be up when worlds rolled over to get a new D3 team.  I hope the game gets back to that kind of vibrancy, but 2.0 is not a game for coaches playing to win and 3.0 is a long way from being a good game.""


+1
I played years ago under a separate username, thanks.
9/22/2013 10:59 PM
Posted by citizenkane on 9/22/2013 10:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bhouska on 9/22/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):
""I think it's pretty odd to attack 1.0 when you never played it.  You have some serious misconceptions about it.  You could win running 100%, passing 100% or anything in between.  Coaches won because they had talent and gameplanned well.  There were clear cause and effect relationships that you could exploit.  The more talented team usually won, but gameplanning was the difference between making the playoffs and winning an NC.  

The coaches who were winning NCs in 1.0 were still winning NCs in 2.0.  They were "whining" even though they were still winning NCs.  They were "whining" because talent mattered less, gamelanning mattered less and there were fewer controls to manage your team and those controls had little cause/effect relationship with game outcomes.  They left because they didn't want to pay for a game where too many seasons ended with an unexplainable loss.  Bad coaches like the random part of the game to help them out, good coaches want skill to be the determining factor.  Most coaches want to know why they won or lost and what they can do to improve, 2.0 offers little in that regard.  

I'm glad you and a few others like 2.0.  Most other coaches liked 1.0 and left.  It's sad to see the worlds so empty.  There was a time when you had to be up when worlds rolled over to get a new D3 team.  I hope the game gets back to that kind of vibrancy, but 2.0 is not a game for coaches playing to win and 3.0 is a long way from being a good game.""


+1
I played years ago under a separate username, thanks.
I do remember waking up at midnight as a highschool student to get a spot.
9/23/2013 1:46 AM
Posted by slid64er on 9/22/2013 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 9/22/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):
I can't help but also add--One of my favorite *quirks* of the v1 game was seeing successful, NC caliber teams not have any QBs at all on their roster so they could save the space for more OL & DL.  They'd have the punter give the hand offs and never throw a single pass the entire season.  LOL.  That is why it was really the 'single-wing dynasty'!
I've never seen that before.  And if you did see that, that coach wasn't winning NCs.  If you didn't have a player in a position group (except for P or K), you couldn't save your depth charts.  Stamina and personnel substitutions were critical, so anyone who didn't have someone at every position was at an insurmountable disadvantage when playing a decent coach with similar talent.
Sure there were, although it was so long ago, I can't cite particular examples.  Lots of players would have only a P or K (usually K), and you certainly could save your depth charts.  QB stamina matters not at all if you never pass--and that is really the point.   
9/23/2013 9:10 AM
Posted by slid64er on 9/22/2013 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 9/22/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):
I can't help but also add--One of my favorite *quirks* of the v1 game was seeing successful, NC caliber teams not have any QBs at all on their roster so they could save the space for more OL & DL.  They'd have the punter give the hand offs and never throw a single pass the entire season.  LOL.  That is why it was really the 'single-wing dynasty'!
I've never seen that before.  And if you did see that, that coach wasn't winning NCs.  If you didn't have a player in a position group (except for P or K), you couldn't save your depth charts.  Stamina and personnel substitutions were critical, so anyone who didn't have someone at every position was at an insurmountable disadvantage when playing a decent coach with similar talent.
I've gotta agree with slid64er on this one, although there were a lot of people who didn't recruit QBs, and just flipped a RB/DB into the position. They definitely weren't winning NCs with those teams, although they may have won ones elsewhere. They just seemed to be trying things out to see what worked, like setting OL/DLs to kick returns. I remember some guy trying to make a team of all OLs, and another one that tried to run an OL with all converted TEs. They weren't serious, though; just playing for free and testing the system.
9/23/2013 4:15 PM
The game started to suck when they released 2.0.

The game really sucked after they released 2.0 and most of the well known coaches and competition left.

Closing worlds isn't going to bring back those coaches, so it doesn't solve the problem that old Mr. Conte created.
9/23/2013 4:20 PM
Posted by polabonez on 9/23/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):
The game started to suck when they released 2.0.

The game really sucked after they released 2.0 and most of the well known coaches and competition left.

Closing worlds isn't going to bring back those coaches, so it doesn't solve the problem that old Mr. Conte created.
We got a pretty cool turn of phrase out of it! "Conte's Inferno" has to be worth something, right?
9/23/2013 4:23 PM
FWIW, Since I know I used to be a loud and obnoxious voice on this forum (now I'm only obnoxious) I never played version 1. I came at the tail end of the exodus, and was around when Conte bolted. I began as a WIS sympathizer, but slowly I have evolved to the point where I side with most long term coaches. You see, everything about version 1 wasn't superior to version 2, but on the whole it was better.

There is nothing I want more than for GD to be vibrant again, but the glory days that existed before me are gone. If the game can't return to the cause/effect relationship that it had in 1.0, there will be no return to that age.
9/23/2013 5:00 PM
Not only that.  But the community (this forum) was outstanding..  Even with the people who constantly bickered at each other.  I remember the Survivor threads(Which are active by 20+ people daily for those of you who don't follow it) getting to page 2 or three all of the time.

Now it's the only thread.  Other than this one.
9/23/2013 8:27 PM
This one seems to have some life...and even brought old caesari out for a comment or two!!
9/23/2013 8:53 PM
How much of the downturn from v1 to v2 was due to the economy at the time (and to this day)? This game doesn't come cheap, especially if you're living week-to-week and on a pretty tight budget like many folks are. I wonder what would happen if WIS lowered it's Gridiron Dynasty cost by a few dollars, maybe to something like $7.95. Perhaps more people might be willing to sign-up. Of course, I'm just talking aloud here. 

     
9/23/2013 10:12 PM
Posted by harriswb3 on 9/23/2013 8:27:00 PM (view original):
This one seems to have some life...and even brought old caesari out for a comment or two!!
Ha!  I love this game, and am totally POd that I haven't won an NC yet.... 
of 6
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Ok.It's time for Wis to eliminate most GD worlds !

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.