11/7/2013 12:19 PM
Can we get a quick vote on proceeding to V3?  It's not too late to revert back to V2.0 and roll out incremental changes to that ball of wax.  This V3 makes the Obamacare rollout look good.
11/7/2013 12:49 PM
How would you compare 3.0 with 2.0?




Votes: 92
(Last vote received: 12/12/2013 11:06 AM)
11/7/2013 12:50 PM
How would you compare 3.0 now(as of 11/7/2013) compared to its first day a few weeks ago?




Votes: 76
(Last vote received: 11/11/2013 5:27 PM)
11/7/2013 1:09 PM
Posted by sjurat on 11/7/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):
Can we get a quick vote on proceeding to V3?  It's not too late to revert back to V2.0 and roll out incremental changes to that ball of wax.  This V3 makes the Obamacare rollout look good.
Nothing can make the Obamacare rollout look good, not even The Human Centipede.
11/7/2013 1:41 PM
What has been the most promising improvement from 2.0 to 3.0?







Votes: 75
(Last vote received: 12/12/2013 11:06 AM)
11/7/2013 8:25 PM
This poll is great, but its useless since the only things that the programmers want to hear is how 3.0 is just peaches & cream. Since they ran both versions for beta, I don't understand why they don't run both versions which gives the players a choice, hence maybe more revenues. I've got one season left as it stands and I'm done
11/7/2013 8:51 PM
Posted by starfinder77 on 11/7/2013 8:25:00 PM (view original):
This poll is great, but its useless since the only things that the programmers want to hear is how 3.0 is just peaches & cream. Since they ran both versions for beta, I don't understand why they don't run both versions which gives the players a choice, hence maybe more revenues. I've got one season left as it stands and I'm done
What do you mean "they ran both versions for beta"-that's a complete crock of shiite.
11/7/2013 9:37 PM
Biggest problem that happened for this roll-out was that we gave Norbert about a year of input and he worked on the engine. It rolled out in Feb and we gave 4 months to beta test 3.0. Then blewie! Norbert is gone and oriole starts. Takes him a month to get up to speed, he starts a re-write and 4 months later - total - he rolls out the current 3.1 engine. If oriole would have had the same time Norbert did this would be running more smoothly. I like it better now than 2.0 - it is more like 1.0 - but it hadn't quite been beta tested enough. Most of the better testers gave up on this game because it took so long to get to this point. So 3.1 isn't quite ready yet, it is as playable as 2.0 was after 3 years. You have a choice - as we all stated when we went from 1.0 to 2.0 - play or quit. But please - don't start multiple threads on why you are quitting. Just quit.
11/7/2013 10:27 PM
Can't vote yet. First game is on the 9th.

I will have to wait to see if every thing is set up right and running. Will have to wait and see what is what.

11/8/2013 9:37 AM
I say, so far so good.

minus a couple irritants (not optional across all words playbooks/settings/formations, Players starts are bugging me a little)

of course -- my Youngstown State team is already 3-0 in Yost -- that may have a little to do with that
11/8/2013 10:20 AM
Posted by fermor332002 on 11/7/2013 10:27:00 PM (view original):
Can't vote yet. First game is on the 9th.

I will have to wait to see if every thing is set up right and running. Will have to wait and see what is what.

I won't vote on this til I can see a few games, but am interested in seeing what everyone else has voted thus far and by whom those votes are from. Please post that when you get a chance.
11/8/2013 11:17 AM
Yes, please post the results (don't want to vote as I'm still considering picking up a 3.0 team).
11/8/2013 11:56 AM (edited)

I would especially like to see folks explain the reason *why* the voted the way they did.  Especially the "worse" and "much worse" votes.

For the record, I voted "Much Better".  The game engine, from what I can see, relies heavily on attribute differential in determining results, and the advanced formations and position roles give me MUCH MUCH more control in getting the personnel I want on the field.

That's not to say it's perfect, by any means.  Bugs like "phantom scores", issues with starts being credited, etc. need to be fixed. But my thinking is, bugs can be fixed.  The game engine in 2.0 was fundamentally flawed, and no, it didn't need a few tweaks.  It needed to be completely overhauled.  

 

11/8/2013 1:15 PM
I voted "worse".  Reason is that it is too danged complicated to set up and understand all the things going on under the ADVANCED settings.  I do think it will get better, but I've spent HOURS setting up, and then tweaking after a few exhibition games.  I never saw 1.0 so I don't know what it was like.  But I think we may have gone overboard with the amount of "control".  Seems to me it could have been done a lot simpler (mostly in the form of how the Rushing distributions were in 2.0, could have been applied to passing targets, blitzing, etc).  Would not have been formation/down/distance specific, but would have been an improvement.

I do really like that the engine does what I ask it to do (run wide, run up the middle, throw deep, throw short, etc).  One of my complaints under 2.0 was that if I told the engine to go Very Aggressive running 100% of the time....it would still give me about 40-50% inside runs.  Similar thing for passing.  That always irritated me.  Now it runs outside every single time...or goes deep every single time.  I do like that. 

I do not see any really outlandish results.

I want to win for sure, and I don't think that the basic settings will get you to a National Championship.  So I have to use the advanced.  Glaity mentions a couple of items that irritate me as well.

I complained about the amount of setup time right at the beginning of beta...then dropped out due to that (and that I really didnt have time or energy to recruit for another team besides the ones I already had).  

 
11/8/2013 2:15 PM

I suspect that most people who voted worse or much worse did so because of the increase complexity of initial setup.  I can empathize, because it does take a lot of time.  But after the initial set up, it really doesn't take any more time than previous engines.
 

If I carve out some time this weekend, I'm going to put together a "project plan" for how to deploy a game plan, starting with position roles, then to custom formations, and finally into the playbooks.

 

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.