All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Oriole --- 3.0 is ridiculous Part II
11/21/2013 12:08 AM (edited)
23 of the top 25 reception leaders in Wilkinson after 12 games are Running Backs.   All are over 100 receptions.  And the top ten all time reception leaders in Wilkinson (listed below) range from 168 to 135.  My guess is that at least four, possibly five, RBs will crack the top ten with a regular season game, possible CC, and a bowl left.  

Also listed below is the real life top 25 reception leaders in the NCAA at about the comparable point for games played as Wilkinson.  The RL top 25 leaders in receptions contain 24 WRs and 1 TE. Only one of those has cracked 100 receptions.

No INTs and every RB is the new Calvin Johnson.  


                              Receptions    
1. Charles Singh Washington State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 301 1566 5.2 6 133 1339 10.1 11
2. James Jackson Louisiana Tech 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 302 1214 4.0 3 133 902 6.8 2
3. Robert Watts Marquette 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 324 1624 5.0 12 130 1137 8.7 3
4. George Kennedy Tulane 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 292 1517 5.2 14 126 933 7.4 5
5. Charles Reeves Colorado State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 351 1950 5.6 15 124 950 7.7 3
6. Michael Bennett Florida 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 317 1820 5.7 20 123 950 7.7 5
7. Jose Kirk Penn State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 265 1879 7.1 17 121 958 7.9 3
8. Francis Carney Pittsburgh 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 119 1441 12.1 12
9. William Oliver Minnesota 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 335 1124 3.4 4 116 676 5.8 2
10. Eddie Thomas Navy 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 347 1828 5.3 17 116 778 6.7 2
11. Jerry Johnson San Jose State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 320 1455 4.5 7 115 1040 9.0 6
12. Wayne Lyons Michigan State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 376 1687 4.5 9 115 729 6.3 2
13. Gary Wang Central Florida 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 322 1693 5.3 8 114 810 7.1 4
14. Robert Gibson Missouri 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 272 1771 6.5 15 114 690 6.1 3
15. Randy Daugherty Akron 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 289 1196 4.1 3 113 794 7.0 5
16. Antonio Hoover Arkansas State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 358 2081 5.8 13 113 932 8.2 6
17. Philip Harris Baylor 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 330 1143 3.5 6 112 729 6.5 0
18. George Hinson New Mexico State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 332 1493 4.5 2 111 836 7.5 3
19. Scott Taylor Southern Mississippi 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 360 1624 4.5 6 111 1009 9.1 1
20. Raymond Robinson DePaul 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 358 1741 4.9 5 110 969 8.8 4
21. Edgar Smith Marshall 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 360 2051 5.7 16 109 820 7.5 3
22. Timothy Mitchell Utah State 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 369 1409 3.8 9 109 829 7.6 1
23. Miguel Taylor Montana 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 317 1293 4.1 3 108 597 5.5 2
24. John McDonald Louisiana Monroe 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 343 1820 5.3 9 107 793 7.4 3
25. Ernest Singer UTEP 12 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 357 1690 4.7 8 107 902 8.4 6
 
 
 
 

All-time DI-A Records

  Player Season Rec
1. John Hamilton 22 168
2. Patrick Yoder 67 159
3. John Edwards 66 151
4. Raul Moore 32 149
5. Tim Lewis 69 143
6. Anthony Daugherty 65 141
7. Jared Correa 85 139
8. Kevin Schwartz 66 138
9. Paul Stanley 65 135
  James Goodman 70 135

RK

PLAYER

TEAM

REC

YDS

AVG

LONG

TD

1

Brandin Cooks, WR

ORST

100

1443

14.4

55

14

2

Jace Amaro, TE

TTU

92

1157

12.6

47

6

3

Davante Adams, WR

FRES

91

967

10.6

75

15

4

Brandon Wimberly, WR

NEV

87

872

10.0

43

7

 

Jeremy Johnson, WR

SMU

87

925

10.6

66

6

 

Justin Hardy, WR

ECU

87

1047

12.0

44

7

7

Willie Snead, WR

BALL

86

1296

15.1

55

13

8

Jordan Matthews, WR

VAN

83

1076

13.0

55

5

9

Allen Robinson, WR

PSU

81

1204

14.9

65

6

10

Darius Joseph, WR

SMU

79

691

8.7

45

5

RK

PLAYER

TEAM

REC

YDS

AVG

LONG

TD

11

Bryce Treggs, WR

CAL

76

713

9.4

50

1

12

Tommylee Lewis, WR

NIU

74

623

8.4

41

3

 

Tommy Shuler, WR

MRSH

74

798

10.8

44

8

14

Jamison Crowder, WR

DUKE

73

956

13.1

75

3

15

Eric Ward, WR

TTU

72

816

11.3

45

8

16

Paul Richardson, WR

COLO

71

1201

16.9

82

9

 

Sammy Watkins, WR

CLEM

71

1086

15.3

96

9

 

Shane Williams-Rhodes, WR

BSU

71

662

9.3

68

5

19

Chris Harper, WR

CAL

70

852

12.2

89

5

 

Deontay Greenberry, WR

HOU

70

1042

14.9

83

9

RK

PLAYER

TEAM

REC

YDS

AVG

LONG

TD

21

Josh Harper, WR

FRES

68

823

12.1

57

9

22

Michael Campanaro, WR

WAKE

67

803

12.0

66

6

23

Dezmon Epps, WR

IDHO

66

811

12.3

66

4

24

Jeremy Gallon, WR

MICH

65

1062

16.3

70

7

25

Chandler Jones, WR

SJSU

64

1109

17.3

77

11

 

Shaq Washington, WR

CIN

64

604

9.4

41

1

 

Dominic Rufran, WR

WYO

64

747

11.7

71

7

 

Corey Davis, WR

WMU

64

913

14.3

75

6






 
11/20/2013 11:07 PM
Potter we get it you're disapointed just as much as I am had to hear about this great new engine for the last year and half finally get good at the old engine and wham. Something not finished or polished and my teams struggle mightily.
11/20/2013 11:37 PM
This has a lot to do with the primary gameplans and formations default settings. I can assure you, if you change your gameplan this will not be the case. however, since only 1 rb runs routes for the default, and he gets almost all the short/very short passes and those two comprise a good number (if not a majority of) the looks in the default playbooks it ends like this. high comp%'s, high running back reception numbers and yardage etc.
11/20/2013 11:56 PM (edited)
So, to attempt a productive posting, let's think of possible reasons why RBs aren't performing this way in RL: Their hands are worse, drop more passes than WRs, Comp% should be adjusted accordingly; QBs are more likely to throw a pass OB medium or long, or attempt a pass 'only a receiver can catch/avoid INT' than dump off to a RB; RBs are more likely to stay in protection/ not be available on a route than is true here. Perhaps these are areas where the game could be adjusted....

BTW, this is a great analysis though!  Thank you for sharing!

11/20/2013 11:59 PM
I tend to agree with Noah, and I definitely think defaults should be changed. My UConn team had 2 WRs and 1 TE with 78, 58, and 45 receptions, and then I had two RBs after that with 41 and 30. It's a large chunk, but it is reduced significantly by simply setting your gameplan.
11/21/2013 12:30 AM
Posted by jfootball88 on 11/20/2013 11:07:00 PM (view original):
Potter we get it you're disapointed just as much as I am had to hear about this great new engine for the last year and half finally get good at the old engine and wham. Something not finished or polished and my teams struggle mightily.
You don't get it with me.  Not disappointed and I could care less if my team struggles or not.  I raised questions about a finished product I purchased.  I guess I'm just curious why the latest and greatest reality based simulation football game has a RB from Marquette who is ranked third overall in receptions in DIA with 130 receptions with 2, possibly, 3 games left in the season.  But that's just me.
11/21/2013 8:16 AM
IMO, just changing the default gameplan to not target RB's so much would completely fix this issue.  Easy fix.


11/21/2013 9:47 AM
We are in the process of reconfiguring the defaults for those playbooks. If you look at the numbers as Noah says, we defaulted a huge majority of the VS and S passes to the runnings backs. This has messed with the leading receptions, and we are looking to update the defaults in the next couple of days. For your individual team you can change the distributions in the formations and that will solve the issue individually.


11/21/2013 10:45 AM

We can change the distributions in the formations and solve it.  No problem there.  Original poster probably didn't realize that.

My only concern with receptions is WR average less per reception than in the previous engine.  I have my pass settings with Long and Deep getting 80% to 100% between them, and still WR average less per reception vs humans and SIMs than in version 2.0.

If you set your distributions to get away from heavy distribution to RBs, the passing game plays out very much like 2.0, with the exception of the lesser yards per catch average of WRs.

11/21/2013 10:53 AM (edited)
Posted by oriole_fan on 11/21/2013 9:47:00 AM (view original):
We are in the process of reconfiguring the defaults for those playbooks. If you look at the numbers as Noah says, we defaulted a huge majority of the VS and S passes to the runnings backs. This has messed with the leading receptions, and we are looking to update the defaults in the next couple of days. For your individual team you can change the distributions in the formations and that will solve the issue individually.


The original poster gets that a coach can change his settings.  The point is that the results are absurd and the engine allows for these absurd 100+ reception RBs. The point isn't that these results are absurd and the coaches of these 100+ RB teams were unsuccessful or that they want to know how to stop it if it worked for them.  Many of these 100+ reception RBs are playing on top 25 teams with double digit wins.  Some people may just want to win regardless of whether or not a simulation game bears any resemblance to real life.  Others, however, may look at the results and come to a different conclusion about that SIM game and decide not to play it.   

Let's set aside the issues of: (a) why wasn't this discovered and addressed in a beta period, and (2) what this foreshadows for the long-term success of GD that so many coaches are using default settings and choosing not to spend the time on the game to setting the new playbook system.

Drilling down on this particular issue.  It seems what your saying is that you will be changing the defaults as described above and, in turn, this will reduce (or eliminate) the RB dominated top 25 reception leaders.  This assumes (and I think it's a correct assumption) that most users will continue to use the default settings for however long they stay around rather than learning the new playbook system.  But isn't the other point to take away from this is the fact that it's still possible under this engine to have 100+ reception RBs if you set your own playbook (as opposed to the default) with a huge majority of VS and S passes to the RBs?    
11/21/2013 11:15 AM (edited)
I don't see the engine as ridiculous.  In my opinion youd see rb's with high reception totals in real life if teams prioritized them in their passing games.  That's the reason the rb's are being looked at more in the passing game by the qb's.  Theyre set as the 1st look in VS, short passing in the formations.   I say wait for the updates to the default playbooks and also a little time to see if people can gameplan and stop it.   If it cant be stopped by gameplanning then start looking for changes. Maybe they started out with the default playbook with intentions of tweaking it as they need to.  The passing to RB's was successful so naturally most people aren't going to change it until defenses shut it down. 
I personally like the new engine.  Is it perfect no but I like it better than 2.0.  Id like to see more people that like the new engine to speak up because the sqeaky wheel gets the grease.  I think far too many post on here whining with no intentions of looking/wanting/working on a solution.  Just cause there team isn't doing as well as it did in 2.0
11/21/2013 11:16 AM
The process of suggestions and then beta testing took a little long perhaps but ...
problems occured when early in the beta test, when people interested in the outcomes were really going over the engine and game simulation we had many other bugs occur. These took too long to fix and then the enthusiasm of the testers started to slide. Oriole took over and rewrote the engine - creating more bugs - which he continues to work on. In my opinion, oriole has done a great job or rewriting the game out from the corner Norbert put it in. The problem is that most of the people who were analyzing this game got burned out because it has taken so long. It seems that the theory of putting this game together was flawed from the start (or oriole wouldn't have had to re-write it). It doesn't seem that creating an engine where for a given play, if player A's ratings for certain attributes are better than player B's certain attributes then player A wins. The question would be by how much and how much variation. Add a calibration number to the equation and for every match-up you can screw that number up or down until everything is in balance. A seemingly quick fix.

The RB issue being discussed above is an indication that coaches are going to find what works and exploit it - especially if they are paying to play. Like passing out of the WB in early 2.0, now the RB and VS passing is the key to success. Oriole's task is to fix these, put them in balance and do it so we can see what is going on.

And an added note to oriole - I realize you may be typing your coding fingers to the bone - but you will ultimately lose more players in this game by not speaking to to us more regularly (especially on the first season roll out - c'mon dude - daily reports!) than getting to work on whatever behind the scenes.
11/21/2013 11:23 AM
I will note, that in the beta among humans, there were fewer humans using default formations in beta then there seems to be in alpha right now.
11/21/2013 12:05 PM
potter444 said:
 
But isn't the other point to take away from this is the fact that it's still possible under this engine to have 100+ reception RBs if you set your own playbook (as opposed to the default) with a huge majority of VS and S passes to the RBs?    

And this, IMO, is as it should be.  The game is a simulation of college football, not a re-creation of specific college teams and seasons.  If I want to make a playbook where I do nothing but throw to two TE's out of the ND Box, then that's my right as a paying customer.  If I want to create a playbook where I put 8 men in the box and blitz a safety in order to try and stop the run, that's my right as a paying customer.  I don't have to "play nice" and follow what happened in real-world college football.  In fact, if the game were to 'force' restrictions on me so that I MUST follow the "norms" of college football, I would drop it.  If I want to re-create a college football season, I'll go pull out my Strat-O-Matic cards.

I completely agree with katzhphang88's analysis - in fact, at one point during the beta I called for them to completely scrap all the previous code and re-design the game engine from scratch.

I'm not sure why noah23 keeps calling this the "alpha" - in application development, the "alpha" code is the very raw beginning stages of an app, where "beta" is (supposed to be) the more finished, nearly ready for release version.  And then, of course, comes the release version.  The current state of the game has its problems, but not so many that I would say it has reverted to "alpha".   But yes, more human coaches are using the defaults right now.  The beta testers, at least originally, were willing to invest the time into digging into how the "advanced" settings worked.  The current group of owners, most of whom are playing only because they got a free season, either were turned off by the seeming complexity of the set up process or never understood that it even existed.  The game launched without nearly enough supporting documentation.

 


 
11/21/2013 12:10 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 11/21/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
potter444 said:
 
But isn't the other point to take away from this is the fact that it's still possible under this engine to have 100+ reception RBs if you set your own playbook (as opposed to the default) with a huge majority of VS and S passes to the RBs?    

And this, IMO, is as it should be.  The game is a simulation of college football, not a re-creation of specific college teams and seasons.  If I want to make a playbook where I do nothing but throw to two TE's out of the ND Box, then that's my right as a paying customer.  If I want to create a playbook where I put 8 men in the box and blitz a safety in order to try and stop the run, that's my right as a paying customer.  I don't have to "play nice" and follow what happened in real-world college football.  In fact, if the game were to 'force' restrictions on me so that I MUST follow the "norms" of college football, I would drop it.  If I want to re-create a college football season, I'll go pull out my Strat-O-Matic cards.

I completely agree with katzhphang88's analysis - in fact, at one point during the beta I called for them to completely scrap all the previous code and re-design the game engine from scratch.

I'm not sure why noah23 keeps calling this the "alpha" - in application development, the "alpha" code is the very raw beginning stages of an app, where "beta" is (supposed to be) the more finished, nearly ready for release version.  And then, of course, comes the release version.  The current state of the game has its problems, but not so many that I would say it has reverted to "alpha".   But yes, more human coaches are using the defaults right now.  The beta testers, at least originally, were willing to invest the time into digging into how the "advanced" settings worked.  The current group of owners, most of whom are playing only because they got a free season, either were turned off by the seeming complexity of the set up process or never understood that it even existed.  The game launched without nearly enough supporting documentation.

 


 
Just change alpha to final (release) then..must have had a misunderstanding of what the terms meant.
of 4
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Oriole --- 3.0 is ridiculous Part II

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.