All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Oriole --- 3.0 is ridiculous Part II
11/21/2013 12:21 PM
I think most of you are missing Potter's point.

As bob stated, this is a college football simulation, but if it's not simulating what happens in college football, than what is it simulating?  So far it just seems like the names of the teams. 

Having the RB dumpoff not only result in guaranteed completions (no drops as we see in real life?) and have the yardage gained equal to that of running a 7yd out (since the average for these RB's is between 6-10 yards per reception) is ridiculous!

Yes, everyone has the right to run the offense they wish, however the the point of a simulation is that the results should at come close to reality. If not, than why can't I be 100% successful throwing the bomb on every play? 

The problem is the dumpoff is TOO successful. It's completed too often and results in too many yards. It needs to be corrected or else you'll just have 300 teams all running the same offense. 
 
11/21/2013 12:38 PM
Posted by rlslmshdy on 11/21/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
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
+1
11/21/2013 12:44 PM
Posted by bhouska on 11/21/2013 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rlslmshdy on 11/21/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
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
+1
They should have kept it in Beta till all the problems are worked out. I think thats the biggest complaint. 
11/21/2013 12:51 PM
Posted by sctrojanx on 11/21/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I think most of you are missing Potter's point.

As bob stated, this is a college football simulation, but if it's not simulating what happens in college football, than what is it simulating?  So far it just seems like the names of the teams. 

Having the RB dumpoff not only result in guaranteed completions (no drops as we see in real life?) and have the yardage gained equal to that of running a 7yd out (since the average for these RB's is between 6-10 yards per reception) is ridiculous!

Yes, everyone has the right to run the offense they wish, however the the point of a simulation is that the results should at come close to reality. If not, than why can't I be 100% successful throwing the bomb on every play? 

The problem is the dumpoff is TOO successful. It's completed too often and results in too many yards. It needs to be corrected or else you'll just have 300 teams all running the same offense. 
 
But WHY is it successful? Is it because the engine is flawed or is it because people have too many people rushing the quarterback and cover set to long to stop the long passes? I don't know the answer to that question and do not have the test game capabilities to see if it is true or not. Therefore, I cannot come to any conceivable conclusion that the engine is what is at fault here. (i.e. why we should still be in beta right now)
11/21/2013 1:01 PM
Posted by noah23 on 11/21/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by sctrojanx on 11/21/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I think most of you are missing Potter's point.

As bob stated, this is a college football simulation, but if it's not simulating what happens in college football, than what is it simulating?  So far it just seems like the names of the teams. 

Having the RB dumpoff not only result in guaranteed completions (no drops as we see in real life?) and have the yardage gained equal to that of running a 7yd out (since the average for these RB's is between 6-10 yards per reception) is ridiculous!

Yes, everyone has the right to run the offense they wish, however the the point of a simulation is that the results should at come close to reality. If not, than why can't I be 100% successful throwing the bomb on every play? 

The problem is the dumpoff is TOO successful. It's completed too often and results in too many yards. It needs to be corrected or else you'll just have 300 teams all running the same offense. 
 
But WHY is it successful? Is it because the engine is flawed or is it because people have too many people rushing the quarterback and cover set to long to stop the long passes? I don't know the answer to that question and do not have the test game capabilities to see if it is true or not. Therefore, I cannot come to any conceivable conclusion that the engine is what is at fault here. (i.e. why we should still be in beta right now)
Exactly I dont think you can go make knee jerk reactions that the engine is flawed without giving it more time.  Have we gameplanned enough to know it cant be stopped?
11/21/2013 1:02 PM
Posted by noah23 on 11/21/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by sctrojanx on 11/21/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I think most of you are missing Potter's point.

As bob stated, this is a college football simulation, but if it's not simulating what happens in college football, than what is it simulating?  So far it just seems like the names of the teams. 

Having the RB dumpoff not only result in guaranteed completions (no drops as we see in real life?) and have the yardage gained equal to that of running a 7yd out (since the average for these RB's is between 6-10 yards per reception) is ridiculous!

Yes, everyone has the right to run the offense they wish, however the the point of a simulation is that the results should at come close to reality. If not, than why can't I be 100% successful throwing the bomb on every play? 

The problem is the dumpoff is TOO successful. It's completed too often and results in too many yards. It needs to be corrected or else you'll just have 300 teams all running the same offense. 
 
But WHY is it successful? Is it because the engine is flawed or is it because people have too many people rushing the quarterback and cover set to long to stop the long passes? I don't know the answer to that question and do not have the test game capabilities to see if it is true or not. Therefore, I cannot come to any conceivable conclusion that the engine is what is at fault here. (i.e. why we should still be in beta right now)
And that's a good point Noah, that DOES need to be factored in but I think we can state with pretty good confidence that not everyone in D1 Wilkinson is running the same defense. Everyone on some default defense MIGHT be an excuse for skewed results in D3 but I don't think it's fair argument for D1. 
11/21/2013 1:09 PM
Posted by sctrojanx on 11/21/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by noah23 on 11/21/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by sctrojanx on 11/21/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I think most of you are missing Potter's point.

As bob stated, this is a college football simulation, but if it's not simulating what happens in college football, than what is it simulating?  So far it just seems like the names of the teams. 

Having the RB dumpoff not only result in guaranteed completions (no drops as we see in real life?) and have the yardage gained equal to that of running a 7yd out (since the average for these RB's is between 6-10 yards per reception) is ridiculous!

Yes, everyone has the right to run the offense they wish, however the the point of a simulation is that the results should at come close to reality. If not, than why can't I be 100% successful throwing the bomb on every play? 

The problem is the dumpoff is TOO successful. It's completed too often and results in too many yards. It needs to be corrected or else you'll just have 300 teams all running the same offense. 
 
But WHY is it successful? Is it because the engine is flawed or is it because people have too many people rushing the quarterback and cover set to long to stop the long passes? I don't know the answer to that question and do not have the test game capabilities to see if it is true or not. Therefore, I cannot come to any conceivable conclusion that the engine is what is at fault here. (i.e. why we should still be in beta right now)
And that's a good point Noah, that DOES need to be factored in but I think we can state with pretty good confidence that not everyone in D1 Wilkinson is running the same defense. Everyone on some default defense MIGHT be an excuse for skewed results in D3 but I don't think it's fair argument for D1. 
Why not? The point is, that none of us now can really even try to figure it out. Because of the lack of test game functionality. There is no incdoinentive for people to come out and say "this is what I am doing" because its the final release and anyone doing that hamstrings themselves.
11/21/2013 1:13 PM
Posted by sctrojanx on 11/21/2013 12:22:00 PM (view original):
I think most of you are missing Potter's point.

As bob stated, this is a college football simulation, but if it's not simulating what happens in college football, than what is it simulating?  So far it just seems like the names of the teams. 

Having the RB dumpoff not only result in guaranteed completions (no drops as we see in real life?) and have the yardage gained equal to that of running a 7yd out (since the average for these RB's is between 6-10 yards per reception) is ridiculous!

Yes, everyone has the right to run the offense they wish, however the the point of a simulation is that the results should at come close to reality. If not, than why can't I be 100% successful throwing the bomb on every play? 

The problem is the dumpoff is TOO successful. It's completed too often and results in too many yards. It needs to be corrected or else you'll just have 300 teams all running the same offense. 
 
I'm not missing potter's point.  I don't want the engine to FORCE certain results.  That doesn't mean certain default settings don't need to be adjusted;  the "first look" distribution of receivers in short and very short needs to be tweaked, the completion percentage (and interception rate) for those ranges probably needs some adjustments.  What I DON'T want is artificial restraints on the engine that FORCE certain results.  If I want to pass deep 100% of the time, I should be able to do just that - with the corresponding increases in interception rate, and decreases in completion rate.  If I want to run up the middle with my fullback from the I-Formation 100% of the time, I should be able to do that, so long as I understand that teams should be able to easily stop that by game-planning properly.

Results SHOULD come close to reality - if the behavior of teams (playbooks/game plans) come close to how it is executed in reality.  If not, the results will be and SHOULD BE skewed by the inputs.

 
11/21/2013 1:16 PM
I totaly agree with bhazelwood on this. I want to be able to run or pass 100% of the time. I do want fatigue to play a major part and make it important that teams choose multiple targets in the passing game and have a deep WR core (or TE if they use them alot). If running 100% of the time, teams should probably have to use 3 or 4 running backs. But you should absolutely be able to play that way, and it can even be successful if you have the personnel to do it.
11/21/2013 1:20 PM
As far as the D1 results not being valid - how many SimAI teams are in that leaderboard?  They will ALWAYS be running default formations and game plans.
11/21/2013 3:17 PM
Most of the teams I've seen have been running an offense heavy on either the pass or the run, so people have gotten used to game planning accordingly. Against passing formation you throw extra DBs on the field and cover medium-long. Against run formations you stack the box and don't think about the pass. When you combine this to a heavy targeting of RBs in the default formations/gameplans I can see how it would skew the statistics. In real life screen passes work best when you get the defense to bite on the run. In 3.0, what we seem to be getting is a crazy high amount of screens coming on run formation pass plays. Since the defense is just bum rushing the back field the QB connects with the RB who just slips out to the side with a couple blockers and it's off to the races.

On the flip side, against pass heavy offenses the defense seems to be game planned into an almost 4 quarter prevent defense. Some poor ILB is probably the only one left with a chance to cover and tackle an outlet pass to the RB. Generally, in real football, that match-up will benefit the RB every time. I'm very interested in seeing what the effect of balancing out the extremes of defensive play calling would have, as well as normalizing offensive defaults (defensive formations default to covering med/long across the board) would be.

As a side note: I feel like now would be a good time to question the "Hands" rating given to most running backs. The past few seasons, I see mid-class running backs with better WR stats than the top receivers in the class. If catching a football routinely isn't a universal skill at the NFL level, I have to question the fact that it seems universal at D-III college. Tweaking that to make a good hands rating less common could help solve this issue.
11/21/2013 3:21 PM
I Personally spent several Hours setting up gameplans and i get this exact result... And no i didnt set my plan to focus on short passes or The RB. i have it set , in theory anyway, to emphasize Medium passing then long and short are supposedly equal chance. But my RB has been my top Rec in every game and so do most of the teams ive looked at box scores on. whether intentionally or not i cannot say.

And im also getting the same lopsided BS results in general. like scoring 17 in 1st quarter and gettin shutdown the other 3 quarters by a team that by every metric u can measure with is a far inferior team but that team puts up more than double my points. Im of a mind 3.0 shuld still be in Beta (but then again im of a mind 2.0 shuld still be in beta) If the better team cant win whats the point? i Dont care to lose and i dont care for a worse team to have a shot just wuld prefer not to lose to a team ranked 30 sum below me and several points lower, and if i do at least make the score/stats close so its believeable
11/21/2013 3:25 PM
Posted by fastec27 on 11/21/2013 12:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bhouska on 11/21/2013 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rlslmshdy on 11/21/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
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
+1
They should have kept it in Beta till all the problems are worked out. I think thats the biggest complaint. 
+1 Just like 2.0
11/21/2013 4:06 PM (edited)
Posted by bhazlewood on 11/21/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):
As far as the D1 results not being valid - how many SimAI teams are in that leaderboard?  They will ALWAYS be running default formations and game plans.

BH.  You (or someone else) can check but it doesn't make any difference IMO because there are multiple human coached teams with 100+ receptions RBs in 3.0.  In other words, the engine allows for this to occur.  This includes one coach, TKEchub, who is a good guy and a successful coach.  Currently ranked #3 in WIS.  His RB through 13 games has 289 rushing attempts and 131 receptions. 

Moving to INTS, the 25 QBs in Wilkinson for TDs thrown range from 40 to 18.  16 of those 25 have thrown 2 or less INTs.  5 have thrown no INTs.  The top two QBs on that list have 1,210 attempts, collectively, and have thrown 1 INT.  [One of those two is my player so this isn't sour grapes]. 

In regards to rushing attempts, the top 25 in rushing attempts in Wilkinson range from 475 to 390.  12 are already over 400 attempts.  And 15 of that top 25, also have over 100 receptions on top of that rushing workload.  Could that ever happen in RL?      

Maybe some people like these hybrid Calvin Johnson/Adrian Peterson possibilities.  That RBs can run and catch the ball 50 times a games without injury or fatigue.  And that you can throw the ball 500+ times with no INTs.  I'm glad that you and others are happy with 3.0.  You're a solid guy and add a feature to the game that, frankly, far exceeds what WIS as ever done with GD in regards to passion and creativity.  Wish it would rub off on them...but it wont.   

And I also understand how these forums work and how a vocal minority seemingly alwys rallies around WIS, Conte, Norbert, or Oriole, and its latest incarnations and promises.  Huzzah for the future    

I thought it was ridiculous when my QB last season in 2.0 threw for 100+ TDs.  And I also think it's ridiculous that he's thrown 523 attempts with 1 INT this year in 3.0.     

I like control but at some point what the hell is the game simulating?  Maybe it's prescient and it's the NFL's future.  No injuries and flawless QBs where the defense is incapable of intercepting a pass.

 

11/21/2013 3:46 PM
Don't worry guys help is on the way! Jconte has been rehired and is working on GD version 4.0!!! So pumped to wait 18 months to play the new one!!
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.