All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Oriole --- 3.0 is ridiculous Part II
11/21/2013 5:00 PM
Posted by taladar on 11/21/2013 3:21:00 PM (view original):
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
Then why are others not getting this result? The quarterback throws the ball where you tell him to. And the upsets are FAR less common now then in 2.0.
11/21/2013 5:10 PM
I realize, all too well, that there are problems with 3.0. But there are some things I view as being better then 2.0 that are right now being called bugs. I believe because of a lack of understanding about how the engine works. There are not enough INT's among QB's. Not enough fatigue effect on players. But alot of the complaints are of things I do not see occurring.

My stats for receiving.

Whalen WR- 132 Rec 1556 Yards
Hanson WR- 171 Rec 1526 Yards
Davis TE- 57 Rec 740 Yards
Garcia RB- 75 Rec 629 Yards
McIntyre RB- 69 Rec 435 Yards
11/21/2013 5:12 PM
THey Clearly are. only u and a select few others seem to not be having the over targeting of the RB.... Did u even bother to read the opening post?? 23 of top 25 rec are RBs.... do u somehow think all 23 of these Backs play for 1 or 2 teams that "Just are too lazy" to set up a gameplan?? no its clearly a bigger issue than u give it credit for. if it was as easy to fix as : well ill up the % of med passes who the heck wuld even bring it up?

Or do u somehow think all 23 of theses baks coaches are Intentionally targeting the RB? i seriously doubt that as well and if we expanded the list to include more than the top 25 i bet that the majority wuld be RBs not WRs . in the Majority of Box Scores ive checkd , the vast majority, the RB is either the #1 rec or tied with a WR or TE at the top . a few here and ther had WR at top and the RB i Reception behind him.

What that tells me is the RB is catching an unrealistic amount of passes . no RB wuld have 450+ totes and 150+ receptions at any level unless u wanted to see a mans heart explode on the field...
11/21/2013 5:20 PM
And the main thing is that the engine allows any of this to happen... if a RB was doing all that in a game he wuld die of exhaustion so the engine shuld severly tax his fatigue level and in turn you shuld end up having to utilize every back on ur Depth chart in a game just to attempt to keep fresh legs on the field
11/21/2013 5:36 PM
Posted by potter444 on 11/21/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
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.

 

First, thanks for kind words.  Yes, I like 3.0 better than 2.0 - that doesn't mean I'm satisfied with the way it is implemented right now.  Part of the problem with some numbers being out of whack is fatigue isn't working properly.  Injuries haven't been implemented.  Interception rate is way off.  I've said it before, and I'll repeat - the game engine was not ready to go into production.  As others (noah? can't remember) noted, the participation level in the beta had dropped off considerably, due to both the length of time the beta was taking, and the lack of communication from the developer.  The only positive I can see from putting the current code into production was that in increased the level of feedback.  The cost, in lost users, won't be worth it in the long run.  WIS had a chance (through the free seasons) to breathe new life into the GD community but tripped up because they launched an unfinished product.

One area we're going to disagree on, if I understand your comments properly, is what the engine allows to happen.  If I design a game plan that targets my RB in short passes and throw there most of time, then I SHOULD have RB's with lots of catches.  If fatigue was properly implemented, it might spread those 40 catches over 5 RB, but if I want to throw to my RB 60+ times, that should be my choice.  As I interpret your comments, you don't want that to ever happen, since it doesn't happen in real life.  Why even bother to let me game plan (or more accurately here, design my own playbook) in that case? Just look at what my school did last year (or last time it played football, in some cases) and make that my plays & game plan.  That way, you can simulate McNeese State properly.
11/21/2013 5:49 PM
bob, I'll let potter speak for himself but when I talk about simulating real college football I'm not talking about Urban Meyer runs a spread offense so therefore if you're coaching Ohio State you have to run a spread. 

What I'm talking about is if you decide to throw 60 passes a game to your running backs, that IS your choice but whatever your choice of offensive style, you should not be guaranteed success.

Right now if you throw to your RB you are pretty much guaranteed 7 yards a play, no matter what team you're playing and no matter what defense they are playing. You are saying that's a learning curve issue with defenses. I am calling it a bug since it's happening a preposterously abnormal amount of the time.
11/21/2013 5:53 PM
"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."

That's pretty obvious.
11/21/2013 5:56 PM

Rlslmshdy wrote:  "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?"

 

Uh...I know I'm not a real techno wiz, but isn't that what BETA TESTING is supposed to do?  Why are we paying to be beta testers?
 

11/21/2013 6:10 PM

No, you shouldn't be guaranteed success just because you run a specific type of play.  I certainly never got 7 yards every play on short passes with my Princeton team in Yost, but maybe I just suck as a coach. :)

Yes, the number of catches by RB is out of proportion. I think it's a combination of factors, some of which are "bugs" (poorly implemented fatigue) and some of which are default pass distributions. Are the completion percentages for short and very short passes too high?  Probably, but without going through hundreds of play-by-plays, I won't KNOW what those numbers are. Should more short passes have less YAC ?  Maybe, but again, it's hard to know without combing through hundreds of games, something that I don't have the time, energy, or desire to do.  I've always readily admitted to being lazy :)

11/21/2013 7:00 PM
Fix the damn stamina/fatigue issue.  I've been harping on this for months.  This would solve many of the problems we are seeing.  The way things are moving, we're going to get another one of oriole's blanket, stealth nerfs that kills everyone in the process of making the game realistic.
11/21/2013 7:46 PM
I quit playing GD shortly after 2.0 came out and just recently came back to see what 3.0 was like. My first two exhibition games have been interesting. I like the way they have allowed for more customization and even more opportunity to control things. There's even more to figure out now than in the first version I struggled to master (and never did). I have definitely jumped in and tried to figure things out. So far my passing is about 50 - 50 throwing to receivers vs. running backs. I've lost both games. From what I'm hearing I need to set my game plan to nearly all passing and target my RB in the very short and short distances to win? I must need to change my targeting to more of the default settings because I'm not going to backs very often.
11/21/2013 8:07 PM
Posted by taladar on 11/21/2013 5:12:00 PM (view original):
THey Clearly are. only u and a select few others seem to not be having the over targeting of the RB.... Did u even bother to read the opening post?? 23 of top 25 rec are RBs.... do u somehow think all 23 of these Backs play for 1 or 2 teams that "Just are too lazy" to set up a gameplan?? no its clearly a bigger issue than u give it credit for. if it was as easy to fix as : well ill up the % of med passes who the heck wuld even bring it up?

Or do u somehow think all 23 of theses baks coaches are Intentionally targeting the RB? i seriously doubt that as well and if we expanded the list to include more than the top 25 i bet that the majority wuld be RBs not WRs . in the Majority of Box Scores ive checkd , the vast majority, the RB is either the #1 rec or tied with a WR or TE at the top . a few here and ther had WR at top and the RB i Reception behind him.

What that tells me is the RB is catching an unrealistic amount of passes . no RB wuld have 450+ totes and 150+ receptions at any level unless u wanted to see a mans heart explode on the field...
Yes. Either too lazy, or taking advantage of a perceived advantage in the engine. The engine spits out what you put in it, particularly on offense. The fix is to up the % of medium passes or reduce distribution to running backs in the formations. If the engine is broke to the point where throwing to RB was guaranteed regardless of game plan you wouldn't be able to have the ratio of WR to RB catches that I have on my team. Period. It just doesn't work that way.

Are there problems? Sure. Right now I can't tell you the cause of those problems (outside of the obvious FATIGUE problem that a majority of people in the Beta have been harping on since early in beta) because I can't do any experimentation or have knowledge of what other people's defensive positioning is. What I, and others DO NOT want is a knee jerk reaction that swings the problem the opposite direction because we don't understand what the problem actually is.

Right now too many running back's are catching passes. There is one obvious cause. The default gameplans. There are several other potential causes. Defensive positioning is one possible explanation, In beta I would be able to test that theory, Quite easily. I was able to find that running backs that had options for blocking were not getting any receptions regardless of gameplan at one time in beta. We had already figured out the TE issue at that point.

If a coach chooses to have 80% targets for short/very short, then running back receptions are going to be high. Does that mean that maybe comp% is not out of wack for short/very short? It does not necessarily mean that it does not need tweaking. What I am saying is that I do not know the answer to that question as I do not have the variables necessary to come to a conclusion.

The things that this engine does well is that on offense it does what you tell it to do. It also limits crazy upsets more then 2.0 does. These things were not the case until Oriole took over. I guess this whole thing is frustration over it being on the live game right now.

11/21/2013 8:18 PM
One easy fix (in my feeble mind) - just add a "very short" option to pass coverage that targets a LB or CB in coverage to defend a RB behind the line. Should decrease RB catches and maybe set up some TD Int.

Fatigue isn't calculated well enough - QB's who throw long shouldn't get any more tired than throwing short. Fatigue should be related to the amount you block, tackle and run - (maybe relate it to weight of the player) Long runs or pass routes decrease effectiveness for a time - way more can be done.

The dreaded "Buckets of Outcome" designed and used in this game still provide too much variability in outcomes between lopsided matched OL/DL - RB/Def in my opinion. Don't know the code but it really needs to be tightened up. (BIGGEST ERROR IN GAME DESIGN OF THIS ENTIRE ENGINE IS THIS CONCEPT)
11/21/2013 8:24 PM
Posted by holmes44 on 11/21/2013 7:46:00 PM (view original):
I quit playing GD shortly after 2.0 came out and just recently came back to see what 3.0 was like. My first two exhibition games have been interesting. I like the way they have allowed for more customization and even more opportunity to control things. There's even more to figure out now than in the first version I struggled to master (and never did). I have definitely jumped in and tried to figure things out. So far my passing is about 50 - 50 throwing to receivers vs. running backs. I've lost both games. From what I'm hearing I need to set my game plan to nearly all passing and target my RB in the very short and short distances to win? I must need to change my targeting to more of the default settings because I'm not going to backs very often.
Definitey NOT true, at least at D3.  You can run and pass successfully.  I'll know more after Heisman gets underway.  With my D1AA team I'll be running all wishbone and we will see what happens, but it looks promising thus far after two exhibitions.
11/21/2013 8:33 PM
I am of the opinion, and for sure without any data to prove it, that defenders set to medium or deep coverage are "too good".  I have a pretty good all Shotgun team in D3 Wilkinson and its just plain difficult to go deep with the passing game.  It SEEMS that every time my QB looks deep, the WRs are covered...meaning he then needs to check down.   I think that is also part of the reason for so many sacks, and low numbers of INTs (QBs are smart enough to not throw into what appears to be double and triple coverage with DBs hanging all over the WRs).
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.