7/19/2013 2:18 PM
Ok, I put out a quick change for the passing numbers this morning. This will take the overall percentages down (just a number, and I'm still tweaking it to make it right.) and also reduce the effect of fatigue on the QB. Again, things are going to be changing over the next couple of weeks rather quickly as I hone in on the right mix. 

katzphang88, Thanks for the scenario. I'll dig into this a little more. Admittedly one of the main parts that I've been saving till the end is the PBP. I know it's a critical part to the game and I will be sure to clean it up when the numbers/situations are correct. I'll fool with this matchup and see what I can deduce/fix about the problems related to the PBP. 

As you are saying, the stages in the play are hard to follow and sometimes seem random. I'm looking to create a cause and effect tool for myself that will allow me to find out if the decision happens normally, or if it is some bad roll of the dice. This will allow me to be more informative with the feedback in PBP. 

Finally, I agree with you about the transparency of what the play should look like and that attributes should be the driving force in the decisions. I also believe that they are, just not weighted properly. It is obvious that the results should be married to the inputs and that is the path that I'm trying to explore, but barring a lucky tweak, this is going to come incrementally. I'm sorry that it can't be a quick fix, but as the problems in the path to the results become more obvious, so do the solutions and weights of the attributes. 

Again, thanks for your help.


7/19/2013 3:30 PM
Posted by oriole_fan on 7/19/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Ok, I put out a quick change for the passing numbers this morning. This will take the overall percentages down (just a number, and I'm still tweaking it to make it right.) and also reduce the effect of fatigue on the QB. Again, things are going to be changing over the next couple of weeks rather quickly as I hone in on the right mix. 

katzphang88, Thanks for the scenario. I'll dig into this a little more. Admittedly one of the main parts that I've been saving till the end is the PBP. I know it's a critical part to the game and I will be sure to clean it up when the numbers/situations are correct. I'll fool with this matchup and see what I can deduce/fix about the problems related to the PBP. 

As you are saying, the stages in the play are hard to follow and sometimes seem random. I'm looking to create a cause and effect tool for myself that will allow me to find out if the decision happens normally, or if it is some bad roll of the dice. This will allow me to be more informative with the feedback in PBP. 

Finally, I agree with you about the transparency of what the play should look like and that attributes should be the driving force in the decisions. I also believe that they are, just not weighted properly. It is obvious that the results should be married to the inputs and that is the path that I'm trying to explore, but barring a lucky tweak, this is going to come incrementally. I'm sorry that it can't be a quick fix, but as the problems in the path to the results become more obvious, so do the solutions and weights of the attributes. 

Again, thanks for your help.


When you turned down passing, it looks like you did this across the board.  Is that correct?  Why not make attributes matter more first before making random tweaks?  Until attributes matter and there is cause and effect, you're putting a band aid on a cancer patient.  Right now, with the recent tweaks, there's no cause and effect except for what you dictate.  You're trying to shoehorn results into boxes that don't make any sense except to norbert. 

I strongly urge you to make the attributes give you reasonable results before you make patchwork fixes like these last two.
7/19/2013 7:22 PM
What would this look like if we started with the premise that attributes are ALL that matters and then worked to make gameplanning fit after we reach that point.  I betcha we actually get something that makes sense. 
7/19/2013 8:04 PM
Posted by trombumpet on 7/19/2013 7:22:00 PM (view original):
What would this look like if we started with the premise that attributes are ALL that matters and then worked to make gameplanning fit after we reach that point.  I betcha we actually get something that makes sense. 
This is what I suggested WAAAAAY back! Let's put this game together so only attributes make up the plays - best player wins. We can add the modifications for IQ, fatigue, play call, hair color all in later, but if the basic underlying foundation of player vs player match-up is flawed there will be nothing that can be done to fix it (where we are now). If WIS wants a game that is "Hey c'mon and pick your favorite school and pretend to be the coach and you just have to lucky and you could win a NC!" they have it. Quit spending time and effort to get anything else right now and let the people who want to play (won't be me). If they want a game where coaches must be able to evaluate and recruit players,  set a depth chart with the best talent in the right spots,  and develop a game plan that plays as they would intend it to -  then they need to do much better than just tinker.
7/19/2013 8:10 PM
Posted by katzphang88 on 7/19/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by trombumpet on 7/19/2013 7:22:00 PM (view original):
What would this look like if we started with the premise that attributes are ALL that matters and then worked to make gameplanning fit after we reach that point.  I betcha we actually get something that makes sense. 
This is what I suggested WAAAAAY back! Let's put this game together so only attributes make up the plays - best player wins. We can add the modifications for IQ, fatigue, play call, hair color all in later, but if the basic underlying foundation of player vs player match-up is flawed there will be nothing that can be done to fix it (where we are now). If WIS wants a game that is "Hey c'mon and pick your favorite school and pretend to be the coach and you just have to lucky and you could win a NC!" they have it. Quit spending time and effort to get anything else right now and let the people who want to play (won't be me). If they want a game where coaches must be able to evaluate and recruit players,  set a depth chart with the best talent in the right spots,  and develop a game plan that plays as they would intend it to -  then they need to do much better than just tinker.
This was what we told norbert way back in council.  He insisted the new engine set up with "buckets" and making numerous checks in a step by step process was a better mousetrap.  All it has done is confuse oriole to the point where his updates are counterproductive.
7/19/2013 9:30 PM
Posted by slid64er on 7/19/2013 8:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by katzphang88 on 7/19/2013 8:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by trombumpet on 7/19/2013 7:22:00 PM (view original):
What would this look like if we started with the premise that attributes are ALL that matters and then worked to make gameplanning fit after we reach that point.  I betcha we actually get something that makes sense. 
This is what I suggested WAAAAAY back! Let's put this game together so only attributes make up the plays - best player wins. We can add the modifications for IQ, fatigue, play call, hair color all in later, but if the basic underlying foundation of player vs player match-up is flawed there will be nothing that can be done to fix it (where we are now). If WIS wants a game that is "Hey c'mon and pick your favorite school and pretend to be the coach and you just have to lucky and you could win a NC!" they have it. Quit spending time and effort to get anything else right now and let the people who want to play (won't be me). If they want a game where coaches must be able to evaluate and recruit players,  set a depth chart with the best talent in the right spots,  and develop a game plan that plays as they would intend it to -  then they need to do much better than just tinker.
This was what we told norbert way back in council.  He insisted the new engine set up with "buckets" and making numerous checks in a step by step process was a better mousetrap.  All it has done is confuse oriole to the point where his updates are counterproductive.
This is it- get to the real meat and potatoes, not the dressings and condiments. This whole mess needs to be reworked even if it takes another 3-6 months- just get it right. I have not tested it out, but have followed the forums here.
Oriole: please listen to slid64er and katz about this and get the update right- please don't try to meet a deadline and rush out another piece of crap!
7/19/2013 10:57 PM
Oriole, there are a lot of coaches throwing a lot of different things at you. I realize this. That said, the one thing that we all have in common is we want the attributes to be #1. We want them to not only mean something, but to be the most important factor by far. And we want them to make sense to us, in the game and in the play by play. If you accomplish this you'll own these guy's, myself included.
Thanks again for your constant hard work and good luck in getting this massive job done. I know it's a tough job, but I also believe it's very possible to get it right!

7/20/2013 7:46 AM
Keep trying.  The changes are appreciated even if they arent perfect.  Sometimes you have to fail a few times to succeed.
7/21/2013 12:03 AM
Posted by coach_deen on 7/19/2013 10:57:00 PM (view original):
Oriole, there are a lot of coaches throwing a lot of different things at you. I realize this. That said, the one thing that we all have in common is we want the attributes to be #1. We want them to not only mean something, but to be the most important factor by far. And we want them to make sense to us, in the game and in the play by play. If you accomplish this you'll own these guy's, myself included.
Thanks again for your constant hard work and good luck in getting this massive job done. I know it's a tough job, but I also believe it's very possible to get it right!

Amen coach_deen!
7/22/2013 9:28 AM

Thanks guys. I know things are looking a little screwy right now, but I'll get this all worked out.   


7/22/2013 9:36 AM
Posted by oriole_fan on 7/22/2013 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Thanks guys. I know things are looking a little screwy right now, but I'll get this all worked out.   


How? This is put together all wrong. Ratings which is what the players can see needs to be the first thing that matters. The rest should then follow. You guys are trying to start with the rest. Its like you're putting the roof on a house without the foundation and the walls being in place.
7/22/2013 11:43 AM
Slider and Katz seem to understand what some of the programming gibberish means and that's good.  But for the guys like me that need to have something solid to start with (build on), we need a solid basis to begin, and then add as we understand more.  I'm no young techie, and I need to be able to see what a recruit has in value so I can make decisions on what his attributes will do for the needs I have in the make up of my game play.  I'm still learning, still get frustrated, and still have to vent to someone about the inconsistancies??  that happen.  None of this may make any sense to you smart guys, but at least it makes me feel better. 
7/22/2013 2:52 PM
Posted by jibe on 7/22/2013 9:36:00 AM (view original):
Posted by oriole_fan on 7/22/2013 9:28:00 AM (view original):

Thanks guys. I know things are looking a little screwy right now, but I'll get this all worked out.   


How? This is put together all wrong. Ratings which is what the players can see needs to be the first thing that matters. The rest should then follow. You guys are trying to start with the rest. Its like you're putting the roof on a house without the foundation and the walls being in place.
Ratings (talent) is what should matter. If I need a roll of the dice, I will go to the casino!
7/22/2013 7:34 PM
Posted by iamthetwo__2 on 7/22/2013 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Slider and Katz seem to understand what some of the programming gibberish means and that's good.  But for the guys like me that need to have something solid to start with (build on), we need a solid basis to begin, and then add as we understand more.  I'm no young techie, and I need to be able to see what a recruit has in value so I can make decisions on what his attributes will do for the needs I have in the make up of my game play.  I'm still learning, still get frustrated, and still have to vent to someone about the inconsistancies??  that happen.  None of this may make any sense to you smart guys, but at least it makes me feel better. 
I'm not a smart young whipper snapper either Tom, just an old in the tooth school of hard knocks grad. But what you said makes sense to me. I feel likewise.
7/25/2013 3:58 PM
Any update on the TEs? Still seems like they do not catch any passes regardless of setting.
of 4

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.