Posted by coach_deen on 7/28/2013 4:14:00 AM (view original):
Posted by katzphang88 on 7/28/2013 12:40:00 AM (view original):Myself and a few coaches are trying it. I'll let you know how it goes, kat, but I get what you're saying 100%...
Posted by coach_deen on 7/27/2013 3:09:00 PM (view original):Biggest problem with this deen is that it would be hard to control all the potential variables and it would be very time consuming to run and compile enough games to give a good sample of all the possibilities. AND THEN - WIS would still have to care a to listen to us. It's like training a cat - you can plead and plead to the cat, but the cat will only do it when it wants to.
What about any coaches that want to be involved get together and share their players attributes? This was we could play each other in test games and have our choice of attributes to test? Maybe my RB's & OL are strong and I want to run against a better DL, etc...???
I think Katz is correct. WIS has to be the instigator of any testing because we as coaches can't compile the data in any reasonable way.
Additionally, even if we attempt to compile the data they would have to listen to our results -- perhaps they would, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt -- however, the testing methodology would be skewed by the need for us as coaches to try to reverse engineer the game engine. We're black box testing, and we only control some of the inputs.
Ideally, WIS would create a team with players that have 40 scores in all attributes and run test games of this team against itself until the results look reasonable. Then there are no attribute advantages and the game plan is also a control. The only variance in such a situation is what the engine provides. They could even eliminate *some* of the randomness by seeding the random number generator with the same value each game. As a result they would get very close to nice, evenly distributed results.