10/7/2013 3:58 PM
I don't know why they changed it, it was working fine until norbert tried to fix it.  I don't understand why they continually try to "fix" things that nobody complains about while major issues go unaddressed.  This whole issue is lipstick on a pig and a strawman to avoid dealing with the poorly functioning and continually dumbed down engine.
10/7/2013 4:12 PM
Thanks for the input, Let me clarify a bit.

I was exploring that with the idea that the realism for setting up starters comes from being able to specify a specific starting formation and the starters at that position. This game does not allow you to call every play in the game and is therefore not truly representative of what you desire to be the starting lineup. 

In order to create this, we created a button to allow you to select a starter and then if they play they are the starter. The problem with this though is that if you play one play, and are marked as a starter, you get credit for that. In reality, if that's what college kids viewed as a start, the value of the "Promised start" would be relatively minor considering it doesn't actually mean anything. 

So, we decided that for now we will leave the concept of the starter. But starters will be determined as follows:
1. Find the most used formation in the game to determine the # of players at each position (Example: Iformation will have 1QB, 5OL, 1TE, 2RB, 2WR)
2. Find the players that played the most plays at those positions. (Which is ultimately determined by depth chart.)

Those are your starters, and that's the value that the promised start will be related to. CAVEAT: If you are running shotgun most of the game, and have a freshman with promised starts at RB, he will not get the start because shotgun doesn't have any running backs.

We'll explore the penalty for not starting in the future, but this will still give the benefit to the smaller schools that will actually play the kids enough for a start. The larger schools that will just run the first play for their promised starters will be at a disadvantage unless they use that player for the most plays that game. 


 

10/7/2013 7:54 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 10/7/2013 3:00:00 PM (view original):
So noah it sound like your argument is "Playing time should matter more than starts, so it's ok to just forget about 'starts' altogether."  If that's not correct, please clarify.

However, let me say this - in my opinion:

1) When it comes to PLAYER GROWTH, playing time should matter more than 'starting.'  However, 'starting' should have a positive effect on work effort, if nothing else.

2) A "Promised Start" should be a valuable recruiting tool, with SEVERE penalties for not delivering.  And by severe, I mean player LEAVES the team mid-season (after a 3rd warning email) and a Reputation hit.

3) "Starting" should mainly consist of a combination of where a player appears on a depth chart, and how much playing time they get.  A simple check mark next to their name and one play in the first half is ridiculous.

I'm saying that I'm ok with forgetting about it but I don't care about it either way. I don't want it to have more weight then playing percentage even if starting is based on who gets the most PT at a position. 
10/8/2013 11:14 AM
I think we are way overthinking the idea of Starters vs playing time. I believe we should have one designation of Starter which implies 50% playing time and make it an easy check box for the engine to check to to see if it is being upheld. This simplifies recruiting, upholding promises and still gives an advantage. The concept of just stating to a recruit that he will be a starter and then gets >50% of the plays means you are gaming the game just for recruiting sake.
10/8/2013 9:56 PM
I think the better answer would be to make sure that a start plays a certain % of snaps in addition to the "start" to get credit for it.
In the past when we had multiple depth charts coaches put players in for a play to start the game and then rarely ran that formation again so that they were given a token start but it did not harm their overall performance as a team.

So in this case I like what WIS is proposing so that it makes it important to actually play the player.

10/13/2013 12:29 PM
This still isn't working.I have two FR with promised starts at Penn State in Carpenter.  They've started all season until the last two games and I made no changes to the depth chart.  They also played 101% and 93% of the snaps according to the game log.  Look, just make choosing starters simple.  Click a box and - bam - that's a starter.  Trying to couple 'starter' to % of plays or 'the players who play the most in the formation used most frequently' is confusing and unnecessary.  There's no need for guessing/averaging/calculations.  Check the box = starter.  Make it easy.
10/13/2013 3:31 PM
Posted by bjaygee on 10/13/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
This still isn't working.I have two FR with promised starts at Penn State in Carpenter.  They've started all season until the last two games and I made no changes to the depth chart.  They also played 101% and 93% of the snaps according to the game log.  Look, just make choosing starters simple.  Click a box and - bam - that's a starter.  Trying to couple 'starter' to % of plays or 'the players who play the most in the formation used most frequently' is confusing and unnecessary.  There's no need for guessing/averaging/calculations.  Check the box = starter.  Make it easy.
of 2

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.