Monday, June 29, 2009
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST
The LIVE portion of this chat will begin on
Monday, June 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM EST.
Welcome to the Gridiron Dynasty chat as part of chat week. Feel free to ask any questions revolving around GD.
JConte, Are you planning to divulge the criteria for job application/qualification? It appears that NCs seem to have a very small bering on the final descision of a school. I know in my case, losing out on a coaching position in Yost caused a chain reaction for me which has already lost me a job opprtunity for D1-A this season and will have further implications for seasons to come. (ssnyder28 - Hall of Famer - 1:11 PM)
All job applications are decided upon using 4 basic criteria -- success, experience, reputation, and loyalty. Your success is determined based upon your past 4 seasons only. The most recent season means the most, I believe 60% of the rating, the next most recent around 25%, then 10%, and finally 5% (these percents may not be exact, but is close). In determining how successful your season was, a combination of WIS ranking, CCs, NCs, and bowl/playoff wins are used. The success part of the application accounts for a large part of your "resume" score. Your experience is based upon your entire career and you earn experience points for each game you coach, weighted by division and type (regular season, post-season) as well as outcome. The reputation and loyalty aspects are simply minimum thresholds. The job page lists the criteria for each school, and if in the job period, whether or not you qualify. This is NOT exact. We are attempting to mimic real coaching decisions which always have a little bit of mystery in them and we do not want this part of the simulation of coaching to come down to a simple numbers game.
Has there been any thought about modifying the carryover percentage amount? (hookemhorns7 - Hall of Famer - 1:12 PM)
I see no reason to change it at this point.
Is it possible to add a flag, much like in hardball dynasty, that will let us know if the most recent update is completed, in progress, or pending. It woulkd be helpful when recruiting when the updatecan take a few minutes. (bfkfraser - Hall of Famer - 1:12 PM)
This is something that could be done and I will add it to our future features list for consideration.
if a team runs in the shotgun formation, what determines how the rushing attempts get allocated among WR and QB - I assume if the QB has a big distro he gets the bulk of them but if the QB is zero distro what determines which WR and/or the QB gets the carry? (mamxet - Hall of Famer - 1:14 PM)
If you are running out of shotgun and your QB has a distribution number set in your advanced depth chart, he will get nearly every carry. If the QB is set to 0, then the QB will get the majority of carries with an end around or reverse to a WR mixed in here and there. As for which WR gets the ball, the #1 listed guy will get the most and on down the depth chart.
Is the game going to be tweaked so teams that only run, and carry 2 or 3 WRs and maybe throw 3 passes a game, won't dominate, as is still the case even after last update? Maybe have those that stockpile 10 RBs start to see them leave the team due to lack of playing time. (hightiger - Pro - 1:16 PM)
At the current time, I don't see the need for more modifications in this area as rushing stats are within reason and, from my experience, you can stop a predictable running team with the appropriate game plan.
Why is there so many recruits already considering sim teams before recruiting? I know to make them better for when a coach takes over but i think its to difficult to knock off a sim here lately and we should either go back to keeping all our recruiting cash or let the sims sign the leftovers. (cfbfan18 - Hall of Famer - 1:19 PM)
All sim teams initially recruit just prior to the start of the recruiting period for coaches. This is done so that you know, before spending any money, who the sims are targeting and can plan accordingly. I feel that this is an advantage to coaches. Additionally, at the present time, once a sim is knocked off of a recruit's considering list, it will not target a new player. As for the difficulty in knocking them off, the way in which sims recruit has not changed in some time and I still find that they are relatively easy to remove, but not a given. The sim teams need to sign a few players as well.
I have noticed that there a lot of good recruits with really poor stamina. Could we get this changed to make these players more usabule. It just seem to be a wast of good players. (fermor332002 - Hall of Famer - 1:21 PM)
Every player cannot be an every down guy. You need to decide if you can live with him being available for x% of your plays or if you would rather have a guy who can play every snap, but may not be quite as skilled.
How is pass coverage determined? Specifically, if I use 0 (or the same number) for distribution for all my WR, how will the engine decide who is my best receiver and who will cover him. Who covers the 3rd best WR when playing nickel/dime (the #3 DB, who is a safety or the #5/#6 DB who comes in as the nickel/dime back). Who covers the TE. (hughesjr - Hall of Famer - 1:24 PM)
If you use 0 for all your WRs in the distribution, then the #1 listed guy is assumed to be the preferred target on the play and the #1 DB will cover him. If you are facing a nickel or dime defense, then the #5/#6 DB will cover the #3/#4 WR. In most cases, the #1 LB will cover the TE, but sometimes a safety will pickup the coverage. These matchups can change depending upon formations and blitzing.
It seems that a high number of games are being decided by missed extra points. Is there a plan to improve the kickers %? (jason5 - Hall of Famer - 1:25 PM)
The last time I checked, the percentage of made extra points (and field goals) by kickers with GD were in line with real life college football statistics on a talent and divisional basis. If the next time we visit these numbers they are off, then an adjustment will be made but as of now, nothing is planned.
romised starts and playing time: when a player comes back from injuries, he is sometimes at a very low health (say 65%). Yet under this circumstance, he could get angry for missing a promised start or not playing enough. I know that you've said it in the past where a player is expected to play at 60%, but this is just unrealistic (to play competitively). Can the system somehow be tweaked in regards to fulfilling promised starts and PT for injured players? (DKC - Hall of Famer - 1:29 PM)
Players who are promised a starting position or playing time expect to get it when they are not listed as OUT. However, they give you some leeway in that they will not consider the first game back from injury when deciding if you are living up to your promise. Most players will not complain until they are 80-85% healthy, but they can complain sooner depending upon their personality. If they are not a team player and only care about themselves, they are much more likely to complain right away. I think this system works well and provides a good risk-reward balance in using these promises during recruiting.
Is it better for a team's WIS ranking to got stomped by a top 20 team or to thrash a bottom 20 team? (yehateme - Pro - 1:29 PM)
I'd say it is always better to win.
Any thoughts of possibly shortening the recruiting period. Seems like for 2 days in the middle nothing happens. This time could be used after recruits report to get program together and play last exhibition game? (quietman - Hall of Famer - 1:31 PM)
We are not likely to ever change the length of the recruiting period. The longer time frame gives all coaches the opportunity to recruit for their teams and engage in recruiting battles.
when competing with another school in HD, I can look at the school and see which recruits are considering it - and try to figure out who are their primary and backup candidates why not a similar ability in GD? (fd343ny - Hall of Famer - 1:33 PM)
I don't think you should know everything that another school is doing during recruiting.
A lot of people are still unhappy about the current tie-break system to determine the conference championship game. Is there any reason that it does not follow usual NCAA rules (head to head before overall record) and are there any plans to ever change it? (ebbets55 - Hall of Famer - 1:35 PM)
The system is setup to keep the importance of the non-conference schedule. There are not currently any plans to change it.
Can the FG settings be removed from being tied with the Aggressiveness settings? I have had multiple times late in the 1st half where I was up by more than 8 or down by 4 or more where a FG isn't kicked. Those extra 3 points would help a ton in most game. I know I have both won and lost games because either team didn't get those extra points. I would like to see something in place that will allow us to attempt the FG unless it is late in the game and we are down by more than 3 points. (dewagne - Hall of Famer - 1:38 PM)
I see no other way to make the decision to either kick the FG or go for the first down other than using the style (aggressiveness) associated with the active game plan. You can switch between game plans based upon the game situation and cause the decision you want to be made. I think the current system provides good control over this.
With respect to blocking and TEs. If there is a running play, does the TE always block (and have his numbers averaged with the OL). (hughesjr - Hall of Famer - 1:39 PM)
Yes, the TE will block on running plays and be factored into the OL performance.
What exactly is the difference for the style and tendency on the base defense on the gameplan page and how is it different from the down and distance part of the gameplan page? (cfbfan18 - Hall of Famer - 1:41 PM)
In terms of actual game play, the base defensive settings are in place to be used when the subsequent down settings are not set by the coach. If you set the down settings, those will be used. If you do not, then whatever base defense formation/style/tendency you have set will be used for every defensive play.
The feature of a recruit's "preferred school" was a nice addition. Any chance of making so that some of those players - especially at the DIII level - might email the school expressing interest? "Hey coach, I'd love to play for Whatsamatta U, here's a tape of my games.." (bhazlewood - Hall of Famer - 1:42 PM)
This is something that could be added in a future update and is on our future features list for consideration.
I enjoy this game due to its checks and balances. However, it seems the penalty for players playing out of position is not significant in DIII. Teams often carry only a K or a P. Practicing individual skills is rewarded more than formation practice and the benefits of scheduling an easy out of conference schedule are significant. Can you comment on the first two and agree to change the Tiebreaker to match the real world...Head to Head, Division record, Conference record, overall record (walkerr14 - Veteran - 1:47 PM)
There is a significant out of position penalty, but the penalty of only having a kicker or punter is not nearly as significant because colleges do go with this approach sometimes. We absolutely want to modify the impact of formation/team practice and make it more meaningful within the game than it currently is. I don't think an easy out of conference schedule is a significant benefit -- you may have a better chance of making the CC game, but if you lose a single game you could miss out on the playoffs to a team who played a tougher schedule. I think there is a good balance in place for this. As for the tiebreaker, see my answer to a previous question.
Is there any chance you could ever separate the offensive and defensive game plans? (badaxe - Hall of Famer - 1:48 PM)
I don't think that I will because managing the multiple offensive and defensive game plans could become too cumbersome.
Hey JConte. I would like to follow up on a previous question re rushing… As you may know the single season NCCA rushing record held by Barry Sanders broke down to an avg. 240 yards per game. Each season we're seeing around 20 players break this record. Are you sure that this is, as you suggest, reasonable. (kdforester - Hall of Famer - 1:52 PM)
You have to remember that teams in GD are using unorthodox game plans and generally doing things that a real life team would not do. In addition, the range of talent from the top teams to the bottom teams is much greater and inflates stats. Also, in real life games players lose interest...starters sit...etc. and scores and stats remain more in check. GD, though a simulation of college football, is still a game and you need to take into account all of these circumstances not present in real life games that inflate stats. While the stats are higher, i.e. more rushing yards, I think they are within reason when looked at in the game context.
Regarding the recruit stamina Q. I came across an RB with a STA of 2. I'm noot even sure if this guy could even run onto the field yet alone play 2-3 downs. (kev959 - Hall of Famer - 1:54 PM)
While I haven't seen guys with staminas that low, he would still be able to play a couple plays. There are plenty of college players that only see the field for a few plays each game.
When learning formation practice, does a player's GI impact how much/fast they learn? (redwolf95 - Hall of Famer - 1:54 PM)
No, it does not.
Has any thought been given to granting coaches who take over programs that have all SIM rosters more time before their status drops? It takes a full three seaons to get an all SIM team up and running. (gillmsn - Hall of Famer - 1:57 PM)
I'm assuming you are talking about DIA as that is really the only level in which job status comes into play. When you make the move up to a DIA team, as long as you improve the team's record from the previous season your status will remain at very secure and then you will have at least 4 more seasons before you could get fired. This means that you would have theoretically had a 5 year contract to turn the program around, which I think is very reasonable and in line with real world situations.
it was good that the run defense was made stronger in the recent update. However, with the nerfing of incoming QB recruits, the game has gone back to being run-dominant. Can you tweak the passing game so that the game can be more balanced (between running vs passing)? (DKC - Hall of Famer - 2:00 PM)
The QB position is viewed to be a little unique in that you need to recruit a player and develop his talent. It is very rare that a true freshman will land on campus and be given the starting spot. When this does happen, it usually is not a good outcome. I think the level of talent available in recruiting at the QB position is adequate and forces a more realistic view of the position.
Could you factor in growth (height and weight) of players over the course of 4 seasons. Football players often gain weight, and sometimes get taller. I believe it would add to realism instead of players excactly the same size as High School seniors as they are as College seniors. Thanks (wareagletom - Hall of Famer - 2:01 PM)
I guess we could, but all games are simply simulated based on ratings and the player's height and weight are not a factor. If an OL has 50 blocking, he is a 50 regardless if he weighs 300 pounds or 330 pounds.
So if I've played 2 seasons at the same school and I went 3-10 and 12-1 am I going to see an increased vision in recruits and jobs that I should be qualified for? (sox4seuss - Pro - 2:03 PM)
Yes -- with a drastic improvement in your school's success more recruits will be willing to listen to you during recruiting. This will also help your success rating as a coach considered during job changes.
I think something needs to be in place to keep teams from being able to go for it on 4th down when they are on their side of the 50 unless it is late in the game. In real life, you don't see a lot of 4th down attempts when teams are on their own side of the 50. Seeing 4th down attempts when teams are in FG range are somewhat unrealistic as well unless it is late in the game. 99.9% of all coaches would take the FG unless their FG kicker was terrible. I think this really needs to be tweaked in the game. (dewagne - Hall of Famer - 2:07 PM)
I think you don't see because coaches are afraid to be aggressive and play to keep the margin of loss down rather than try to win the game. There are numerous studies that have been done that indicate punting is mostly a poor option. Aggressive coaches who also have job security go for the first down very often -- see that Pete guy over at USC. I don't want to limit this decision available to coaches in GD.
Any plans to make GD more Blackberry accessable in terms of recruiting, game planning? (kev959 - Hall of Famer - 10:11 AM)
There are currently no plans to make the game more accessible from mobile devices, but we realize we need to expand and improve in this area.
Any chances of a Web Service/SDK, so people with programming skills can develop applications to assist their recruiting and scouting of other teams to gain access to thier own data and play by play info for their opponents. (kcwallace - Hall of Famer - 10:14 AM)
I'd say the chances are very small. If we open the game up in this way, it would give an unfair advantage to coaches who have the skills to take advantage of it. It could also open the door for further collusion within the game. The vast majority of the coaches play the game using only the tools available within the game itself and we do not want to put them at a disadvantage.
Just a comment based on feedback that I have received since the last update to GD. Specifically, the update to position changes. The number of position changes and more importantly the types players these changes created were disrupting the balance of the recruiting pool as well as the positional talent on teams. The original intent of the position change feature was to provide the ability to change a player's position in a pinch. As we all know, this grew into a recruiting strategy to get even better players which often were too good for their division. As a result, the position change feature was updated to keep players more level in terms of ability at their new positions. This change also set the groundwork for a new "athlete" position in the recruiting pool which we would like to add in a future update. I believe after this is incorporated, everyone will be happy with this part of the game. ( Moderator - 10:15 AM)
Thanks for taking the time to participate in the GD chat today.