Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
A huge issue I have is if game experiance is now factored into the game but with the effectivness settings being built into the game how are my underclassmen going to get game experiance? This mainly on the lines. At this point I see no need for more than 7 linemen.

This is a valid concern.  I think most real teams like to play the same guys on the OL for continuity....so subs here I think should be based on fatigue/injury.  Teams do sub players on the defensive side of the ball more frequently and perhaps we could make some modifications here to get more players into the game.  This change could be as simple as raising the threshold for when players sub out (more frequent)....or a possible additional setting on the depth chart page.

The same thing applies to TE.  While there are a few star multipurpose TEs, the majority of teams have blocking TEs and receiving TEs.  Having the ability to designate them as such and therefore what formations / situations they would appear in would be valuable.

Really appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to address the gd community. I think a sliding scale of fatigue % per position would help. It would allow coaches to adjust for depth and stamina but not allow coaches to individualize the lineups per formation. I also believe that the 12.5% is too large a number when we can't actual see the formation IQ.

Posted by tcochran on 11/18/2010 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Is the final decision for those great teams that lost critical games to terrible SIMs just basically - tough sh--?  Hope you don't leave?  This is a serious question that I think many people want answered.  It will impact whether or not people quit the game.

We are not going to undo games that have been played.  We are going to work to improve the simulation engine and make sure the results of games continue to become more realistic.  We hope that coaches will stay engaged with the game and offer suggestions for improvement.

Is this system Really running how you wanted it to?

To reiterate all of the top 10 upsets to very, very weak SIMAI and human coached teams being a problem - now are we supposed to be content with you TWEAKING the system while we play out these seasons?

One day it may be 12.5%.  one day it may be 10%.  However rude this sounds, don't you see how we are disgruntled that we are now PAYING to beta test a game.  Especially when most of us didn't think any of the changes that were made were what was  broken to begin with?

Huh

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
A huge issue I have is if game experiance is now factored into the game but with the effectivness settings being built into the game how are my underclassmen going to get game experiance? This mainly on the lines. At this point I see no need for more than 7 linemen.

This is a valid concern.  I think most real teams like to play the same guys on the OL for continuity....so subs here I think should be based on fatigue/injury.  Teams do sub players on the defensive side of the ball more frequently and perhaps we could make some modifications here to get more players into the game.  This change could be as simple as raising the threshold for when players sub out (more frequent)....or a possible additional setting on the depth chart page.

You mean the settings that we already had?

No.  Those settings were unrealistic and did not make football sense.

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
A huge issue I have is if game experiance is now factored into the game but with the effectivness settings being built into the game how are my underclassmen going to get game experiance? This mainly on the lines. At this point I see no need for more than 7 linemen.

This is a valid concern.  I think most real teams like to play the same guys on the OL for continuity....so subs here I think should be based on fatigue/injury.  Teams do sub players on the defensive side of the ball more frequently and perhaps we could make some modifications here to get more players into the game.  This change could be as simple as raising the threshold for when players sub out (more frequent)....or a possible additional setting on the depth chart page.

You mean the settings that we already had?

No.  Those settings were unrealistic and did not make football sense.

But my WR FAIR CATCHING the ball at the 1 yard line "makes football sense?"

Posted by onside on 11/18/2010 8:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
A huge issue I have is if game experiance is now factored into the game but with the effectivness settings being built into the game how are my underclassmen going to get game experiance? This mainly on the lines. At this point I see no need for more than 7 linemen.

This is a valid concern.  I think most real teams like to play the same guys on the OL for continuity....so subs here I think should be based on fatigue/injury.  Teams do sub players on the defensive side of the ball more frequently and perhaps we could make some modifications here to get more players into the game.  This change could be as simple as raising the threshold for when players sub out (more frequent)....or a possible additional setting on the depth chart page.

The same thing applies to TE.  While there are a few star multipurpose TEs, the majority of teams have blocking TEs and receiving TEs.  Having the ability to designate them as such and therefore what formations / situations they would appear in would be valuable.

We could potentially incorporate a blocking TE.

I had enough of this BS talk Conte.  The fact is you upgraded GD without testing it.  You upgraded GD without giving us the information needed to plan for a game.  You upgraded GD with an artificial intelligence that only the SIM knows that allows poor athletic and skilled teams destroy far superior athletes and skilled players.

 

You Upgraded GD when one of my seventh ranked undefeated teams started the playoffs?  They barely won against a team I dominated during the season after you reran the first half three times. 

 

You Upgraded GD when one of my ranked teams started their season?  They got their butts kicked by a SIM team that was awful at best in talent.  Now there no longer ranked and probably done for the season because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

You upgraded GD after I just drafted in another world.  Which I could have saved a lot of money and drafted the worst athletes on the board and just looked for players with great GPA averages.

 

Your theory on the upgrade is flawed in so many ways, I can’t list them all so I’ll make it simple for you. 

When you talk about the average rush being 2 yards?  That’s a load of ????,  I don’t know who is feeding this propaganda to you but if you ever watched a division I, II or III team play you would realize this.

JConte, I have a question for you that is probably on the minds of many coaches: what was the rationale behind rolling out a completely NEW game logic with this update?

Please note that I am not criticizing the decision to utilize an updated game engine rather than untangle the complexity of updating the code of the old one--no issue with that. 

I'm referring to the strategic decision to essentially scrap the old game and make gameplay fundamentally different, with an entirely different set of relevant variables?  Beyond allusions to the changes being implemented to make the game"better," "enhanced," or "improved," since those are entirely subjective outcomes?

Given some of the comments above about losing membership / participants, I think this may have been a miscalculation.

Thanks in advance for your reponse.

You have said this new engine opens possibilities for more updates in the future that were not possible under the old engine.  Could you elaborate on the timeframe of the future changes and what they could be?  ie. More modern formations?

And seeing how Barry Sanders-esque RBs have been rendered rather usless, are there any future plans to allow for a "Wildcat" QB substitution package since QBs currently stay in until very fatigued like OL?

Posted by damauler12 on 11/18/2010 8:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
A huge issue I have is if game experiance is now factored into the game but with the effectivness settings being built into the game how are my underclassmen going to get game experiance? This mainly on the lines. At this point I see no need for more than 7 linemen.

This is a valid concern.  I think most real teams like to play the same guys on the OL for continuity....so subs here I think should be based on fatigue/injury.  Teams do sub players on the defensive side of the ball more frequently and perhaps we could make some modifications here to get more players into the game.  This change could be as simple as raising the threshold for when players sub out (more frequent)....or a possible additional setting on the depth chart page.

You mean the settings that we already had?

No.  Those settings were unrealistic and did not make football sense.

But my WR FAIR CATCHING the ball at the 1 yard line "makes football sense?"

This sort of thing does happen in real games.  The return man knowing if he should field the punt or let it go in this situation is based upon his game instinct.  It should not be a common thing though.

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by damauler12 on 11/18/2010 8:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
A huge issue I have is if game experiance is now factored into the game but with the effectivness settings being built into the game how are my underclassmen going to get game experiance? This mainly on the lines. At this point I see no need for more than 7 linemen.

This is a valid concern.  I think most real teams like to play the same guys on the OL for continuity....so subs here I think should be based on fatigue/injury.  Teams do sub players on the defensive side of the ball more frequently and perhaps we could make some modifications here to get more players into the game.  This change could be as simple as raising the threshold for when players sub out (more frequent)....or a possible additional setting on the depth chart page.

You mean the settings that we already had?

No.  Those settings were unrealistic and did not make football sense.

But my WR FAIR CATCHING the ball at the 1 yard line "makes football sense?"

This sort of thing does happen in real games.  The return man knowing if he should field the punt or let it go in this situation is based upon his game instinct.  It should not be a common thing though.

So the Special Teams that I have worked on for every season I have had in Dayton...with my STL WR with a GI of 58...doesn't know to let the ball go?

And guys catching the ball at the 1 happens less than .001% of the time I would imagine. 

Posted by vhoward415 on 11/18/2010 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 7:51:00 PM (view original):
The new reward points structure is here to stay as it was a business decision that was out of my hands.

Joe - I understand that it is out of your hands. However, do those who made the decision realize that it will drive away business?

As I said joe I understand this is out of your hands but I'm carrying 8 teams and without the potential for rewards I have no choice but to cut back to one. If the game gets back on track. This needs to be addressed.

Posted by rdawg on 11/18/2010 8:17:00 PM (view original):
JConte, I have a question for you that is probably on the minds of many coaches: what was the rationale behind rolling out a completely NEW game logic with this update?

Please note that I am not criticizing the decision to utilize an updated game engine rather than untangle the complexity of updating the code of the old one--no issue with that. 

I'm referring to the strategic decision to essentially scrap the old game and make gameplay fundamentally different, with an entirely different set of relevant variables?  Beyond allusions to the changes being implemented to make the game"better," "enhanced," or "improved," since those are entirely subjective outcomes?

Given some of the comments above about losing membership / participants, I think this may have been a miscalculation.

Thanks in advance for your reponse.

The reasoning behind the changes are in the Critical News post (Update FAQ...last question I think).  We decided that the old engine (written in VB6) was past its prime and was becoming difficult to maintain and update.  We decided to rewrite the engine (in C#) and rather than simply copy the logic, we took the opportunity to analyze everything and make all necessary changes to make the final result as realistic as possible.  The items listed in the FAQ were some of the main focus items.  The engine is also now positioned to run both college and NFL games with an eye towards creating an NFL Dynasty game using the same engine.