Posted by ddingo on 5/13/2012 11:00:00 AM (view original):
ITT: We discover that grindi is unable to comprehend random variance.

Posted by norbert on 5/14/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by katzphang88 on 5/12/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
I agree with grindi and the current % chances of run/pass options. It seems that settings for aggressiveness just add confusion to the planning the game doesn't need. Norbert has mentioned he was going to try to get away from this during his conversations. It would be much more obvious and realistic to call a play like "outside", "off-tackle" (where the play could break off to go outside or inside), and "inside". What coach would send in plays for the QB to run and say "OK, I'll leave it up to you, but I feel you should consider running outside about 60% of the time." Game play match-ups are hard enough in this game without the game engine mucking it up more. I'm sorry to say that the more Norbert has revealed about how the current engine works, the more I know that JConte had no clue how to simulate a game.

The percentages to run a certain play over another is due to the fact that you're not sitting there calling in a play like a real coach.  We have to set up our game plans before the game and those plans have to tell how to run the entire game.  So it would be really tough to have one single play call as in "run outside" and that would take care of your game plan.  For instance, on 1st down play settings, you wouldn't just one single play that is "run outside" or you would run outside every single 1st down.  So let's say you then throw some other single call plays into the mix, like "short pass".  Well now you won't just run outside on 1st down, but you now leave it up to chance on running outside or attempting a short pass.  Those percentages are essentially doing this, just a little more efficiently in that you can have one play that represents both of these single plays.

The problem is really in the percentages and what they represent.  If I had the above play designed so that there is 50% chance of an outside run and 50% chance of a short pass, it doesn't mean at the end of the game I would end up with half my 1st downs rushing outside and half short passes.  It's saying that on every 1st down you have a 50% chance of calling one or the other.  So you could actually end up with all rushes outside or short passes on 1st down.

There are going to be some significant playbook changes coming with the update, but there will still be the idea of a random chance of picking from a list of plays for a given down and distance.  What I would like to do is get it to make that call based on what it has called before, so those percentages would represent more of the distribution of calls on downs.  However, it would still be random calls that you can't set to specific situations, so if you look at a point in the game and think that would have been a perfect time to call the short pass over the rush outside, you aren't going to get that.  We would have to somehow tie the play calls to some other conditions and that's not something we can do with this update. 

First priority is to get the engine focused more on team and player match ups and add a little more variety to game plans.  If we get those to a good state and get some good testing in, then I might have some time to add in these play call distribution checks.  If not, they would most likely be in one of the next updates after this.  But you should understand that the play tendencies are the chance of a play being called and not the distribution, and that rush and pass aggressiveness (inside/outside and short/deep) are currently tied together.  

Grindi i thought you said you were leaving this game?  Appease us all and follow through.

Posted by norbert on 5/14/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by katzphang88 on 5/12/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
I agree with grindi and the current % chances of run/pass options. It seems that settings for aggressiveness just add confusion to the planning the game doesn't need. Norbert has mentioned he was going to try to get away from this during his conversations. It would be much more obvious and realistic to call a play like "outside", "off-tackle" (where the play could break off to go outside or inside), and "inside". What coach would send in plays for the QB to run and say "OK, I'll leave it up to you, but I feel you should consider running outside about 60% of the time." Game play match-ups are hard enough in this game without the game engine mucking it up more. I'm sorry to say that the more Norbert has revealed about how the current engine works, the more I know that JConte had no clue how to simulate a game.

The percentages to run a certain play over another is due to the fact that you're not sitting there calling in a play like a real coach.  We have to set up our game plans before the game and those plans have to tell how to run the entire game.  So it would be really tough to have one single play call as in "run outside" and that would take care of your game plan.  For instance, on 1st down play settings, you wouldn't just one single play that is "run outside" or you would run outside every single 1st down.  So let's say you then throw some other single call plays into the mix, like "short pass".  Well now you won't just run outside on 1st down, but you now leave it up to chance on running outside or attempting a short pass.  Those percentages are essentially doing this, just a little more efficiently in that you can have one play that represents both of these single plays.

The problem is really in the percentages and what they represent.  If I had the above play designed so that there is 50% chance of an outside run and 50% chance of a short pass, it doesn't mean at the end of the game I would end up with half my 1st downs rushing outside and half short passes.  It's saying that on every 1st down you have a 50% chance of calling one or the other.  So you could actually end up with all rushes outside or short passes on 1st down.

There are going to be some significant playbook changes coming with the update, but there will still be the idea of a random chance of picking from a list of plays for a given down and distance.  What I would like to do is get it to make that call based on what it has called before, so those percentages would represent more of the distribution of calls on downs.  However, it would still be random calls that you can't set to specific situations, so if you look at a point in the game and think that would have been a perfect time to call the short pass over the rush outside, you aren't going to get that.  We would have to somehow tie the play calls to some other conditions and that's not something we can do with this update. 

First priority is to get the engine focused more on team and player match ups and add a little more variety to game plans.  If we get those to a good state and get some good testing in, then I might have some time to add in these play call distribution checks.  If not, they would most likely be in one of the next updates after this.  But you should understand that the play tendencies are the chance of a play being called and not the distribution, and that rush and pass aggressiveness (inside/outside and short/deep) are currently tied together.  

Posted by harriswb3 on 5/14/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by norbert on 5/14/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by katzphang88 on 5/12/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
I agree with grindi and the current % chances of run/pass options. It seems that settings for aggressiveness just add confusion to the planning the game doesn't need. Norbert has mentioned he was going to try to get away from this during his conversations. It would be much more obvious and realistic to call a play like "outside", "off-tackle" (where the play could break off to go outside or inside), and "inside". What coach would send in plays for the QB to run and say "OK, I'll leave it up to you, but I feel you should consider running outside about 60% of the time." Game play match-ups are hard enough in this game without the game engine mucking it up more. I'm sorry to say that the more Norbert has revealed about how the current engine works, the more I know that JConte had no clue how to simulate a game.

The percentages to run a certain play over another is due to the fact that you're not sitting there calling in a play like a real coach.  We have to set up our game plans before the game and those plans have to tell how to run the entire game.  So it would be really tough to have one single play call as in "run outside" and that would take care of your game plan.  For instance, on 1st down play settings, you wouldn't just one single play that is "run outside" or you would run outside every single 1st down.  So let's say you then throw some other single call plays into the mix, like "short pass".  Well now you won't just run outside on 1st down, but you now leave it up to chance on running outside or attempting a short pass.  Those percentages are essentially doing this, just a little more efficiently in that you can have one play that represents both of these single plays.

The problem is really in the percentages and what they represent.  If I had the above play designed so that there is 50% chance of an outside run and 50% chance of a short pass, it doesn't mean at the end of the game I would end up with half my 1st downs rushing outside and half short passes.  It's saying that on every 1st down you have a 50% chance of calling one or the other.  So you could actually end up with all rushes outside or short passes on 1st down.

There are going to be some significant playbook changes coming with the update, but there will still be the idea of a random chance of picking from a list of plays for a given down and distance.  What I would like to do is get it to make that call based on what it has called before, so those percentages would represent more of the distribution of calls on downs.  However, it would still be random calls that you can't set to specific situations, so if you look at a point in the game and think that would have been a perfect time to call the short pass over the rush outside, you aren't going to get that.  We would have to somehow tie the play calls to some other conditions and that's not something we can do with this update. 

First priority is to get the engine focused more on team and player match ups and add a little more variety to game plans.  If we get those to a good state and get some good testing in, then I might have some time to add in these play call distribution checks.  If not, they would most likely be in one of the next updates after this.  But you should understand that the play tendencies are the chance of a play being called and not the distribution, and that rush and pass aggressiveness (inside/outside and short/deep) are currently tied together.  

Norbert:  As an example I definitely want to run EVERY running play to the outside.....again, just an example (Same thing with inside running).

Would it be possible for you guys to ADD two more levels to the aggressiveness settings?  Right now you have Very Agressive or Very Conservative...which still allows for chances that something not aggressive or something not conservative to be called.  If you were to ADD "Always Agressive", and "Always Conservative", with the appropriate % play call (100% vs 0%) sitting behind that....would that work?

Would the above settings on offense really mess up how the defensive playbook reacts?  maybe this just causes a huge ripple effect throughout the game?

Posted by doogiex4 on 5/14/2012 4:22:00 PM (view original):
i have a solution!   The first ever WIS  LIVE head to head GRIDIRON LEAGUE!   Where we actually get to play live against a human opponent just like we do for baseball!  You have a certain window to play live or it gets SIMMED!     I would love to call my own plays!     Watch your participation SHOOT UP like no ones business!!  The baseball game is great LIVE but it woudl be better with this format to allow us to really see what these players have in them and to watch them over a few seasons!    Make that happen and i will triple my participation on this site!!!     Same for all the games!!!    My kids play XBOX live all night long with their friends and i'd play this all night long if there was a LIVE FORMAT available!!!!!!!!   

Posted by doogiex4 on 5/14/2012 4:36:00 PM (view original):
a live game wouldnt take but 10 minutes to play!   I spend 10 minutes hitting refresh everytime there is an update to this game!     If you dont have the 10 minutes to play then you play in the SIM ONLY league!     I'm sure there are several owners who do have the time to fill up an entire LIVE PLAY WIS league!!!!     It's time to take this thing to the next level already!   I've been requesting LIVE PLAY for YEARS NOW!!!  We are still stuck on this imaginary roll of the dice when we can control those DICE ourselves and have OURSELVES to blame a little instead!    Who doesnt want the ball with 2 minutes left in a game?   Who doesnt want to control that?   Who doesnt want to decide for themselves when to go for it and when to PUNT it away?    

It's time to UPGRADE here!  I would guarantee there would be 0 SIM TEAMS if this sort of league was available!     Give everyone 2 weeks to play their games and if that can't happen you simply SIM THEM!!!!  Easy as PIE!   Raise the price by a Dollar or 2 to accomodate the additional cost to write the program but from what i heard YEARS ago this program was already written!!!   Lets make it happen!

THE TIME IS NOW!

Posted by harriswb3 on 5/14/2012 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by norbert on 5/14/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by katzphang88 on 5/12/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
I agree with grindi and the current % chances of run/pass options. It seems that settings for aggressiveness just add confusion to the planning the game doesn't need. Norbert has mentioned he was going to try to get away from this during his conversations. It would be much more obvious and realistic to call a play like "outside", "off-tackle" (where the play could break off to go outside or inside), and "inside". What coach would send in plays for the QB to run and say "OK, I'll leave it up to you, but I feel you should consider running outside about 60% of the time." Game play match-ups are hard enough in this game without the game engine mucking it up more. I'm sorry to say that the more Norbert has revealed about how the current engine works, the more I know that JConte had no clue how to simulate a game.

The percentages to run a certain play over another is due to the fact that you're not sitting there calling in a play like a real coach.  We have to set up our game plans before the game and those plans have to tell how to run the entire game.  So it would be really tough to have one single play call as in "run outside" and that would take care of your game plan.  For instance, on 1st down play settings, you wouldn't just one single play that is "run outside" or you would run outside every single 1st down.  So let's say you then throw some other single call plays into the mix, like "short pass".  Well now you won't just run outside on 1st down, but you now leave it up to chance on running outside or attempting a short pass.  Those percentages are essentially doing this, just a little more efficiently in that you can have one play that represents both of these single plays.

The problem is really in the percentages and what they represent.  If I had the above play designed so that there is 50% chance of an outside run and 50% chance of a short pass, it doesn't mean at the end of the game I would end up with half my 1st downs rushing outside and half short passes.  It's saying that on every 1st down you have a 50% chance of calling one or the other.  So you could actually end up with all rushes outside or short passes on 1st down.

There are going to be some significant playbook changes coming with the update, but there will still be the idea of a random chance of picking from a list of plays for a given down and distance.  What I would like to do is get it to make that call based on what it has called before, so those percentages would represent more of the distribution of calls on downs.  However, it would still be random calls that you can't set to specific situations, so if you look at a point in the game and think that would have been a perfect time to call the short pass over the rush outside, you aren't going to get that.  We would have to somehow tie the play calls to some other conditions and that's not something we can do with this update. 

First priority is to get the engine focused more on team and player match ups and add a little more variety to game plans.  If we get those to a good state and get some good testing in, then I might have some time to add in these play call distribution checks.  If not, they would most likely be in one of the next updates after this.  But you should understand that the play tendencies are the chance of a play being called and not the distribution, and that rush and pass aggressiveness (inside/outside and short/deep) are currently tied together.  

Norbert:  As an example I definitely want to run EVERY running play to the outside.....again, just an example (Same thing with inside running).

Would it be possible for you guys to ADD two more levels to the aggressiveness settings?  Right now you have Very Agressive or Very Conservative...which still allows for chances that something not aggressive or something not conservative to be called.  If you were to ADD "Always Agressive", and "Always Conservative", with the appropriate % play call (100% vs 0%) sitting behind that....would that work?

Would the above settings on offense really mess up how the defensive playbook reacts?  maybe this just causes a huge ripple effect throughout the game?