1. Don't shoe-horn all GD play results into real-world statistical norms, even where very unrealistic talent differentials exist (!!!!!!)
2. Passing distribution
3. (since you already know #1 and #2): Formational depth charts for everything but OL/QB
 

+1

+1

+1

I hate to point this out, yet again, but those were the 3 major things taken out of the old engine that ruined the new engine.

Posted by bhouska on 1/27/2012 11:51:00 PM (view original):

1. Don't shoe-horn all GD play results into real-world statistical norms, even where very unrealistic talent differentials exist (!!!!!!)
2. Passing distribution
3. (since you already know #1 and #2): Formational depth charts for everything but OL/QB
 

+1

+1

+1

+1

Norbert...First and foremost thank  you for the time & effort you are putting into the game. It is very much appreciated.

After reading the first 4 pages, here are the suggestions that I would like to see implemented and believe are the most important (In no order):

Formation specific depth charts (Except OL).

Have "basic settings" and "advanced settings" game planning.

Smarter individual practice settings - If I have a pure fullback, I may want to work on his blocking strength and hands, more than I do his speed and elusiveness. Same for a receiving TE, or if I have  QB with 90 tech, I don't want to work him on "Passing" but the back-up I have with a 60 tech, I certainly DO want to work on tech.

Give LB's & DB's their share of sacks.

Standardize the attributes (Speed, Strength, etc.)

Many more options in play calling (Offense & Defense).

Offense: Control over the pace of our offense with no huddle/milk the clock type options, variety in shotgun formations, a "no-huddle" setting where plays are run more quickly, but substitutions can't be made (which would mean no changing formations, unless you don't mind that someone will be playing out of position), plays are chosen from a more limited selection, and players on both sides of the ball tire much quicker and a "stall" type offense that would allow the maximum time to run off between plays. Ability to set offensive blitz protection to either basic (no extra protection), moderate (TE/RB chip blocks, they go out for pass if not a heavy blitz), or max protection (TE/RB stay in to block and don't go out for pass). Situational use of tight ends and goal line formations.

Defense: Ability to: Select man or zone on defense,  choose frequency of blitzes, choose man or zone with specific blitzing by situation (i.e. down and distance) would open up the defensive game planning,  set defense blitz level/type (basic blitz = 1 player blitz, multiple blitz = 2 players blitz, max blitz = 3 players blitz, and also have a zone blitz), goal line formations, and double team a specific receiver.

Add more description to the PBP...a lot more if possible.  Why not enhance the PBP text with coaching notes which really tells us what happened during the play (i.e. OL Murray missed assignment allowing DL Akins to get pressure on the QB.  Or, FB Anderson picked up the blitz giving the QB more time).

The ability to change Max FG distance by game plan.

Expand the depth charts, like Short Yardage back, and in the play set up you could specify that you use the Short Yardage back for that play. Ability to assign a player to the depth chart  at more than one position as long as he isn't already a starter at another position.

Allow players to be placed out of position on the depth chart.  The ability to place someone out of position on the depth chart could be limited to legal position changes, but I would like the ability.  And if this option was combined with the options of formation-specific subs, or situational substitution packages, it would also allow things like the wildcat (just put a RB at QB), or a jumbo package where you put a sixth OL at TE on a short-yardage running play, and such. Also, if I want to run 4 wide receivers out and only have 3 healthy I would like the ability to chose which player on my roster fills the 4th spot.

Have the Slot WR position be considered a starting position.

Posted by bhazlewood on 1/26/2012 5:17:00 PM (view original):
I've suggested this before, but I'll toss it out again.  I'd like to see a complete overhaul of game plans so that teams could select from a number of plays to create their team's playbook.  For example, there might be two dozen different passing plays out of trips or shotgun, using various routes being run, with a primary, secondary, and checkdown receivers specified, and then a smaller number of running plays out of those same formations.  Conversely, the "running" formations would feature more running plays and less passing plays, the balanced formations would feature a rough balance between the two.   On defense, you'd have a variety of coverages, blitzes, and formations from which to pick.   From all these plays, you would build your customized playbook for your team.  For people that don't want to go into the work of customizing their playbooks, there would be a few pre-designed ones in place to use. 

In game planning, you would then select, for down and distance (short, medium, long, very long) a number of plays that you could prioritize or weigh so that you run some plays more often if you want, or spread them out, or however you choose to manage your team's play selections. 

+1 with xtra $0.02

Not knowing how difficult this would be but;
Currently theirs two pages of game planning, a general settings with Tendency and Style and a down and distance with Tendency and Style. Both have same drop down boxes. In effect we are trying to set up different aspects of the game with the same terminology. CONFUSING to us but more importantly to the engine (I think, the last programming I did we used punchcards).
Could we easily get a system where on the general settings the Tendency and Style drop down box's would be the same with the same meanings except aggressive would indicate flexibility to play called (possible leadin to audibiles). But on the down and distance page change the Tendency to Play type (inside run, outside run, short pass, medium pass, long pass) and the Style to Target ( RB, FB, WR, TE, RB )
Another note would be to allow flexibilty for slot position to any player with recieving  ability.

Outside the box idea:

If attributes can be normalized, ie 50SPD DL is the same speed as 50SPD LB, can we have the ability to put any player into any position we choose?  LB's playing DE, S playing LB, TE playing WR, RB playing WR, etc, etc.

yesterday I was down 2 with 3:31 4th and 1 from my own 25. Yes i had conservative play call. because that how I want to run. but in that situation where Punting which is what I did almost ensures a Loss. one 1st down for the other team and it's over. 

how about a setting with the options Go for it on 4th and over/under____yards  when your down/up ___or more with under/over ____  or more left in the game and ___ Time outs remaining. Something like that would give the coach a little more control over end of game situations

passing dist I've heard but Really I think formation depth chart is more important to me then Pass Dist. I'd like to see both

one other thing I'm sure your aware of is some glitch where you start the game in Trips but the Slot WR isn't listed as the starter when gridiron 101 tab states the Slot is a starter in trips. So I am having to put my promised start in the Slot and WR1-2 to get credit for the start and moving my #4 WR from WR1-2 to WR2-2 and it seems to cut his PT down beyond what i'd like. I could simply just put WR2-2 in the slot but the guy I promised has incredible Hands so I'd like to keep him in the slot based on personal coaching philosophy

Posted by andrew5975 on 1/25/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):
I like the "basic settings" and "advanced settings" idea for gameplanning. And with the advanced settings, the more control the better. Possibly the ability to substitute in a "running QB" for certain situations. Also control over the pace of our offense with no huddle/milk the clock type options.

+1.44  Amen on the Run QB. I have a Tebow/Leak situation currently and I wish I could do this. 
Hell here's an idea  Wildcat formation  

I'd like the depth charts for LB and DE to specify SLB, WLB, (in the 3-4), SDE, WDE (in the 4-3).  Without having to make massive overhauls to depth charts this would at least give us the option to play a stronger, better tackling player over the tight end consistently to defend the run and have the speedy pass rushing counterpart on the other side.  Of course, I'm assuming the game engine does or will use a tight end's blocking ratings on a run off tackle or wide to his side.  It's a less meaningful change if that isn't taken into account.

To go along with that change, I'd like the OL depth chart to specify G, T, C (and for it to matter).  ATH and TEC should be pretty important to an OT in pass blocking.  STR would be more important for the interior guys in the running game.  I realize interior linemen have to pass block as well but the majority of sacks come off the edges. OT would become more of a premium position, which it is in modern football. 

A major area that needs to be addressed is DL and LB against the run.  I would propose that a running play between the tackles looks at the OL vs. DL matchup and uses that result as a MODIFIER instead of the play result.  If the DL wins, the linebackers are modified upward and have a better chance at making the play.  If the DL wins big, a DL  may  make the tackle.  If the OL wins, they are able to get to the second level and LB's are modified downward because they have guards on top of them making it less likely they can make the play.  And the fullback is important in this as well.  If the OL wins, the FB should matter more because he is more likely to make a block at the second level on a LB.  As it is, LB is the least important position on a defense against the run, that needs to be changed in some way.  I think this would also make safeties ablility to defend the run a little more important.  In the current engine my corners make a lot more plays against the run than my safeties do.  (Then again maybe my safeties suck.)

In addition, how many guys you have in the box (LB's) should matter a lot in the run game.  If a guy lines up in Trips and the defense plays 4-3 and wins the battle up front, only a stud RB should be ripping off runs of 10 or more between the tackles in that scenario.  If you play Nickel against Trips, you should have a harder time stopping the run.  Enhancing the importance of LB and downplaying DL a bit (by the method above or by a better method that somebody smarter than me came up with) would help make this change without having to resort to any kind of "normalization" in the engine.  The result would be a real effect of more guys being involved in the play.

I agree with the developers that the game engine shouldn't be open to everyone, but I think there are some areas that need to be explicitly explained to help game planning without having to make major overhauls.  If you choose conservative in the passing game, are you keeping your backs in for max protection or are you sending them all into patterns in the flats for consvervative screens and flares? etc.  A few clarifications about how the engine works "in general" would allow better gameplanning and personnel choices without having to completely overhaul everything and get extremely granular with every formation and position.

Make stamina and depth relevant again.

Back with more stuff for you, Mr. Norbert-O!

1) I personally agree with what saad1000 wrote above, as far as the depth charts go. In addition to what was written, I would like to add this: why not just break players down to position-specific during recruiting? Instead of DL, LB, DB.... we would have DT, DE, ILB, OLB, CB, S... Same for RB, with a breakdown of FB and HB. And make it so that you can only play a position in its OWN depth chart. So no OLB playing ILB, etc, etc. this could be especially important if we are looking into adding more formations. 

Posted by norbert on 1/27/2012 5:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sluggo on 1/26/2012 9:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gr8flly on 1/26/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I have a suggestion regarding recruiting and while it will not be addressed in this particular update, it may be something to consider down the road.  On the summary recruit page, would it be possible to have something that shows pending recruiting actions for the players?  Personally, I think it would be nice to know who I am waiting to hear from rather than clicking on the guy and checking the history.  When you are contacting a large number of guys its easy to forget....for me anyway.  Additionally, how about a mass recruit option?

Thanks for the open lines of communication.

You MUST give us the ability to cancel a recruiting action before the next cycle hits. I can't tell you the number of times I have lost recruits because I accidentally hit the wrong button and wasted a couple thousand dollars on the wrong player and ran out of money at the end. After all, the money for a Campus Visit isn't spent til you take the trip -- not when you tell the coach to head to the airport...

For everyone that +1 this, I think we'll put out a minor update before we start working on the major one that will take a few months, and two of the things that we'll get in there are cancelling recruiting efforts (like Hoops Dynasty does) and a separate offense and defense playbook setting.  I'm hoping we can sneak it in in February.

+1

Posted by jibe on 1/28/2012 8:05:00 PM (view original):
Make stamina and depth relevant again.

+1

Make the different traits result in different kinds of players - DLs that are better pass rushers than vs. the run, OLs that are better pass blockers than run blockers, SPD has more of an impact on long gains, etc.  That seemed to be one of teh intentions of the last update, but it doesn't seem to be happening.  It wuould be more fun to be able to recruit to a system.

Adding tempo would also be interesting, so you could run an up-tempo offense like Oregon or run the play clock low regularly.

i haven't looked at the thread outside of your post Norbert(so if anything is repetitive then forgive me)
1.Update the formations. 
Wishbone is barely used anymore, the ND box needs to be renamed to something else(two TE set maybe?), need to add a additional shotgun formation that includes a RB in the backfield. almost every shotgun team runs this during a game to do draw plays or keep a back in to block the rush.

2.Offensive/Defensive Settings
This makes no dang sense. If you're on offense and you call for a a pass then it should be a pass, if you call for a run it should be a run. 60-40,85-15 should be eliminated, if you call the play then it should run the play as called. a pass is a pass and a run is a run.
Instead of the "run or pass" deciding where your players line up in terms of the line of scrimmage it should be if you're playing either the run or the pass the defense reacts in that manner and you have  setting that decides per situation in the down and distance where you set your defense in relation to the positioning near the LOS.

3.Depth Chart 
We should be able to choose between WR,RB & TE for slot receiver. Rob Gronkowski,Greg Olsen,Aaron Hernandez and Jimmy Graham all line up in the slot at different times in the game to exploit mismatches.
We should be able to have a progression/read setting to determine who the QB looks for first in his progressions and reads, if one is covered then he can look off that guy and go somewhere else.

4.Red Zone Settings
There needs to be a selection of settings to be used in the red zone to determine how the team plays down there on offense like there is on defense.
too restrictive in it's current form, in terms of lesser options than it's defensive counterpart.

5.Stamina and Talent Level
Both should matter greatly more than they do now. I normally have my players set to rotate out at fresh and almost all of them can play 97% of the game without going into yellow. That makes no sense and eliminates the need for depth.
The game doesn't currently do enough to take into account the differences in talent level, i get that upsets should happen but if that's the case then there should be clear external and tangible factors to denote why it potentially happened(position coaches, coordinators, off the field distractions and etc.) we don't have that in the game and this isn't real life.

6.Un-Neuter The LB's & DB's
Doesn't make any sense with the low amount of sacks relative to their positions. No way in the world with an aggressive defense should your LB or DB produce the same amount of sacks as using a conservative one.
Those are play making positions and could be a huge factor in the overall outcome of the game if they were allowed to be the play makers they should be.

7.Fix the 3-4 defense
This is a pet peeve of mine. you have a ton of NFL and college teams that run the 3-4 as their main defense and use it to stop the run.
But in GD the players can never grow, get bigger or etc even with conditioning so it's shoe horned into being weak against the run when the 3-4 is one of the most flexible defenses in football because you can bring in various tweeners,hybrids and etc.

There has to be more cause and effect with the game play. way too many WTF results, for you as a programmer you have all the info in front of you and know why it happens. we as coaches do not and since we will likely never have access to the info it tends to **** us off when there is a random result but we have no way of knowing why,how or if a tweak would have changed the outcome.