Planned Update - Later this Year Topic

  My hat's off to both of you guys. Maybe I just suck at building a running game ?  Ive done really well out of several formations passing including ND. I was basing my facts on my own experience. Sorry if  I was wrong about running.
5/16/2012 5:58 PM
I think having an interest level of players (%)  in recruiting would be nice.

5/19/2012 4:33 PM
Top 25 Recruits list.  After recruiting, issue a list kind of like top 25 recruiting classes list. Except this one would be the top 25 recruits ranked by the total amount of money spent on them during recruiting. SimAi efforts wouldn't get factored in, but that's no big loss. 
5/23/2012 5:56 PM
This update will not focus on recruiting, just engine and game plan updates.
5/25/2012 10:13 AM
Posted by norbert on 5/25/2012 10:13:00 AM (view original):
This update will not focus on recruiting, just engine and game plan updates.
please also update the play-by-play, we will need to be able to see what our opponents are doing so we can scout properly.
5/25/2012 11:33 AM
As someone who's been playing this game a long time in a very mediocre way, I would like transparency first.  No secrets.  Read the directions and have everything you need.  Second I would like to things to make sense when I look at it.  If you sell out against something you should do a good job killing it.  Esp...with like or near like talent.  If you pass constantly and I go all pass on def...I should stop you most of the time with similar talent.  And then it goes down from there.  I think with middle talent and a perfect game plan and your opponent napping you should be able to logically beat a better opponent.  If I beat your cores by around 25% I should mostly have my way with you....anything less then 5% should be a close game IF I've planned for you accordingly.  If I go all run on a down you go all pass...I should light that up.  There is no good way to account for being up for a game or down for a game in a game people play against other living people.  Now in an engine that has to account for more randomness of do and you will have things that don't make sense.  But I feel in a game people play against other people it should come down to talent and game planning...period.
5/31/2012 7:46 PM
get 1aa players in the draft
6/3/2012 12:50 AM

This is a minor nit, but since the game tracks "Tackles for Loss" TLo on a per-game basis and it's on the game box score, why isn't it tracked in the season stats?

I was trying to determine a correlation between a DTs strength and his TLo - why I'm asking.
6/13/2012 8:52 PM
Posted by jc1796 on 6/13/2012 8:52:00 PM (view original):

This is a minor nit, but since the game tracks "Tackles for Loss" TLo on a per-game basis and it's on the game box score, why isn't it tracked in the season stats?

I was trying to determine a correlation between a DTs strength and his TLo - why I'm asking.
Because, if he is Stronger, then he can push the OL backwards and tackle the guy in the backfield ... and if he is not Stronger than the OL, then the OL pushes him and the tackle happens on the defensive side of the Line Of Scrimmage instead?
6/21/2012 9:33 AM
I like the idea for different depth charts for different formations, especially on defense.  I have a linebacker who is #1 on the inside and also very good on the outside.
6/21/2012 12:22 PM
Posted by stingray002 on 5/16/2012 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by katzphang88 on 5/16/2012 11:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mojolad on 5/16/2012 9:47:00 AM (view original):
2 things I would like to see in update:
1-Lower the randomness factor in wins by about 20 percent
2- Make running more important than it currently is.  Right now you can run a terrific All Passing offense. But if you even mix in 50 percent running it is very hard to run an NC contending offense.
#2 not true - I won a D1AA NC with an all WB offense. Averaged near 300 yds a game running.
Agreed.  #2 is not correct.  I've won my NCs with an average mix of 55 run to 45 pass.
I also agree that #2 is not correct.  Nothing would drive me out of WIS quicker than a return to the magic offensive formula of "always run".  There have been noticeable improvements in the run game in the last 4-5 seasons.  I agree that the new engine, when it first came out, was heavily tilted toward pass but in mapping it out, the running game has definitely improved to the point where you are almost forced to run a balanced attack to be successful.

My suggestions would be:
1. Inside own ten setting within the down and distance setting always run/max protect.  While it is exciting to now see run losses, it does seem to happen disproportionately inside an opponents 5.  One of my DL had four caused safeties this year, which I think it unrealistic.
2. A "prevent" setting inside the down and distance setting.  Things aren't as bad as when the engine first came out but there were a bunch of 4th down 20 yard completions and or end of half long pass TD.  I am sure this got ratcheted down when passing was ratcheted down but a prevent setting would be nice.
3. SIMs should not beat humans... EVER... Probably controversial but from a business model, why would you ever allow a paying customer (apart from abandonment) lose in that situation?  I know it isn't that easy but maybe create a SIM game plan that does always run or always pass with 60% sub rate on the depth chart.  Nothing more demoralizing or increasing cries of randomness when a top 30 team loses to a SIM.   This has gotten much better but it still does happen and shouldn't.
4.  Be able to recruit in season.  Either that or stop the emails about recruits my AC has seen and is suggesting.  The players are random and I would have to guess similar notes go out to multiple coaches for the same player and no advantage is derived.  No one can bank much carryover but those that can should be able to apply to the recruits in season.  Maybe run the recruit cycle each 24 hours in season.
5.  Player specific practice plans.  Nothing pains me more than having my entire WR group at 90 except for one joker at 82 and having to waste practice time on the entire group.  Forces me to recruit the same types of players just so that my practice plans are catered to the collective need.
6.  Inconsistency in core talent matchups.  I simply can't understand how a 80/90/90/75 DL doesn't just completely dominate a 60/80/80/60 OL and visa versa.  I am also still trying to figure out how the Ohio RB racked up 200 yards against my Heavy Run game plan.  Yes App State beating Michigan was an inspiration to us all and while I do not think the engine is anywhere close to the randomness that others suggest, there are certain outcomes that are just strange.  Those usually include a turnover ratio of +7.
7.  Allow for 20 individual game plans or at least open up the 5 default settings to be overwritten to accomodate additional game plans to be set.
8.  Formation practice plans.  Doesn't matter if I invest 10 minutes per or 15 minutes per the end result is always an improvement of between 9 and 11 points in the formation.
9.  Alter the "leave for the NFL" setting.  Right now it seems like a standard core threshold however, seeing back up QB's leave early for the NFL and not even get drafted, doesn't make sense while a junior redshirt DL has 15 sacks and stays.  When a player jumps to the NFL seems more based on position than actual performance.
10.  Schools that take on a full compliment of AC recruits should immediately be placed "in jeopardy".  No reason to let an owner run a team into the ground for the next owner.  One season is enough but i know that life happens but two seasons is unforgiveable.
11.  Three different depth charts that would be part of the game planning.   One for normal game plan, one "up" a certain amount that an owner can set, and one "down" a certain amount that an owner can set.
12.  Either make booster gifts count with an assigned "caught rate" or remove them completely.
13.  In the play by play put the game planning assignment in.  For example.  I have three different 1st and 10 settings.  You could have setting one, setting two and setting three listed on the offensive game plan.  Then in the play by play it would be offensive: setting One.  Nothing that is harder for me to decipher is that if I use ND Box for all three settings, one heavy pass, one heavy  run, and one balanced which one the engine actually selected for the play.  I also am not sure what the order is of which plan it selects.  Sometimes my third setting occurs 70% of the time in the first half yet only 20% of the time in the second half.  Not saying that I would change that level of randomness as it could easily conflict with the overall settings but it would be nice to know exactly which play is being run especially with most teams practicing only 2 offensive sets.
6/21/2012 1:27 PM
Posted by norbert on 1/25/2012 11:14:00 AM (view original):
I won't be working on the update quite yet, but I wanted to get the discussion started.  We've basically been cleared for a few months of development for GD and it is going to focus on the Simulation Engine and Game Plans.  For the engine, I'd like to concentrate on adding more cause and effect as well as adding to the output of the game.  For game plans, I'd like to add more control on setting how your team plays and remove as much of the random play selection as possible, even if it means rebuilding how we set game plans altogether.

When it gets closer to the time when I can work on these things, I'll post with more info.  I'd really like to hear more ideas on game plans.  I know #1 add passing distribution, #2 add passing distribution, so let's start on #3 on down.  There are a couple things I'd like to shoot for with game plans.  They shouldn't require a billion options to set, and there should be simple settings that everyone can set quickly and advanced settings that people can tweak a little more only if they choose.

One avenue of game plan setting on offense I've been throwing around is a way to focus on plays and setting up options on each play and the conditions in which they are used, rather than looking at each situation (down and distance) and setting random formation and style selections.  How this would work without violating the "don't set a billion options" rules, I don't know.  Which is why I'm tossing the discussion out here.

I also think we can separate how you play the game from the plays you use.  For instance, I'd like to be able to set something that says I want to be a passing team, or a rushing team, or open the game with passing and then work on rushing when passing starts being less successful.  I think this would allow the coaches to really set up passing or rushing playbooks without hoping it just randomly comes out that way.

So please feel free to express any ideas you have or provide any concerns you have about setting up your game plans.  Don't try to confine ideas to the current settings.  At this point, work will probably begin around March with a few months of development and I'm planning on having around a month of beta testing on the update.

I realize this could lead to some big posts, so please try to keep them on topic.
What about situational one QB for say the Wishbone and another for all other plays?  Also, more control on the percentage of playing time someone gets.  This would make it easier to keep promises without having to play them an entire half.
6/21/2012 2:00 PM
Please also see the threads labeled "Update Preview:".  Those describe some of the new controls we will be working into the game plan settings.  Between the Position Roles, Depth Charts and new Formation Sets, you will be able to choose different QBs for one formation over another.
6/21/2012 2:17 PM
I haven't read all 26 pages on this subject, my ideas may have already been suggested. But...
Currently, in game planning for 1st and 10, you can choose 3 formations and what to do in that formation plus aggressiveness. But the 3 formations have an equal chance of being used. I would like to see % of which formation to use instead of it being random. If you want more of a running game, be able to say 40% I formation (run), 35% Wishbone (heavy run) and 25% Trips(heavy Pass). ETC.
6/21/2012 8:37 PM
This may have been mentioned previously, I have read some of the prior posts but not all.  One concern with making too many or too drastic changes to the game is that you will lose out on the more casual player.  Every time I read about possible updates I worry that the game will become more advanced than I have time for.  The more detailed the advanced settings become (i.e. adding in additional formation, additional play calling levels, position depth charts, "if-then" play settings) the more time it will take to set game plans and in theory the ability to win in the game will skew to those who have more free time to put into it.

With that said areas I would like to see improved:
1. I would like to see some additional options that can provide the individual the capability to build the type of Offense they truly want.  Point in case I run the ND box setting and I would love to be able to target my TEs more.  I recruited some sure-handed TEs and I feel like they are under utilized in many of my games.
2. I would like to see the D settings tweaked to actually make sense- what exactly is aggressive D and conservative D?  To me, it should reflect your willingness to go for the sack/interception versus sitting back.
3. Some D settings that allow specific players to line-up against the opposition would be nice.
4. Settings for inside your 20- to cut down on sacks.
5. Some logic added to the SIM that will continue to call plays that are working well for your team.
6/22/2012 10:24 AM
◂ Prev 1...24|25|26|27|28...31 Next ▸
Planned Update - Later this Year Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, 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.