4/7/2013 2:08 PM
I don't understand the NEED for 3 different places to set depth charts, and if one of them is off, it screws up the whole game results. The changes for the most part in this beta test is good, but i keep having to go back and forth to make sure the right players are at that position. Also, can the same player be listed in each of the sub categories? (I.E. OL Garza is 1st in OT & OG/C). Do we have to follow the formation numbers like OT = 1&5 and OG/C = 2, 3, &4?
4/7/2013 3:29 PM
I don't get what you are talking about. I only have one place to set depth charts.... and one place to designate where those depth charts apply. ?
4/7/2013 3:50 PM
Yeah after reading how i typed it out it don't make sense to me either lol. Player Settings page and Depth Chart page, they have to match up i'm assuming. Plus, with OL you will see in the formations page that they are numbered from 1-5 (1=OT...2, 3, 4=OG/C...5=OT). What i'm asking is if the depth charts have to match up and what determines which player gets subbed in first at OT or OG/C? Thats the only position i'm having trouble with and it's showing in the results of each game dating back to last season.
4/7/2013 4:22 PM
The player settings page only determines fatigue settings. Hitting that start button means nothing I just found out. 
4/7/2013 4:23 PM
I think player settings page determines the listed starters.

For depth chart, I do rank the the players in the general term (i.e. OL), plus rank in the user 1 and 2. But I use the Tackle and Guard/Center rankings to specifically designate players as either Tackle or Guard/Center. BUT-in the offensive and defensive formations I change the depth chart and switch from Offensive Line to Tackle and Guard/Center (also for DE/DT, CB/S etc). I do that with all the positions to get the players that I want in there. That way I believe I get the players I want for CB/S, ILB/OLB, DE/DT.
4/7/2013 4:26 PM
You would think it determines the listed starters, but it does not. If it did, my freshman would have gotten his promised start as he was marked  as the starter and played 51% of the game including the majority of the first half. 
4/7/2013 4:35 PM
It worked ok for me-the only problem was my own screwup.
4/8/2013 10:28 AM (edited)
I think this is really a disconnect of how 2.0 actually worked and how people thought it worked.  For 3.0, I will be updating the GS code to give credit to the most appropriate players based on how much they played, and then the Starter designation is really if you just want to make sure certain players are considered over others.

In 2.0, the GS credit just seemed to happen, because it based the starters off of your Base Offense in your Main Playbook, which if you actually had it set to a formation you were using, worked out just fine.  Mostly you could just put the guys you wanted to start on top of their respective depth charts, but it was still possible to screw it up and it was a source of confusion for some people as it was hard to explain what that Base Offense really did in your playbook.  Plus, if you switched your playbooks, you could accidentally lose a start for someone you promised a start to.

With 3.0, we wanted to allow multiple depth charts per position, as a way to allow the flexibility of the "depth chart per formation" without the necessity to set depth charts for each formation.  You can set depth charts simply or you can set them to be more complex.  With this, we dropped the Base Offense in the playbook as it no longer made sense (as if it made sense to begin with).  This required a different way to mark Starters.

The Depth Charts and your Formation Sets determine everything about which players are on the field.  The Starter designation on the Player Settings JUST allows you to give someone the credit for the start if they meet the other criteria (i.e. playing time).  The oversight on my part was the part I have to credit players with GS even if they are not marked as Starters.  When this is in, the Starter designation in the settings page will only be necessary if you require certain players to get the GS over others, like when you have promised starts.

With the additional depth charts and formation sets, it also means we can't predict which players will be your starters just from the playbooks.  There is no "base formation" to hook in to to determine which depth charts will be used to determine starters.  There were different ways to accomplish this and one would be to just pick a formation to act like the Base Offense, but this still meant you had to match it up to depth charts. With the explicit setting of Starters we'd hope it was more evident which players you WANT to start, but requires a little more effort on your part to make sure those players are set correctly in your depth charts.

So, assuming the updated GS credit code will be in there, this is how you get starters:
- Set the players you want to get a GS at the top of the depth charts you use in your formations and playbooks.  The more you use those formations that pull from those depth charts, the more likely they will get the start.  EVERYTHING about getting players on the field is based on your depth chart settings.  Nothing overrides those.
- To designate certain players to get the GS, mark them in the player settings.  As long as they get on the field, they will get credit for the start.

Playing Time = depth chart + formations used in playbook
Game Starts = playing time (any playing time) + player settings

Once I get the GS logic in, if you do not care who gets the starts, you won't have to designate starters at all.  If you are confused by all of this, I suggest keeping the depth charts and formations simple (either basic mode or using the minimal amount of settings in advanced mode) until you get a better feel for what is happening.

4/8/2013 1:40 PM
So, even if I give my guy 10% of the playing time if I mark him as starter in settings it will show as him starting? I made a mistake in promising the start because I thought it was my other team (that he was better then the current starter for) 
4/9/2013 1:49 PM
Posted by noah23 on 4/8/2013 1:40:00 PM (view original):
So, even if I give my guy 10% of the playing time if I mark him as starter in settings it will show as him starting? I made a mistake in promising the start because I thought it was my other team (that he was better then the current starter for) 
Yes, and actually that's the way 2.0 works but it takes a little knowledge of how to set up your depth charts and playbooks to get that to happen.

We will continue to smooth out the starter situation throughout the beta.  Realistically, there probably shouldn't be a promised start for football, as it's really an irrelevant designation, and I'm sure that can be debated.  But the fact is that it is currently in the game, so we have to make it work.

4/10/2013 1:39 PM
Acutally, promised starts are a part of RL recruiting. The promises may not always be kept but i have seen where a top 150 recruit chose a college based on "promises" the HC gave. College A said the recruit will be a starter his JR or SR year, where as college B said he will be starting as a SO, based on potential of course. I'm speaking from DIV III experience.
4/10/2013 3:21 PM
But starting in football is really another distinction of playing time.  There's a certain expectation of what it means to be called a starter in football that's different than what it typically means in other sports.  Identifying who is considered a starter is significantly more difficult in football.

Regardless, we definitely need to improve the identification of who is most likely to start in the 3.0 settings.  I can sit here all day and point out holes in the 2.0 way of marking starters, but that isn't going to help any in making it work better for 3.0 and if you did things simply in 2.0, you would most likely never see any of those holes.

I am open to suggestions.  If you look at ILB and OLB in 2.0, you will see a similar issue as to what we are facing in 3.0.  You could have the top 2 players in both lists and expect them all to be starters but it also depended on you having a playbook set to use the 3-4 as your main playbook.  If you accidentally changed it to a 4-3 playbook, one of those ILBs would not get the start.  The Base Offense and Base Defense were ONLY used to identify starters (well, and 4th down setting which didn't make sense).  Those are removed in the 3.0 playbooks as it doesn't really make sense to set just a random formation that has no actual requirements to meet what is in your playbook.  This means we don't have one formation to link to depth charts to mark players as starters.

Instead of picking some formation and matching depth charts, my hopes were that you could just pick which guys you want to get the credit for starts with some responsibility on your end to set your depth charts to make sure those players actually get on the field.  This is proving to have a level of indirection that can cause some confusion.

There are a few alternatives we could look at.
  • Pick one of your formation sets that would be used in conjunction with your depth charts to mark starters.  This would be essentially the same concept as setting a Base Offense/Defense only removed from the playbook settings.  Downside is that there is no guarantee you actually use that formation in your playbook, but that is also true of the Base settings now.
  • Have a more complex analysis of a playbook that would determine the most called formations based on certain expectations (like x% first and longs, etc.).  This could be displayed as a play break down for each playbook and could also be used to identify the starters based on most used formations.  Downside is that this is too much left to chance and very difficult to understand in how you would exactly get one player to start over another if say you wanted 2 RBs to start but it keeps saying only 1 is starting.
  • Keep it as it is now and see how it works when the new logic is set up to credit starts to players even if they aren't marked as Starters, and make it clear that the Starter setting is only to help credit a player with a start in cases where it might be close between a couple players.  Benefit is that this is not as fiddly of a setting when switching up your playbooks.  Downside is we still can't easily predict which players are going to get credit for starts before the game.
4/10/2013 4:25 PM
The alternatives are great ideas and i already do the 1st one. I kept it basic to start with and from there went to the advanced option game by game to see the differences in results etc. Then i went and created my own playbooks (I.E. Raven Run, Raven Pass in 3 of the OFF formations. I/Form, Pro Set, and Trips). After making those playbooks i designated BL TE for running plays and PC TE for passing plays. Same with RBs and WRs. I'm trying to make sure i'm on the right track when it comes to 3.0. After the games simulate, it don't look like the players i designate are being used for the formations they are assigned to. 
4/10/2013 5:03 PM
I'm pretty sure a lot of the confusion on subbing is related to the fix I will be making to pull non-resting players before it starts pulling resting players for slots.  The sub pattern should be more as you expect.  I should have that update pushed out sometime tomorrow, so I'll have you look at the games after that to see if you are seeing more of what you are hoping to see with the subs.
4/10/2013 5:19 PM
Posted by norbert on 4/10/2013 5:03:00 PM (view original):
I'm pretty sure a lot of the confusion on subbing is related to the fix I will be making to pull non-resting players before it starts pulling resting players for slots.  The sub pattern should be more as you expect.  I should have that update pushed out sometime tomorrow, so I'll have you look at the games after that to see if you are seeing more of what you are hoping to see with the subs.
+1

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, 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.