6/3/2013 7:42 PM
I guess I'm going to stop at this point and just summarize exactly what it is I want which I believe that most people I would think would agree with judging by banter in coach's corners (tho not so much on the forums). 

1. I want there to be an immersive feeling to the overall statistics in the game. I want to feel like I am reading a play by play of a real game. 
2. I want there to be a clear difference between divisions. 
3. I want to be able to cultivate multiple successful gameplan types based on the roster I am able to recruit. Recruit a big time quarterback should lead me to pass more, big time running back, to run more. 
4. I want for the engine to be able to have consistency where it is not necessary to end in an absurd score to result in 99-100% wins for a team. A team that wins 30-0 will likely win 99% of the time at worst unless there are other mitigating factors that change substantially. 
5. I want depth to be of extreme importance for fast paced teams and/or those who do try to all out pass or all out run. Force them to use their bench extensively or risk major injury trying to get that receiver to 300 yards receiving.
6. I want very deep passes to be extremely inaccurate. Doing a chuck and pray offense should lead to the best passers completing 30-35% of their passes maximum and that only once in a blue moon. 
7. There should be more interception on deep and very deep passes. 
8. There should be a more consistent difference in the running game from 4-3 to 4-4 to dime. There is no reason that there would be little difference. Even if the secondary is great and the DL sucks its a matter of positioning. 
9. TIght ends should mean more then they do right now. I can't get them to be included in the actual process even when I turn up their contact rates truly high. Not sure if thats an engine problem or a recruit generation problem. 
10. (Most important) I want the game to be stable, attract people to it by merely perusing through the summary of the world, and lead to more full leagues. 
6/4/2013 7:54 PM
1. I want there to be an immersive feeling to the overall statistics in the game. I want to feel like I am reading a play by play of a real game. Since we have the option of basic or expanded PBP, the expanded PBP could be worked on. But it is not as important as making the engine work better.
2. I want there to be a clear difference between divisions. I like the overlap from D1A to D1AA. I think that it should occur more at the lower divisions. A top DIII team should be able to beat a lower DII and give a good game to a mid-level DII. Top DII should win against top DIII, but give a good game to lower D1AA etc. I would like the vision taken away for recruiting and a top to bottom (top 1A to bottom DIII) prestige added. Let all teams at all levels see all recruits they scout (and pay $ for) in a certain geographical location (rather than individual players, you scout an area and get info on all the players in that area). The $ differences and prestige (based on recent acheivements) will sort the players out.
3. I want to be able to cultivate multiple successful gameplan types based on the roster I am able to recruit. Recruit a big time quarterback should lead me to pass more, big time running back, to run more.  Agree, but you can do that now if playbooks were expanded.
4. I want for the engine to be able to have consistency where it is not necessary to end in an absurd score to result in 99-100% wins for a team. A team that wins 30-0 will likely win 99% of the time at worst unless there are other mitigating factors that change substantially. Consistency is important. For even teams scores should be relatively even each game - no wild fluctuations - depending on game plans. For far superior over inferior teams - far superior teams may rack up a big game once in a while.
5. I want depth to be of extreme importance for fast paced teams and/or those who do try to all out pass or all out run. Force them to use their bench extensively or risk major injury trying to get that receiver to 300 yards receiving. Fatigue is not much of a factor. Needs to take into consideration effects of a full game, types of plays, bench substitutions etc.
6. I want very deep passes to be extremely inaccurate. Doing a chuck and pray offense should lead to the best passers completing 30-35% of their passes maximum and that only once in a blue moon. Agree - or let us counter with a prevent deep formation.
7. There should be more interception on deep and very deep passes. Agree - or at least more passes defended.
8. There should be a more consistent difference in the running game from 4-3 to 4-4 to dime. There is no reason that there would be little difference. Even if the secondary is great and the DL sucks its a matter of positioning. Agree
9. TIght ends should mean more then they do right now. I can't get them to be included in the actual process even when I turn up their contact rates truly high. Not sure if thats an engine problem or a recruit generation problem. I have not had any difficulty getting them involved. It's all in the settings.
10. (Most important) I want the game to be stable, attract people to it by merely perusing through the summary of the world, and lead to more full leagues. The game engine is very unstable and unreliable right now. Game results are too wildly variable.

6/5/2013 1:21 AM
Posted by katzphang88 on 6/4/2013 7:54:00 PM (view original):
1. I want there to be an immersive feeling to the overall statistics in the game. I want to feel like I am reading a play by play of a real game. Since we have the option of basic or expanded PBP, the expanded PBP could be worked on. But it is not as important as making the engine work better.
2. I want there to be a clear difference between divisions. I like the overlap from D1A to D1AA. I think that it should occur more at the lower divisions. A top DIII team should be able to beat a lower DII and give a good game to a mid-level DII. Top DII should win against top DIII, but give a good game to lower D1AA etc. I would like the vision taken away for recruiting and a top to bottom (top 1A to bottom DIII) prestige added. Let all teams at all levels see all recruits they scout (and pay $ for) in a certain geographical location (rather than individual players, you scout an area and get info on all the players in that area). The $ differences and prestige (based on recent acheivements) will sort the players out.
3. I want to be able to cultivate multiple successful gameplan types based on the roster I am able to recruit. Recruit a big time quarterback should lead me to pass more, big time running back, to run more.  Agree, but you can do that now if playbooks were expanded.
4. I want for the engine to be able to have consistency where it is not necessary to end in an absurd score to result in 99-100% wins for a team. A team that wins 30-0 will likely win 99% of the time at worst unless there are other mitigating factors that change substantially. Consistency is important. For even teams scores should be relatively even each game - no wild fluctuations - depending on game plans. For far superior over inferior teams - far superior teams may rack up a big game once in a while.
5. I want depth to be of extreme importance for fast paced teams and/or those who do try to all out pass or all out run. Force them to use their bench extensively or risk major injury trying to get that receiver to 300 yards receiving. Fatigue is not much of a factor. Needs to take into consideration effects of a full game, types of plays, bench substitutions etc.
6. I want very deep passes to be extremely inaccurate. Doing a chuck and pray offense should lead to the best passers completing 30-35% of their passes maximum and that only once in a blue moon. Agree - or let us counter with a prevent deep formation.
7. There should be more interception on deep and very deep passes. Agree - or at least more passes defended.
8. There should be a more consistent difference in the running game from 4-3 to 4-4 to dime. There is no reason that there would be little difference. Even if the secondary is great and the DL sucks its a matter of positioning. Agree
9. TIght ends should mean more then they do right now. I can't get them to be included in the actual process even when I turn up their contact rates truly high. Not sure if thats an engine problem or a recruit generation problem. I have not had any difficulty getting them involved. It's all in the settings.
10. (Most important) I want the game to be stable, attract people to it by merely perusing through the summary of the world, and lead to more full leagues. The game engine is very unstable and unreliable right now. Game results are too wildly variable.

1. I am talking about the engine. The play by play is of secondary importance. It just doesn't seem like a real game when I see 10 passes for over 60 yards in every game and no one ever being substituted etc. 
2. What do you mean more in other divisions? A top DIII team can beat a mid major-esque DII team right now and compete with the best DII teams. Seriously, what you want already exists in the beta engine. I don't like it. 
3. No you can't...because only two types of gameplans really work right now to the best of their ability. All run or all pass. Regardless of your personnel it is the best gameplan most of the time. 
9. I would love for anyone to show me how to get them involved. Show me an Aaron Hernandez, Jimmy Graham, etc. 
6/5/2013 11:29 AM
1. I am talking about the engine. The play by play is of secondary importance. It just doesn't seem like a real game when I see 10 passes for over 60 yards in every game and no one ever being substituted etc.  OK, I mis read what you were getting at.
2. What do you mean more in other divisions? A top DIII team can beat a mid major-esque DII team right now and compete with the best DII teams. Seriously, what you want already exists in the beta engine. I don't like it.  I do - agree to disagree. Part of that at present is that player ratings values are still off and SIM recruited. This will probably not happen once human beans start spreading the team ratings apart.
3. No you can't...because only two types of gameplans really work right now to the best of their ability. All run or all pass. Regardless of your personnel it is the best gameplan most of the time.  Again, mis understood your intent, confused with the QB - RB pass vs run example - you would like balance to count.
9. I would love for anyone to show me how to get them involved. Show me an Aaron Hernandez, Jimmy Graham, etc.  My TE at Weatherford had 117 receptions for 1000+ yds, without being the featured receiver. I made up a All- American team and looking at what other coaches did with their TE, he didn't make the list.
6/6/2013 10:39 AM (edited)
Good morning guys. 
Just a heads up, I'll be pushing a release later on today to alleviate some of the main issues with the engine. It's not out there now, but I'll post again when the new version is available. I put on hold Injuries and Penalties. They will be coming soon, but I spent this last week focused on creating a more realistic distribution of game results. 

I've been crunching away the last few days creating tools that help me determine the overall scoring and engine problems. One of the biggest issues I have been seeing is how quickly the scores increase as the average difference in players increases.



Here is a link to the full version.
The Y axis is the number of points scored by the home team, and the X axis is the average DIFFERENCE in the player ratings per team. This is showing that if a team has any advantage the average scores increase quickly making the matches lopsided and the stats incredibly high. 

I've made some tweaks to the passing, rushing, and overall matchup between the two teams to come up with a more realistic distributions of scoring per game. 


full size

As you can see, with these latest tweaks you may still get blowout games in an individual contest but in the aggregate things will follow a more realistic distribution. Point totals will come down, which will allow for a probabilistic chance that the better teams will win, but it will also reintroduce a chance for the opponent to win based on game planning, strategy, and of course luck. 

Ok, a couple of more. Here are the before and after of Win Percentage of the Home team based on the same Rating difference scale. 
Before:


After



Here we can see that the current distribution of win percentage will depend entirely on the difference in ratings. Right now, if you are better,even by a little, there is a great chance you are going to win, regardless of game plan and strategy. With the latest tweaks we can see that win percentage is still heavily weighted on talent, but it allows for the ability to create a better team with coaching. I feel that these are the general changes for which people are asking. 

CAVEAT: I'm dealing entirely in the aggregate with these charts. Some specifics can be deduced, but these do not describe individual games.  The jumps in the charts are coming from a relatively small sample size. The before charts were done over a 15 game average, and the afters over a 50 game average. 

Also, overall score outputs will vary based on defense ratings vs offense ratings. I chose to create teams that have roughly the same ratings on offense and defense. 
6/6/2013 12:14 PM
Thanks!
6/6/2013 8:38 PM
Oriole - what would be good comparisons would be if you take even rated position ratings (like in test games - QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB etc) of say 60 for all positions on both sides. Run a set of 50 and see if you get a good bell curve distribution. If not this would tell you that some positional strengths are out of whack. When you get the good bell curve - then start giving advantages to one team for each position and see how that affects the outcome (does what you think will happen actually happen? Does a 70 rated QB dropped in with the rest of the 60 rated positions increase completions, decreased sacks, throw aways etc. Reset and try for all positions. Check the outcomes. Once that works for basic formations - then let the coaches check to see if it carries over to all formation combos. Other wise we really are still guessing how player match-ups are affecting the rest of the engine outcome.
6/7/2013 6:41 AM
"With the latest tweaks we can see that win percentage is still heavily weighted on talent, but it allows for the ability to create a better team with coaching. I feel that these are the general changes for which people are asking."

I believe you are looking for exactly what the majority of us are looking for.

6/7/2013 2:02 PM
What I would also like to see is the completion of the following information for each position (and their variations) so that we can assess what ratings are being used in what situation:

Athleticism used for:
Speed used for:
Durability used for:
Work ethic: Given
Stamina used how:
Strength used for:
Blocking used for:
Tackling used for:
Hands used for:
Game Instinct used for:
Elusiveness used for:
Technique used for:
6/10/2013 11:49 PM
Posted by katzphang88 on 6/4/2013 7:54:00 PM (view original):
1. I want there to be an immersive feeling to the overall statistics in the game. I want to feel like I am reading a play by play of a real game. Since we have the option of basic or expanded PBP, the expanded PBP could be worked on. But it is not as important as making the engine work better.
2. I want there to be a clear difference between divisions. I like the overlap from D1A to D1AA. I think that it should occur more at the lower divisions. A top DIII team should be able to beat a lower DII and give a good game to a mid-level DII. Top DII should win against top DIII, but give a good game to lower D1AA etc. I would like the vision taken away for recruiting and a top to bottom (top 1A to bottom DIII) prestige added. Let all teams at all levels see all recruits they scout (and pay $ for) in a certain geographical location (rather than individual players, you scout an area and get info on all the players in that area). The $ differences and prestige (based on recent acheivements) will sort the players out.
3. I want to be able to cultivate multiple successful gameplan types based on the roster I am able to recruit. Recruit a big time quarterback should lead me to pass more, big time running back, to run more.  Agree, but you can do that now if playbooks were expanded.
4. I want for the engine to be able to have consistency where it is not necessary to end in an absurd score to result in 99-100% wins for a team. A team that wins 30-0 will likely win 99% of the time at worst unless there are other mitigating factors that change substantially. Consistency is important. For even teams scores should be relatively even each game - no wild fluctuations - depending on game plans. For far superior over inferior teams - far superior teams may rack up a big game once in a while.
5. I want depth to be of extreme importance for fast paced teams and/or those who do try to all out pass or all out run. Force them to use their bench extensively or risk major injury trying to get that receiver to 300 yards receiving. Fatigue is not much of a factor. Needs to take into consideration effects of a full game, types of plays, bench substitutions etc.
6. I want very deep passes to be extremely inaccurate. Doing a chuck and pray offense should lead to the best passers completing 30-35% of their passes maximum and that only once in a blue moon. Agree - or let us counter with a prevent deep formation.
7. There should be more interception on deep and very deep passes. Agree - or at least more passes defended.
8. There should be a more consistent difference in the running game from 4-3 to 4-4 to dime. There is no reason that there would be little difference. Even if the secondary is great and the DL sucks its a matter of positioning. Agree
9. TIght ends should mean more then they do right now. I can't get them to be included in the actual process even when I turn up their contact rates truly high. Not sure if thats an engine problem or a recruit generation problem. I have not had any difficulty getting them involved. It's all in the settings.
10. (Most important) I want the game to be stable, attract people to it by merely perusing through the summary of the world, and lead to more full leagues. The game engine is very unstable and unreliable right now. Game results are too wildly variable.

I could not put it any better than this.
6/11/2013 12:30 AM
Can you define "Average Ratings Difference"?

Is this the difference in overall attributes for the teams?  Or is this some kind of formula that uses the average cores for all the starters?  Something in between?
6/12/2013 5:00 PM
I would like to see "Pipeline" schools for our programs to recruit from.  HS programs that you have taken a number of payers from in the past and these schools once established as a "Pipeline" school for your program will give your program the upper hand when recruiting.  To expand on this these players from these "Pipeline" schools will come to you with a higher formation IQ for the formations that your program is currently running than say a player from a non "Pipeline" school.  Also these players will cost much less to recruit.  So now not only are you trying to fill recruits but also form these "Pipeline" programs.  
of 4

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.