9/4/2013 8:40 PM
It seems that since he has not actually updated since the pinned thread was put up and he is working on so much code, outside of obvious bugs I'm not sure there is a point to giving feedback on this current engine. Seriously. It sounds like he is completely starting from scratch in many ways. Some of it sounds promising. I dunno. Is there a point oriole? 
9/4/2013 9:06 PM
As pointed out to norbert way before the beta was released, the beta engine is not set up to be easily adjustable.  You can't make talent = 2 x formation iq, plug that in and get a testable result.  You have to manually adjust every factor for every step/bucket and hope that you come close to the talent = 2 x formation iq, and even then you'd be guessing about the relative 2:1 ratio.  This is why each adjustment "feels" right to norbert or oriole but it doesn't play right to everyone else.
9/4/2013 10:05 PM
So you like that he is starting over pretty much? I'm pretty sure I'm happy that he is as well. 
9/4/2013 11:04 PM
I agree that this seems encouraging.  Hopefully, we'll see some of this "work" that oriole references soon and can test out the impact.  Never thought I would look forward to the day when a TE catches a pass:) 
9/5/2013 12:01 AM
Posted by noah23 on 9/4/2013 10:05:00 PM (view original):
So you like that he is starting over pretty much? I'm pretty sure I'm happy that he is as well. 
No.  It sounds like he's still using the step/bucket system.  It may be streamlined, but it'll still be correction by guessing.  Fire, aim, ready!

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I haven't seen anything to give me any confidence.
9/5/2013 8:55 AM
I'm taking a wait & see attitude, but it is promising to me too. It seems like oriole is trying to make updates/changes easier in the future which would be a huge step in the right direction. If he accomplishes this at least when we find flaws they can be corrected much faster and easier.
9/5/2013 5:07 PM
How many times have I read "this looks promising"? "we're in the right direction now"? You guys have a very optimistic outlook, how far have we gotten with that. And yes I am very pessimistic about this whole thing, and will remain so, until proven wrong.
9/6/2013 12:14 AM
With everything in the world I am pessimistic about I gotta be optimistic about something right? 
9/6/2013 12:58 AM
cebrake, there have been 10 time more negative than positive thrown at oriole, and like you said "How far have we gotten with that". Your words. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone wasn't so negative the men doing this job might want to get it done just a little more. I mean common sense should tell us that anyone will try harder, work harder, if they get a pat on the back every once in a while, right? 
9/6/2013 7:22 AM
I rely on random comments from obsessed strangers for my own personal sense of self worth. I am sure the WIS guys do to.
9/6/2013 10:27 AM
I understand there is skepticism. And to temper expectations a little, I'm dealing with some serious legacy in the code, and I'm not going to be able to completely start over. The bad news is that much of the setup stuff is pretty set. The good news is that much of the matchup functionality is pretty spot on. It's got some quirks in it that I'll have to work through with the new flow, but it seems to be pretty good at analyzing play calls and matchups for each unit depending on formations and players.  The other good news is that rushing should be an entirely simple process. There really isn't much (necessary) to determining the results, and I think the streamlining of this will make for an easier interpretation of what is actually happening. 

As for the bucket system, I am not foregoing the bucket system entirely because I think there is good merit in some of the decisions being bucketed. If you were to play APBA you would see that they use a type of bucketing system too. The issue that I have with our bucket system is that it is too comprehensive. Everything right now is in buckets and I'm looking to eliminate some of these buckets. This will make the bucket system more apt and allow us to use it properly. 

Again, my goal right now is to decrease the complexity without changing too much of the gameplay. This will be upsetting at first (hopefully) because it will appear that not much has changed, but the simpler code has already allowed me to do things that were not possible before, and with more testing and a simpler approach the necessary changes are on the horizon. 

Also, be warned that in one of the next few updates I'm going to be eliminating the Play - by - Play for a few days to make sure that all of the stuff that is written out is appropriate. I don't want you guys to be fooled into thinking something is wrong when the Play by Play is not the focus yet. Once I get that up and running, then we can use it again as a thorough debugging and enhancing tool. 

I'm actually pretty excited about the progress on this stuff. I think it will really solidify the engine, and once that we can come up with a good baseline, I'll work on adding the extras in.
9/6/2013 10:32 AM
That's the problem deen, it doesn't appear that anyone "is (or has been) doing this job." And obviously they don't give a rat's *** what I, or anyone else thinks or says about it.
9/6/2013 10:55 AM
Or should we, the paying customers, be jumping with joy over the outstanding progress and a job well done?
9/6/2013 1:35 PM
Some of us have been around long enough to have been extensively involved with 1.0 and 2.0. Now comes the attempt at 3.0. During all these seasons, and calendar years, there have been positives / negatives about all of them. Forum pro and con posting arguments go on and on, but the river is never really crossed.

People complained that "running was too prevalent in 1.0, so we then had a MAJOR change to 2.0. Then the complaints started that 2.0 had too many random turnovers, big plays, safeties, etc, etc. Now we are on 3.0, which has proven to be a disaster in a multitude of ways. We can say over and over that things are getting better, but the reality is that 3.0 is NOT better nor MORE FUN  than 1.0, or 2.0! We can continue to post in many different forums how the "Holy Grail" is in sight, but we are never going to get there this way. Every complaint brings a reaction, and seemingly a correction attempt. We plug this hole, and then we find another leak. So what happens is that we end up chasing our tail. 

I really appreciate the efforts of all you gentlemen who are giving your time and expertise to make GD better, and I personally admire your skill in so doing. I respect all of you who post with your suggestions, ideas, and opinions, but I have some questions: Why did we not just fix 1.0? Why did we have to make MAJOR changes? The change to 2.0 took away some of the things from 1.0 that were working. Now that we are in 2.0, why can't we just change the things that are suspect, and keep the good?

I am not knowledgeable in programming, but I have heard that changes require that entire new programs have to be written. Why can't the new programs be written that keep the old that works, and change that which does not? Why do we have to have MAJOR changes? Why can't we just fix 2.0? Is change and complexity more fun? Will it bring more players to this game about which we care? We all enjoy the competition, the smack, and the vicarious kick of being the coach, but the little boy within us all still asks...."Will it be more fun?"
9/6/2013 3:17 PM
As I remember, 1.0 was changed because the code was antiquated and needed to be replaced to be compatible with more modern code from other systems. As a game it contained many of the 3.0 characteristics about depth chart and player distribution which were taken out in 2.0. The set-up (minus bugs) in 3.0 will allow more individuality to each team for coaches to tinker with and let us have more "ownership" to our teams game play. Many of the 2.0 criticisms and the current 3.0 criticisms have occured due to programmers (JConte and Norbert) who thought their ways were best and forged ahead with products that were not in consideration of the communities input or desires - OR - about the current programmer (oriole) not providing us with more insight into what is happening NOW. As oriole has stated - he has had to rework the code from the previous version to (hopefully) allow some semblence of continuity to the game and make it more pliable to  adjustment. As we have not seen his ultimate work we cannot judge how his efforts will be welcomed.

We are playing the beta for free, perhaps at the detriment of the 2.0 engine - however it is nothing less than 2.0 deserves as it is truly flawed (as to some extent was 1.0). For this GD game to survive the ingenuity of the marketplace - 3.0 must be a product that will sell itself to the current customers and to new customers. As long as 3.0 is a work in progress, we can have hope that it will be an entertaining pastime. If it frustrating to wait through the time required for the new update to be written - take a season or two off. Just remember - Norbert worked on the 3.0 beta release for about 6 months behind the scenes before it was released. Oriole has been at it about 3 months under the microscope of nagging and critical coaches. (not his fault - point at WIS).

So oriole - from the perspective of the coaches - you are working in a guillotine. A poor update and we chop the rope and drop the blade, a good update and we forget about the rope and play the game.
of 2

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.