All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Beta - Known Problems IV - copy to GD Community
10/15/2013 11:11 PM (edited)
This is a list of problems to be worked on still in the beta befor release. Tagged here to keep alive if beta forum is removed. Have at it folks. BUT PLEASE use another thread to bicker and whine - keep this for relevant comments!


So we will again start the problem list. Please investigate the points below and give feedback on how they are or are not corrected. Keep bickering and bantering to a minimum - we only have a short time left.


TE not catching passes (Seems to be working)
WR getting short, medium and long passes at the line of scrimmage (seems to be working)
WR catching passes behind the line of scrimmage when they aren't supposed to run a route there (seems to be fixed)
QB throwing two passes per play - (fixed)
No one missing extra points
No INT returned for TD's
Starters not  getting credit for starts - glitch
QB getting more tired than they should (Norbert's failed attempt)
Wrong players blitzing (thanks deen) - Don't know about this but blitzers seem to disappear from the play - Don't see blitzers in plays
Large (>10%) offensive line advantages not providing enough effect for run ave or pass blocking results (sacks) - I definately still see this
Player pass distribution (RB - FB, WR) - Seems to be working
Phantom field goal after game over on box score - Phantom TD reported
Blocked kicks?
Not able to have more control over defensive settings (% choice - but end result is either all pass or all run) We want choice!
FBs don't catch passes either.
Correctly guessing run/pass has far too much importance on play results. Still beleive this is true
Stamina/fatigue needs review - not enough impact as yet between high and low stamina players.
DB all over the field and covering everyone - Still seeing this
Too many
plays being run - Has been toned down, but still may be too many
Some short and behind LOS pass completions taking only 10 seconds (non-1st down) Still see this
Tackle stats broken - Seems to be fixed
Mysterious Tackler involved in plays - Still seeing the dreaded Tackler
WR getting minus YAC when pass completed - Still see this
PBP glitch of pass defended and intercepted at the same time
Points scored can still be too high
Pass defended stats too low
Fumbles too low
Have not evaluated penalties
Have not evaluated injuries
Punt returns seem to be all or nothing
YAC for passing is broken - Fixed?
Penalties without a play

 
10/9/2013 12:25 AM
Wrong players blitzing (thanks deen) - Don't know about this but blitzers seem to disappear from the play - 

Not able to have more control over defensive settings (% choice - but end result is either all pass or all run)
 
Correctly guessing run/pass has far too much importance on play results.

DB all over the field and covering everyone

Mysterious Tackler involved in plays

And a release in two weeks....can't wait.



 
10/9/2013 12:37 AM
Posted by katzphang88 on 10/8/2013 10:45:00 PM (view original):
This is a list of problems to be worked on still in the beta befor release. Tagged here to keep alive if beta forum is removed. Have at it folks. BUT PLEASE use another thread to bicker and whine - keep this for relevant comments!


So we will again start the problem list. Please investigate the points below and give feedback on how they are or are not corrected. Keep bickering and bantering to a minimum - we only have a short time left.


TE not catching passes (Seems to be working)
WR getting short, medium and long passes at the line of scrimmage (seems to be working)
WR catching passes behind the line of scrimmage when they aren't supposed to run a route there (seems to be fixed)
QB throwing two passes per play - (fixed)
No one missing extra points
No INT returned for TD's
Starters not  getting credit for starts
QB getting more tired than they should (Norbert's failed attempt)
Wrong players blitzing (thanks deen) - Don't know about this but blitzers seem to disappear from the play -
Large (>10%) offensive line advantages not providing enough effect for run ave or pass blocking results (sacks)
Player pass distribution (RB - FB, WR) - Seems to be working
Phantom field goal after game over on box score
Blocked kicks?
Not able to have more control over defensive settings (% choice - but end result is either all pass or all run)
FBs don't catch passes either.
Correctly guessing run/pass has far too much importance on play results.
Stamina/fatigue needs review - not enough impact as yet between high and low stamina players.
DB all over the field and covering everyone

Too many plays being run - Has been toned down, but still may be too many
Some short and behind LOS pass completions taking only 10 seconds (non-1st down)
Tackle stats broken - Seems to be fixed
Mysterious Tackler involved in plays
WR getting minus YAC when pass completed 
PBP glitch of pass defended and intercepted at the same time
Points scored can still be too high
Pass defended stats too low
Fumbles too low
Have not evaluated penalties
Have not evaluated injuries
Punt returns seem to be all or nothing

 
Sounds to me that it isn't ready at all.
10/9/2013 12:44 AM
my opinion? its not ready, but its closer then it ever has by leaps and bounds. My biggest problem? Getting less then one season to see how injuries and other things never added previously effect the game. 
10/9/2013 4:08 PM
Is there some reason we want injuries to be a part of the game? I know that it's "more realistic", but when one of the major gripes about 2.0 is it's randomness, do we really want to intentionally inject another random element into the game?
10/10/2013 11:42 AM
Posted by scrodz on 10/9/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Is there some reason we want injuries to be a part of the game? I know that it's "more realistic", but when one of the major gripes about 2.0 is it's randomness, do we really want to intentionally inject another random element into the game?
Yes.  One of my points on the whole "randomness" thing has been that there are simpler ways to have explicable reasons for an upset.  IRL there ARE often explicable reasons for upsets.  Injuries can be a big part of that.  Cross-country travel, player suspensions (ND Golston sp?), home field advantage, grass/turf, weather (monsoon rain in OR, FLA playing BC in a snow storm), short week Thur games, "trap" or letdown games after facing a big time opponent.  

While all of those factors probably cannot be incorporated, injuries and suspensions can be.  And I think it adds strategy.  Do you sign a troubled kid with out of the world talent and risk academic suspension (unless it's the SEC), arrest, or him quitting if he's unhappy?  Same thing with a stud with a history of knee problems.

The "randomness" part, to an extent, could be factored in as attributes. Character issues are already in scouting reports as a vestige of 1.0 when there were disciplinary issues (although really watered down and the only benefit was getting to cut SIM players without a hit).  And durability can actually mean something.

Allocation of practice time could also be tweaked to impact injuries or performance.  On a basic level, more conditioning time could correlate with less chances of injury.  Maybe more time practicing tackling could help in the game but increase risk of injury.

My stale two cents on that topic.


10/10/2013 1:45 PM
Posted by potter444 on 10/10/2013 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by scrodz on 10/9/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Is there some reason we want injuries to be a part of the game? I know that it's "more realistic", but when one of the major gripes about 2.0 is it's randomness, do we really want to intentionally inject another random element into the game?
Yes.  One of my points on the whole "randomness" thing has been that there are simpler ways to have explicable reasons for an upset.  IRL there ARE often explicable reasons for upsets.  Injuries can be a big part of that.  Cross-country travel, player suspensions (ND Golston sp?), home field advantage, grass/turf, weather (monsoon rain in OR, FLA playing BC in a snow storm), short week Thur games, "trap" or letdown games after facing a big time opponent.  

While all of those factors probably cannot be incorporated, injuries and suspensions can be.  And I think it adds strategy.  Do you sign a troubled kid with out of the world talent and risk academic suspension (unless it's the SEC), arrest, or him quitting if he's unhappy?  Same thing with a stud with a history of knee problems.

The "randomness" part, to an extent, could be factored in as attributes. Character issues are already in scouting reports as a vestige of 1.0 when there were disciplinary issues (although really watered down and the only benefit was getting to cut SIM players without a hit).  And durability can actually mean something.

Allocation of practice time could also be tweaked to impact injuries or performance.  On a basic level, more conditioning time could correlate with less chances of injury.  Maybe more time practicing tackling could help in the game but increase risk of injury.

My stale two cents on that topic.


10/10/2013 3:07 PM
Hey, I WANT my qb throwing 2 passes on a play if he is cabable - Awesome     
10/10/2013 5:06 PM
"Do you sign a troubled kid with out of the world talent and risk academic suspension (unless it's the SEC)..."
Or the Big Ten (Sandusky, OSU, Urban Cryer, Michigan, etc), Texas and It's B****es f/k/a the Big 12, the Pac 12 (USC), the Big Least, if anyone still cares, or the Florida State Criminoles. And don't forget SMU!!

 

At least the SEC wins when they cheat. It's like Cam Newton's father never actually said in a sermon at his church - "Salvation is free. My son costs $200,000.00."

And just to throw more gas on the fire, has anyone mentioned the upset of Michigan by App St. lately?

10/10/2013 5:46 PM
I find it to be pretty troubling that something as major as "Large (>10%) offensive line advantages not providing enough effect for run ave or pass blocking results (sacks)" is just sort of casually included in the middle of a list of issues alongside minor PBP glitches and boxscore errors.

I hope the game developers realize that that, and other talent related issues, is something that could completely ruin any release they may have, and would likely mean the death of GD all together. 
10/11/2013 12:25 AM
I'm not sure that the sack part in particular is true. My OPSU team has allowed 8 sacks all year. We have sacked over 90 times. 
10/11/2013 12:42 AM
Posted by fakelouholtz on 10/10/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
I find it to be pretty troubling that something as major as "Large (>10%) offensive line advantages not providing enough effect for run ave or pass blocking results (sacks)" is just sort of casually included in the middle of a list of issues alongside minor PBP glitches and boxscore errors.

I hope the game developers realize that that, and other talent related issues, is something that could completely ruin any release they may have, and would likely mean the death of GD all together. 
This is a delicate issue.  On their own, I feel like OL and DL ratings work themselves pretty well into play outcomes.  Taken with formation advantages (nil or negative from my research), formation iq (haven't seen anything to show that this matters at all) and the value of guessing run or pass correctly, OL/DL ratings don't make enough of a difference.  
10/11/2013 1:38 PM (edited)
I've said this before and I'll say it again.  This game has always had "randomness" - yes, even back to 1.0 days.   The problem is not "randomness" but "inability to correlate inputs to results."

Play selection has always been random.
Chances for penalty has always been random.
Chances for turnovers has always been random.
In fact the result of every single play has always been random!

In 1.0, however, the other factors that went into calculating results had a much stronger influence on the results. You were much more likely to have a good run result if your OL was better than the opponent DL.  But whether it came down to a 4 yard gain, or a 5 yard gain, or a 6 yard gain was due, in part to a random number generation.  Otherwise, every play run with the same inputs (players on the field, fatigue levels, etc) would return the exact same results.  Games don't work that way.  

Obviously, especially in its early releases (and still to 'too-high' level today) the 2.0 engine favors the "randomizer" parts of the result too much over talent and play called.  The 3.0 engine is a huge step forward, but it's certainly not perfect yet, and like others I am worried that the release date is on the aggressive side, even with oriole_fan's programming skills and lots of upcoming overtime.

But it just drives me crazy to see people go freak crazy whenever the word "random" appears.  It's not the "random" that is bad, folks, it's how much influence the random has over the results.  Without random, you'd never have a penalty, or a turnover, or different play results.  Random is good, so long as the influence of talent, and to a lesser extent, game planning, make up the largest parts of the factors influencing the results.

/rant off.

 

10/11/2013 1:23 PM
Mr Hazelwood:  That is a lucidintelligentwell thought-out comment.
10/11/2013 2:22 PM
Intelligent insight by bhazelwood: But it just drives me crazy to see people go freak crazy whenever the word "random" appears.  It's not the "random" that is bad, folks, it's how much influence the random has over the results.  Without random, you'd never have a penalty, or a turnover, or different play results.  Random is good, so long as the influence of talent, and to a lesser extent, game planning, make up the largest parts of the factors influencing the results.


I think this is the basic concern that we all have. In the 3.0 Norbert version, when I compared player ratings differences, I found that all ranges of player rating differences could produce all ranges of potential outcomes. In this set-up the outcome was indeed totally random because the final outcome was not tied to any ratings difference. To reduce this random distribution and increase the influence of the ratings themselves, the potential outcome distrbution must be narrowed to reflect the range of the ratings difference. If the ratings are close (+/- say 5%) the outcome of values (YPC, sacks etc) should reflect a range and average as programmed into the game (and which can be manipulated up or down until we achieve satisfactory results). If one match-up produces a larger ratings difference than 5%, the resulting average of possible outcomes should move in the direction to benefit the larger rated value. My feeling as yet are that 3.0 oriole version is much improved from the 3.0 Norbert version, but the outcome range is still too large to reflect the ratings differences. Lower rated DL are still impacted much better OL more than should be considered. Average DB ratings are still too low compared to average WR ratings. So my feelings at present is 3.0 - WORK IN PROGRESS - Not quite ready for prime time.
of 2
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > Beta - Known Problems IV - copy to GD Community

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.