Posted by bluzeman on 11/18/2010 10:54:00 PM (view original):
Have any other Dobie coaches noticed that the true freshmen (that did not play in an exhibition) did not show any increase at all for player ratings from practice time? Did Dobie have any practice today?
They changed ratings to only change with a full point gain, not  fractionally...  Sadly this takes away one of my favorite things to check daily. Oh well.
11/18/2010 11:57 PM
Posted by nelsonba25 on 11/18/2010 11:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by scotty6 on 11/18/2010 11:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 6:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by texan123 on 11/18/2010 6:57:00 PM (view original):
JConte, thanks for the responses. I hope you can make the right changes and hopefully it wont take too long.
No problem -- thanks for sticking with us.  We have every desire to make the game as realistic and fun as possible.
nice play-by-play.looks like the new engine might work.please up the sub % & let me coach the FGs.   Thank You
You mean you don't want the sim to attempt a 70 yard field goal ...because that's realistic...I mean, my max long of 62 is long, but attempting a 70 yarder is pretty ridiculous...
I have a K that wants to kick 70. does it all the time in practice.he's got a 63  this year
11/19/2010 5:38 AM (edited)
Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tcochran on 11/18/2010 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Is the final decision for those great teams that lost critical games to terrible SIMs just basically - tough sh--?  Hope you don't leave?  This is a serious question that I think many people want answered.  It will impact whether or not people quit the game.
We are not going to undo games that have been played.  We are going to work to improve the simulation engine and make sure the results of games continue to become more realistic.  We hope that coaches will stay engaged with the game and offer suggestions for improvement.


I am not on the council but I trust that if you would have utilized the feedback that was available from the council that this would have never happened.
11/19/2010 1:19 AM
Here's what I've learned.  The old game engine had to be changed because substitutions weren't realistic.  So ... why'd we play with that horrible system for the past 2+ years?  Nothing adds up .... 
11/19/2010 3:01 AM
I personally didn't have a problem with the way depth charts were done before. To me, one of the more enjoyable aspects of the game was, after the recruits were added, taking the time to meticulously pour over every formation to make sure that the right personel was on the field, no one was playing while too fatigued, and that my listed starters were getting playing time. Along with the mysterious and ridiculous formation IQ, having this part of the game taken away or at least dumbed down to the point of "click, click, click, done" is what bothers me the most.

I started playing this game, and continue to do so, because I like football. I'm a fan of the game, that's the bottom line. Maybe it's just me, but I enjoy studying player's attributes, their strengths and weaknesses, and deciding what role they should play on the team and therefore what formations they should be on the field for. Anything that gives me more control over my roster, and thus the outcome of games, I'm in favor of.

I recognize that you do not want to simply revert back to the way depth charts were done before, so some sort of combination of the two could, in my opinion, work just as well. What I would suggest is having an advanced depth chart page similar to how it was done before, where the coach can view their 3-4, 5-2, I-Form, ND Box, etc.. Only now, instead of being able to set every position on the field, you could have the ability to set just a few (3 or 4), formation specific positions. For example, in the Nickel defense, maybe the coach could set their defensive ends, to get their best pass rusing defensive linemen on the field, their top linebacker to get a coverage guy in, and their nickel back. For the 4-4 maybe be able to set their DTs, ILBs, and S. On offense, let the coach decide their TE and RB in the ND Box and Trips as they would obviously want a different type of player at those positions for those two formations. This could be done for each position and would still keep teams from having mass 10 player substitutions between plays, since that is, for some reason, the desired result.

Aside from the new, and in my opinion far too generic way of setting depth charts, there are two or three glaring issues that have to be addressed relatively quickly. Please fix the fatigue/substitution problem. The need for depth has been completely eliminated, which is really detrimental to the entertainment level of the game. Right now it looks like a team could get by with 3 RBs, 7 OL, and 6 DL, and without the ability to substitute freely that effectively renders about 25 of a team's 50 players completely pointless.

Also, talent has to be the overriding factor in deciding the outcome of games. It has to be, otherwise what's the point? Personel decisions and gameplanning should also play a role and should be the deciding factor when two evenly matched teams meet up, but there comes a point when the talent descrepancy is just too wide and no amount of coaching should be able to overcome a team being a 35 point underdog, especially if that team is SIM controlled.

Thanks for reading, and I apologize for the long, rambling post, but I just had a few things that I wanted to get out there.

P.S
Show us the formation IQ or do away with it completely. I'd be fine with just having a player's GPA and GI determine their IQ and have Formation practice eliminated entirely.
11/19/2010 5:05 AM
Posted by dconrod on 11/18/2010 11:56:00 PM (view original):
I hope JConte understands it isn't just a little bit off, the engine isn't working at all.  Today, my #5 ranked Grove City, Hayes DIII team just barely beat the #224 ranked team in double OT.  He missed an 18 yard field goal or I could have lost.   The coach for the team I played against (Bethany) quit about 3 seasons ago so all his players except for his seniors are SIM recruits.  Talent wise his team is nowhere close to mine, as he has not logged in in months.  I have the Conference player of the year at RB and and both OL and DL are vastly better than his, yet I couldn't run the ball against him at all, and he could run against me?  So how do they develop an Engine that allows his team to EVER get within 30 points of my team?  It just makes no sense.  I should beat him 60 to 0 95 times out of 100.  On a good day for him, he should lose 56 to 10.  I believe the truth is the new Engine doesn't work, at all, and they don't know how to fix it.    I sure enjoyed the old game.  The depth chart management and "loopholes" were part of what made the game fun.   This thing needs vast improvement or I'm done.  I will miss it too. 
ROFL, enough said.
11/19/2010 6:15 AM
I will miss it, but it is unplayable.  I am going to let my all of my teams run out except one.  I will only start playing again when I think the game is worth it.  I am not the greatest coach...pretty damn average actually...but this version has taken almost all the strategy from the game.
11/19/2010 7:34 AM
looking through alot of my recruit pulls for the last few seasons (and i pull all that is with in my vision) i've known that there were more DL than OL (in relationship to formations avaible i.e. 3-4, 4-3, 4-4, an 5-2 versus always having 5 OL on the field) and their cores were on avg slightly  better than the OL for a percentage of the what i would consider top tier, even if cores were equal all other attributes were on avg better for DL than OL meaning that i saw alot of 430-470 overall rated DL compared to OL with that high of overall ratings. so it would seem to me that the talent pool of DL that are active on rosters across the board is better than OL  which I believe to help slow down the run game with the old engine. so my questions is this: is the better DL talent pool making it almost (as I percieve it) impossible to run now? also if this is the case is the quality of OL talent pool going to be upgraded as far as numbers and talent in future recruiting pools to help revert the situation?
11/19/2010 7:35 AM
Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe717 on 11/18/2010 8:03:00 PM (view original):
A huge issue I have is if game experiance is now factored into the game but with the effectivness settings being built into the game how are my underclassmen going to get game experiance? This mainly on the lines. At this point I see no need for more than 7 linemen.
This is a valid concern.  I think most real teams like to play the same guys on the OL for continuity....so subs here I think should be based on fatigue/injury.  Teams do sub players on the defensive side of the ball more frequently and perhaps we could make some modifications here to get more players into the game.  This change could be as simple as raising the threshold for when players sub out (more frequent)....or a possible additional setting on the depth chart page.
I would like to have the control over the sub ratio for the defense. Maybe a ration bar for DL and LB can be incorporated like there is for RB. If I take over a terrible team I may not want to go to the bench. Once I have a good team and start seeing better player during recruiting, I may want to go to the bench sooner.
11/19/2010 8:12 AM
Good Morning!! I am starting off this morning with a fresh attitude. LOL

Joe, In my game the other day. I had the ball at the other teams 45 with :25 left in the first half. I had 2 timeouts remaining. My QB took a knee and ran out the clock. 

I was at the other teams 45? No team would take a knee in that situation. This doesn't seem like improved end of game clock management.

I am also not happy about the SIM  deciding if my kicker can make a long FG. I was one of the guys that had my FG set to 66 yards. I made some and I missed some. If I miss I gave up great field position. Occasional I made some and maybe got 3 points to end the half instead of punting. Some coaches like to have a short FG range and they punt from my 30. This is their choice and I usually don't mind getting the ball at the 20 when they punt in to the end zone. 

I have also noticed QBs averaging 45 yards a punt and having a high success rate kicking. This is going to lead to people not having punters or kickers. 

Thanks for the input

Rob 




11/19/2010 8:15 AM
Posted by dconrod on 11/18/2010 11:56:00 PM (view original):
I hope JConte understands it isn't just a little bit off, the engine isn't working at all.  Today, my #5 ranked Grove City, Hayes DIII team just barely beat the #224 ranked team in double OT.  He missed an 18 yard field goal or I could have lost.   The coach for the team I played against (Bethany) quit about 3 seasons ago so all his players except for his seniors are SIM recruits.  Talent wise his team is nowhere close to mine, as he has not logged in in months.  I have the Conference player of the year at RB and and both OL and DL are vastly better than his, yet I couldn't run the ball against him at all, and he could run against me?  So how do they develop an Engine that allows his team to EVER get within 30 points of my team?  It just makes no sense.  I should beat him 60 to 0 95 times out of 100.  On a good day for him, he should lose 56 to 10.  I believe the truth is the new Engine doesn't work, at all, and they don't know how to fix it.    I sure enjoyed the old game.  The depth chart management and "loopholes" were part of what made the game fun.   This thing needs vast improvement or I'm done.  I will miss it too. 
I agree with every bit of that.  I absolutely loved the old engine, never had a gripe.

11/19/2010 8:18 AM
Also, talent has to be the overriding factor in deciding the outcome of games. It has to be, otherwise what's the point? Personel decisions and gameplanning should also play a role and should be the deciding factor when two evenly matched teams meet up, but there comes a point when the talent descrepancy is just too wide and no amount of coaching should be able to overcome a team being a 35 point underdog, especially if that team is SIM controlled. 



Very well said.  That is what I hate most about the new engine......talent doesn't matter anymore.


11/19/2010 8:36 AM (edited)
Posted by bhouska on 11/19/2010 8:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dconrod on 11/18/2010 11:56:00 PM (view original):
I hope JConte understands it isn't just a little bit off, the engine isn't working at all.  Today, my #5 ranked Grove City, Hayes DIII team just barely beat the #224 ranked team in double OT.  He missed an 18 yard field goal or I could have lost.   The coach for the team I played against (Bethany) quit about 3 seasons ago so all his players except for his seniors are SIM recruits.  Talent wise his team is nowhere close to mine, as he has not logged in in months.  I have the Conference player of the year at RB and and both OL and DL are vastly better than his, yet I couldn't run the ball against him at all, and he could run against me?  So how do they develop an Engine that allows his team to EVER get within 30 points of my team?  It just makes no sense.  I should beat him 60 to 0 95 times out of 100.  On a good day for him, he should lose 56 to 10.  I believe the truth is the new Engine doesn't work, at all, and they don't know how to fix it.    I sure enjoyed the old game.  The depth chart management and "loopholes" were part of what made the game fun.   This thing needs vast improvement or I'm done.  I will miss it too. 
I agree with every bit of that.  I absolutely loved the old engine, never had a gripe.

I looked at that game - the talent difference was roughly 95 points on team averages. The opponent OL had 2 guys with blk>40, and his DL averaged 49/48. The RBs were pretty good, but good enough to run behind a crappy line? Not sure.

I have no problem with the scores not ending up 71-0, but that matchup should be an average of 3-4 TD spread.

By the way, after the 5th inning of the Big 12 CC in Hayes, your score is Texas 2, Nebraska 2.
11/19/2010 8:32 AM
I have no problem with the scores not ending up 71-0, but that matchup should be an average of 3-4 TD spread.



What's wrong with 71-0???  It happens in real life.  And it damn sure would happen with a talent discrepancy that high.


Give me 71-0 vs. a horrible SimAI instead of losing to them any time!

11/19/2010 8:36 AM
I have 22 seniors on my UAB team in Camp, so by your accounts my team should be one of the better teams based on experience. I had been practicing formations all season. Yet my team struggles. My team was a passing team with an experienced QB and WR. My 2 WRs were averaging each over 20 yards per catch. Now I watch my QB complete passes less than 4 yards and occasionally he comes up with one long pass. 

My running game is almost non existent despite having a better OL and RBs than some of the teams I played. I have watched teams with much lower core players dominate my teams. Maybe some guys have figured it out and it will take me time, but I have played this game for almost 6 years now. I shouldn't be guessing as to what I have to do. There are so many hidden factors. (ie) GPA meaning something. This comes out after we have recruited for some teams and played how many games (3)? I don't mind experimenting, but I have no idea and I am losing games. 

I think an easy fix to the substitution problem would have been to put a cap on the effectiveness settings. You did this once when you set it at 90. OL could have been capped at 70, DL at 75-80, Skilled players 80. I like what you have done with the 3rd down, short yardage back and slot WR. I would like to maybe see a blitzing LB or  a slot for Pass rushing DE. We definitely need something for the TE position. I want my pass catching TE in the game late and I am behind or in some 3rd and 25 situation, but currently I have no way of getting him into the game. 

Thanks once again,

Rob

11/19/2010 8:38 AM
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12|13|14 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.