Posted by lbrown6 on 11/19/2010 10:23:00 AM (view original):
I threw an incomplete pass today that somehow was picked off.  How can that be.  This is just not fun anymore.  I DONT gameplan now.  Why bother

An intercepted pass counts as an incompletion.  However, it's clear that the PBP description could use some cleanup.

11/19/2010 10:47 AM
Posted by polabonez on 11/19/2010 10:46:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pttsbrghkid on 11/19/2010 10:29:00 AM (view original):
I'm curious if any worlds are currently in their exhibition season still.

Would like to see the results of a DI human vs DIII sim, just to compare.  If that doesn't generate a blowout........
Tonight.  Recruiting starts in warner.

Hit me up JIBE -DIII  Ferrum in Warner.  (First season with the team, should have all SIMAI Formation IQ and all of their bonus perks)

I'll accept Minnesota first so that game goes tonight.

I'll send you one with Temple too, pola.


11/19/2010 10:49 AM
Might be interesting to see the outcome for a team without formation practice for comparison.  Indy DII if someone wants an exhibition (Warner)
11/19/2010 10:52 AM
I thought that's what we were doing, no formation practice, but I'll send you one too, lyonz.

11/19/2010 10:54 AM
JConte, is there a chance that the IQ modifier could be having an opposite effect somewhere in the code?  I, amongst many other coaches who have been practicing formations for a long time, have seen a spike in penalties and a huge drop off in production since the update.  Could there be something in the code that is accidentally causing a negative effect when it should be having a positive effect?  Food for thought...
11/19/2010 10:54 AM
Posted by bhouska on 11/19/2010 10:54:00 AM (view original):
I thought that's what we were doing, no formation practice, but I'll send you one too, lyonz.

Sorry about that.  I thought I read a previously sim run team, so they had formation IQ.  Can get lost with 14 pgs of discussion.
11/19/2010 10:55 AM
Posted by reeeems on 11/19/2010 10:20:00 AM (view original):


nobody else is out there with this type of online fantasy football game.   

Take this as a lesson in markets:   this is how a firm operates when it has no competition.
Yep, same story with EA Sports video games that have exclusive licenses.  They put out the same game every year with updated rosters and it sells because of the licenses.  Then in a sport (NBA) where their license is not exclusive, SEGA comes in and puts together a superior game to EA and EA decides not to even release their game because it's so terrible.

It's too bad I don't know much about programming.
11/19/2010 11:32 AM
HAHA....like JConte reads this. But I agree, my teams have always practiced formations so I dont but thay crap that it is all about the formation practices.
11/19/2010 11:35 AM
In Warner I was going to do an exhibition game vs a team of each level, so a D-III team, a D-II team, and a D-IAA team.

Sim teams, that is.
11/19/2010 11:36 AM
Jconte,

The problems with the game now are:

1) the BIG plays are too random (INT returns, Punt returns, 50+ yard passes, 50+ yard runs), and too significant.  No way we can control or gameplan for them, and talent doesn't affect them.....there are 2 or 3 deciding plays in each half with an equal chance of going for you or against you. The problem is that the other "normal" plays are 0 yard runs or 2 yard passes, with no significance to the game, they are just filler in the play-by-play....making the BIG plays not ONE OF the significant things in determining the game, but now those few big plays are the ONLY thing that determines the game.  If SIM teams or inferior human-coached team end up with 1 or 2 of those more of those big plays in their favor, then your better team is defeated.  Period.  End of story.  95% of the plays are totally meaningless, why bother expanding the P-by-P on them, just put a description "meaningless play" for them.

2) The +/- 12.5 % factor in player's experience is not only way TOO MUCH, it's not the change that should have been made.  It will skew the game where the advantage goes to teams that have one large class that can play 4 seasons, then they will abandon the team when that class graduates.  If I stay I'll be looking for such teams, coach them 4 seasons and leave when my big class of 4-year starters graduates.  You should be able to see this coming.  Then no longer should the game be called Gridiron "Dynasty" when we start hopping around from team to team.

The change that SHOULD HAVE BEEN made is offenses/defenses should have been rewarded/penalized along these lines for how well they strategized or guessed the opponent's game plan, that is what has always been lacking in the game.  It hardly mattered if you guessed correctly on run or pass defense.  My idea is if I played Always Run defense vs Always Run offense, the player's performance should have been affected +/- 5% (-5% for them and +5% for me, a total swing of 10% in my favor for playing against my opponent correctly, or the opposite if I misplay my tendency)....then my 65 Str/65 Tkl DL would have been 68.25 and his 70-core OL/RBs would have been 66.5, tilting it in my favor and my proper defense tendency made up for my slight talent deficiency.  Playing Always Run defense vs Heavy Run offense would have been +/- 2.5%, playing Heavy Run defense vs Always Run offense would have been +/- 2.5%.....likewise, +/- 5% for Always Pass defense vs Always Pass offense, and +/- 2.5% for Heavy Pass defense vs Always Pass offense or Always Pass defense vs Heavy Pass offense.  Then flip it over, +/- 5% in offense's favor if Always Run vs Always Pass defense, or +/- 2.5% for Heavy Run vs Always Pass defense or Always Run vs Heavy Pass defense.  I would have left the impact of Run, Balanced, and Pass tendencies as is with no additional adjustment for them vs any other tendency. 

This would have added strategy and control to the +/- percentages that affect the play, guess right and you benefit, and vice versa.  And it's realistic, LBs totally playing run get drawn in and bite on play action fakes and suffer in pass defense, CBs totally playing pass turn and run with a WR and don't react to a run quick enough, DL going all out on pass rush get trap blocked easily on running plays, offense passing vs dropping LBs should would have fared better running, safeties in the box playing the run are more likely to get burned on a pass, etc etc etc.

3) The other problem with new engine is yardage on play results.  Too many plays 2 yards or less makes too many plays meaningless, not enough drives, not enough strategy or signficance related to talent.  The only change needed in this regard was A) Average of runs should have stayed about the same, but the Mean should have been changed.  Instead of a steady stream of 4, 5, 6, and 7 yard runs as previous (avg of 5.5 in this example, which was about what the game yielded), which resulted in too many unstoppable drives consisting of nothing but running plays, the yardage on running plays should have been mostly 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 yards with enough longer runs of 10 to 50 yards to make the average remain 5.5 yards per carry.  Much harder to make first downs in 3 running plays when bulk of running plays averages 4 yards per carry than if they average 5.5 yards per carry, because a trio of 2 and 3 yard runs will occur more often resulting in 4th down somewhere during the drive.  Then, B) change the 4th down conversion to less than 50%, no matter the talent or the real-life conversion percentages, just make the game so 4th down conversions are not consistently worth the gamble unless you are desperate and have to go for it.

4) Depth Charts/Playing Experience, I don't care for new engine's depth charts, but if you are going to leave it as is I suggest a couple of things A) one fatigue setting for entire offense depth chart, and one for entire defense depth chart.  For example, a coach could set his depth chart for entire offense at 90%, 85%, 80%, 75%, or 70%, which would then be the setting for every player at position.  And the coach has to live with consequenses if he sets it too high or too low.  Just give us the control to do this much. And B) add a blowout setting where we empty the bench, where we can play the bottom players on depth chart at each position (for example, bottom 5 OL) once we get ahead by a certain amount of points with so much time left (example, ahead by 14 with 8 minutes left), just give us control over getting all players at least a little game experience.

Also, you could close the loophole on promised starts and playing time by doing away with it.  It was added in previous update, did little to make game more enjoyable, and few would miss it.  Once upon a time, we got by fine without those recruiting features.

Another problem you should note is that inferior SIMs are going to take some playoff spots from better and more deserving human-coached teams.  My 13-0 #4 ranked team in Camp DIII is losing confernence title game to #58 ranked 8-5 SIM, I will feel rotten if I lose and a human coach gets bumped from the playoffs but there's little I can do under present engine.  I'm trying to win but doubt if I will.  If SIM teams gets the random big plays then I lose and a human coach finishing in top 32 loses a playoff spot.  You can explain to him how this happened.
11/19/2010 1:29 PM (edited)
As a concept I don't mind the 12.5% variance.  The ratings should be variable- it reflects something real.  The application seems to be the heart of the problem.  Games shouldn't be absolutely predictable but there shouldn't be anarchy either, and it seems like things are tilting too far toward anarchy.

Done right I would think variability of ratings should diminish through time.  So a Freshman may experience the full 12.5% +/- range and be less predictable..  To me a senior should have less of a +/- range and more likely to perform at their published rating.  Or at the very least has less unpredictability for upperclassmen.  I would also expect the ratings to move toward the published rating at halftime, with underperforming Jr/Srs moving more toward the published number than Fr/So and overperforming Jr/Sr regressing less.
11/19/2010 2:06 PM
Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rdawg on 11/18/2010 8:17:00 PM (view original):
JConte, I have a question for you that is probably on the minds of many coaches: what was the rationale behind rolling out a completely NEW game logic with this update?

Please note that I am not criticizing the decision to utilize an updated game engine rather than untangle the complexity of updating the code of the old one--no issue with that. 

I'm referring to the strategic decision to essentially scrap the old game and make gameplay fundamentally different, with an entirely different set of relevant variables?  Beyond allusions to the changes being implemented to make the game"better," "enhanced," or "improved," since those are entirely subjective outcomes?

Given some of the comments above about losing membership / participants, I think this may have been a miscalculation.

Thanks in advance for your reponse.
The reasoning behind the changes are in the Critical News post (Update FAQ...last question I think).  We decided that the old engine (written in VB6) was past its prime and was becoming difficult to maintain and update.  We decided to rewrite the engine (in C#) and rather than simply copy the logic, we took the opportunity to analyze everything and make all necessary changes to make the final result as realistic as possible.  The items listed in the FAQ were some of the main focus items.  The engine is also now positioned to run both college and NFL games with an eye towards creating an NFL Dynasty game using the same engine.

9/18/2009 7:30 PM jeffkahleb Question

How is the pro-football version of hardball dynasty coming along?

Thanks Jeff 9/20/2009 1:01 PM Customer Support.

We are not currently working on a pro-football dynasty...though we have talked about it.

11/20/2010 9:15 AM
Pro football dynasty, that would be cool.
11/20/2010 9:18 AM
Posted by jeffkahleb on 11/20/2010 9:18:00 AM (view original):
Pro football dynasty, that would be cool.
Then we would have 50 yard pass interference penelties and be able to score 
11/20/2010 9:45 AM
If it's based on HBD, it would be great.  Based on GD?  Not so much.
11/20/2010 9:51 AM
◂ Prev 1...12|13|14

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.