Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 6:43:00 PM (view original):
I just made the following post in the Critical News forum:


Why does it seem that talent is not as important?

Talent is still very important with the new engine and is the basis for every single outcome within it.  Each outcome within the engine is still decided by the talent on the field and a player who is rated 85 is still better in that given skill than a player who is rated 75.  However, those skill ratings are not used "as is" within the engine and are modified by the player's IQ and experience.  This modification can be as much as 12.5% in either direction.  This means that the player who has the 85 rating could actually be playing at an equivalent of a 74.375 to 95.625 rating and the 75 rated player could be playing at an equivalent rating of 65.625 to 84.375.  Those are the extremes, but you can see that there are 10 points of overlap where these two players could be performing.  This system allows the senior who has been learning and playing for four seasons to possibly outperform the incoming freshman who could have higher ratings.  It also makes building teams up a little easier while making it more difficult for teams to stay on top.

With all of that said, we are looking at the results from the early games on the new engine and are open to making changes.  We do not want to make a change before truly looking into the results and the reasons for the results.  This is going to take some time, but rest assured that we want nothing more than for everyone to agree with the results they are seeing and enjoy playing the game.

Posted by slid64er on 11/18/2010 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Looking at that game, I'd say that players who are out of position are not being penalized enough -- just a first reaction.

I think that's only a small part of the problem.  The sub was terrible, so even if he wasn't penalized at all it wouldn't have made much of a difference in the overall defensive line stats.

Also, I'd like to thank you for coming onto the boards in this firestorm.  I think you'll find that most of us really want this game to succeed and will do whatever we can to help make it better.

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.

Posted by rdawg on 11/18/2010 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 11/18/2010 8:27:00 PM (view original):
I posted this in the council since the council is being ignored I will post it here. This pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

I was originally going to give it 2 months but I think I am going to quit my teams sooner. I don't believe midway through the season our  season should be thrown into such chaos. This could of been avoided by introducing these changes at the start of the season and by beta testing these changes before the season, but now if customers do what they say they are going to do, they are going to  leave enmasse...... I don't care about the money or reward points, what I care about is that I spend a lot of time recruiting and setting depth charts, and I am a little upset about my Syracuse lost today, who was ranked 2nd, and they lost in large thanks too 2 bugs. Its possible the only reason I was ranked 2nd was because others lost because they got screwed......

I am pretty upset right now, maybe I will change my mind before my seasons run out, but I am a few more big bug losses away from not signing into GD anymore and letting my teams die until the credits end and my teams turn sim.

What is with all the 0 and 1 yard passes and a breakaway running play is 4 yards?

This is the type of post that really gets my attention.  Plague is legendary in this game, across multiple worlds.

When the long term, top players in the game [and Plague is only one of many expressing similar dissatisfaction] suggest that the new game engine is awful, it is time to pay attention if you are WIS.

I agree 100%--I am strongly considering leaving...after an enjoyable six year run in gridiron dynasty.

Posted by sslodus on 11/18/2010 9:50:00 PM (view original):

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.

In real life do Offensive Lineman wear down over a game less than Defensive Lineman or is it just that continuity among the offensive line outweighs the benefit that rotating linemen would bring?

I guess making Oline fatigue rate similar to QB with Dline fatigue and substitution being higher would do the trick either way.

Posted by plague on 11/18/2010 10:06:00 PM (view original):
I am not saying I am leaving yet, but I am right on the edge, more on the edge today than I was yesterday. All the TIME  I spent building a program, and too lose a game and a championship game chance due to a few bugs. While I am upset about that, I was probably only ranked that high because someone else got screwed. There is probably dozen maybe more people mad as hell in the same world because their championship run was ruined by a bug.

There is coaches who probably had their best chances at a championship ruined because of this change.

We absolutely should not be beta testing mid season. Something this radical should not of occurred mid season. This should of been introduced at the start of the season, and if we are going to beta test at least we would of had 3 preseason games to beta test and adjust. I would of been a lot less upset if this change was rolled in at the start of each season.

I agree that the update should've rolled in at the start of new seasons, but I think we can all agree that the update should also not suck so badly.

Posted by plague on 11/18/2010 10:06:00 PM (view original):
I am not saying I am leaving yet, but I am right on the edge, more on the edge today than I was yesterday. All the TIME  I spent building a program, and too lose a game and a championship game chance due to a few bugs. While I am upset about that, I was probably only ranked that high because someone else got screwed. There is probably dozen maybe more people mad as hell in the same world because their championship run was ruined by a bug.

There is coaches who probably had their best chances at a championship ruined because of this change.

We absolutely should not be beta testing mid season. Something this radical should not of occurred mid season. This should of been introduced at the start of the season, and if we are going to beta test at least we would of had 3 preseason games to beta test and adjust. I would of been a lot less upset if this change was rolled in at the start of each season.

Posted by ebel331 on 11/18/2010 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by slid64er on 11/18/2010 7:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Looking at that game, I'd say that players who are out of position are not being penalized enough -- just a first reaction.

I think that's only a small part of the problem.  The sub was terrible, so even if he wasn't penalized at all it wouldn't have made much of a difference in the overall defensive line stats.

Also, I'd like to thank you for coming onto the boards in this firestorm.  I think you'll find that most of us really want this game to succeed and will do whatever we can to help make it better.

Even as a 'first reaction' that answer is so far from acceptable it really just ****** me off even more. 

That was one of the most dominant teams in ALL OF GD.  Who cares about an out-of-position penalty?  Even if it had 1 more guy for a minimum number of starters, they were completely outmatched.  There is really no acceptable excuse for that result.

Really nothing I read from Conte in this thread even comes close to explaining the ridiculous **** we have been subjected to the last couple days. 

Dropping this complete turd of an update on us in the middle of seasons really just shows a complete lack of appreciation for the TME and EFFORT users put into their teams.  

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.