Planned Update - Later this Year Topic

Posted by katzphang88 on 2/18/2012 6:01:00 PM (view original):
Hello Norbert: Now that the community has given many outstanding and creative ideas regarding this phase of the update to GD III, what are your observations about what may be in the works?
Yes, Norbert, what are your thoughts as to what needs/ will be implemented? What is your POA?
2/19/2012 1:06 PM
Posted by da_goat on 2/16/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by nittanylions on 2/16/2012 1:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by fermor332002 on 2/16/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by DKC on 2/16/2012 11:42:00 AM (view original):
here's an easy thing that will make MANY coaches happy:  Trim the recruiting period by at least a day, preferably two.  If it is somehow a programming issue with the overall world schedule, then tack on the trimmed days to the off season, preferably to the period where new coaches can sign up.

the majority of the people don't need that many days after the signing cycle.  We just sit around and wait, and wait, which is a real excitment/momentum killer.  Shorten the wait time, and increase the window in which new coaches can sign up.  A win win if you ask me.

+1 add a 4th EXgame to kill the time. :-)
+1 Outstanding ideas
+1
The downtime of recruiting is waaaaaay too long. Adding another exhibition game is a good idea.
I agree recruiting time needs to be shortened. Most recuiting is done at signing and one more day for battles is plenty. Why don't we add more games for exibition and the regular season. I know that is not like real life, but who cares. If it is a matter of cost to run the engine more, I'm sure you will make up the costs in getting more people to play. I know there are people on here that have several teams to fill in the lag time, but I don't feel like putting out that much money.
2/24/2012 3:06 PM
Posted by norbert on 2/17/2012 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Okay, kind of off track at this point, but we might look at the recruiting phase before this update.  It would disrupt the even month for a season, so seasons would start on different days being less predictable, but all of our other games are like that and don't have a problem.  I think if we cut two days, one of the days would be before signings start and the other after.
is there a way to do this without making recruiting dates dynamic?  A lot of us have chosen to join specific worlds for its specific recruiting dates.  I actually prefer to give up a shortened recruiting period if it means I can have the same recruiting dates every month.  Just my opinion.
2/24/2012 3:37 PM
i know its been mentioned, but I would love more time for a rebuild. 7 or 8 seasons instead of 5. If a team has been sim for 4 years and/or only has 10 wins over the previous 3 years. something like that might give rebuilds a fighting chance.
2/24/2012 5:52 PM
FIrst of all, adding a 4th exhib game would be great (or setting up something where users can do their own exhib tourneys)

Secondly, I'd really like to be able to see who's considering the school, as opposed to what school a recruit is considering. In HD, there is a recruiting tab where you can see who and how many a school has considering them, and I am sure it wouldn't be too hard to implement. It would allow us to easily see what we are up against and to pick battles even more strategically.
2/24/2012 8:10 PM
I can't believe I read all 13 pages... Well, here goes my .02

I haven't played this in a over a year or more since the game was completely destroyed by the previous handler... Norbert seems to be a legitimate and fully invested guy so I figure this is worth my time.

1) Bring back formation depth charts - This was so tremendous, I can't even explain. So I won't. However, I do have one caveat, and that will be below.

2) Bring back pass distribution setting - Once a great player told me how this worked (gtdeuce), I starting recruiting for a pass heavy team, and my win total took off. If I pass, I want to make sure my best wideout/TE is *ALWAYS* my first look. Chances are if he's good enough, he'll be open and catch it, and that's what we want lol

3) Get rid of formation IQ - Anybody who has played football knows you don't practice formations, you practice plays. You can have one played called 22 Zone, and you can run it out of 9 different formations. This chunk of code is completely useless. IF YOU WANT SOME KIND OF IQ CODE IN THE GAME, WHY NOT MAKE A PASS/RUN IQ... ESSENTIALLY MEANING, WHEN YOU PRACTICE PASS IQ, YOUR PRACTICING "PASSING PLAYS" AND THE SAME WITH RUN IQ. PASS HEAVY TEAMS CAN RUN VERY HIGH PASS IQ, AND VICE VERSA WITH RUN HEAVY TEAMS, LIKE IN REAL LIFE I SUPPOSE.

4) Allow out-of-position depth chart placement - Maybe in my ND Box, I'd like an extra tackle in there? That's not unrealistic, let me do it! Maybe I've got a Reggie Bush or Dexter McCluster on my team... Why can't I split him out? Let me do it! What if I've got a slow DB but he's got great LB attributes? How come I can't move him down into the box? LET ME DO IT... Lol


Things not to let happen:

1) No OL rotations - Completely unrealistic, period.

2) Stamina/Depth should matter - Completely realistic.

It's late for me, I probably missed stuff I'll think of later...
2/25/2012 4:53 AM
not sure norbert that anything you do is gonna please the crowd =  so many things   

I do know that some coaches have gone back to the point of no formation practice as they have said it makes no diff
have seen some SIM teams do well  even in playoffs that have HORRIBLE formation skills as well as mediocre players ( this is recent )

have noticed qbs actually getting sacked and fumbling recently which never happened before and is very realistic  :  )

seems that lines would be more dominating on both sides    a top 3 dline in the world should be living in the backfield vs some of these teams

game is far far less predictable which is very good in some ways, but still seems very very random at times

see many teams now literally throwin every play -  the best dbs esp with a super dline should slow these teams down

lots of fantasy things out there   this is still great   but very frustrating when a back with 40 elusiv and 45 speed can run for over a hundred
ever  let alone vs a team that has good lbs and a dline much much better than the ol it is facing

gl norbert  -  people such as bhouska and the other top top coaches should be asked for their input as they have helped make the game go as well as help those who are learning or are titleless - I can think of one such owner
2/26/2012 10:05 PM
Obviously, we aren't going to be able to work in all the suggestions to make everyone happy. That would be impossible in some cases where different people want different things.  So we will have to make some decisions, but that will be later down the road.  I have had a little time to digest the suggestions and think about a few things and I can tell you where I think we are headed.  I've mostly only been able to concentrate on offense and will require some time to think about defense later.  This by no means is the absolute final decision, but probably worth mentioning.

So how I see offensive playbook settings changing:
- Depth Charts: Basic Depth Charts would be as they are now, possibly just having one WR chart.  Advanced Depth Charts would allow you set subset of the Basic Depth Charts, like Blocking TE or Deep WR.  We'd have to come up with a list later.  Could you name your own Depth Charts?  Possibly, but it depends on how much we want to be able to copy between your teams if you have multiple teams.
- Play List.  For each play, pick a formation.  Should have more options than we have now, like with 3 WRs you could have them split or trips and such.  Somehow (one of the things yet to be determined) define what each player is doing.  Ideally, you could set one or two routes for receivers and conditions for running them.  It's possible to start this out that we end up with just a grab bag of standard plays you could use, like you might see on a video game.  For these plays, you could select which Depth Chart would be used to select the player.  With all this in mind, if we went all out on it, you might have an option to set your TE to pass block and set him to pull from the Blocking TE depth chart, or you could set him to certain routes and set him to Receiving TE depth chart.  We'd have to see how creative we can get on those settings after I've spent some time on the engine.
- Game Plans.  Just as we have now, you would select plays that could be used for each down and distance, but the difference is you would be selecting plays from your Plays List and that determines formation and how the play is run.  We will add a percentage weighted value on the play so you could have higher chance to pick one play over another.  Instead of setting Style and Tendency here, that would be dictated by your play you select.  A play with more deep routes would be more Aggressive than one with more short routes.

Other aspects of this that need more thought:
- Passing Distribution: We can set passing distribution, like setting target check list.  Not sure if this would be on the play in the Play List or when you select it in the Game Plan.  When we work out what conditions we could key off of, it would be cool if we could customize plays based on conditions.  For instance, use a different passing distribution when your QB recognizes the blitz, or change to a rushing play when you see certain coverage.
- Play Customizations: Conditional settings for plays as mentioned above.  Do we need a way to distinguish between a play being called on 1st down and that same play being called on 4th?  How do we handle considerations for location on the field?
- Overall Play Style: Conditional settings for game plans.  We currently have the Winning/Losing settings and that may be continued, but I'd like to examine other ways of handling this.  I would definitely like to see ways of setting your desired style of play and maybe we have a few preset selections, like Passing and Running, which just say I want to pass more than rush and such.  Then we could modify the random selection of the play to make sure overall your team plays like you want.  We could even have selections to start heavy on passing and move to rushing and varieties like that.  Of course, there needs to be some defensive complements to those settings and some reason to make those changes or else they'd be kind of empty settings.  It's possible that instead of switching to whole new Game Plans for game conditions, that you would adjust your Play Style based on conditions and maintain your Game Plan and Play List.

All of these changes hinge on the idea that we can change the engine to break down the plays more.  I wouldn't put settings in the game that have no effect in the engine.  Reworking how the engine simulates each play is key.  It will need to break down the play a lot more and the status of each player will need to be determined to accomplish this.  The idea would be that this will help in evaluating match ups between teams during each play and provide a better assessment on how each of your players are playing.  How long it takes to work on the engine will determine how crazy we go with the game setting changes.  It should also help with mismatched games and if a lower rated team does actually beat a higher rated team, we should at least be able to show what contributed to the results.

What won't be worked on in this update:
- Recruiting and Ratings.  I won't really have time to work on updating recruiting or player ratings and development.  I will work on the engine with the idea of allowing these to be changed in a future update.  I'd really like to see us change the rating system to something a little more specific to positions and specific parts of the game.  I'd also like to see us turn recruiting into something a little more fun, but that's a huge discussion we'd have to have and I'm not even spending time on that.
- Schedules. I won't be spending time on schedules, both world schedules and game schedules.  At most, it's possible we reduce the amount of time during recruiting, but I don't want to just yank that without thoroughly thinking about the consequences.
- Everything else.  Anything I haven't mentioned will not be worked on.

I really, really want to spend all the time I can on improving the engine.  Working on the engine goes hand-in-hand with the game plans, so those will be worked on as well.  It's possible something else gets worked on, but I don't want to promise anything other than the engine and game plan changes until I know we have time.
2/27/2012 3:01 PM
 Good start.
2/27/2012 6:34 PM
Norbert this all sounds great. In particular I find the idea of setting passing distributions for each play really promising if possible. I think that this will allow the coaches to design specific packages and plays to play to the strengths of our players.
2/27/2012 8:13 PM
Norbert wrote:
All of these changes hinge on the idea that we can change the engine to break down the plays more.  I wouldn't put settings in the game that have no effect in the engine.  Reworking how the engine simulates each play is key.  It will need to break down the play a lot more and the status of each player will need to be determined to accomplish this.  The idea would be that this will help in evaluating match ups between teams during each play and provide a better assessment on how each of your players are playing.  How long it takes to work on the engine will determine how crazy we go with the game setting changes.  It should also help with mismatched games and if a lower rated team does actually beat a higher rated team, we should at least be able to show what contributed to the results.

If proper attention is given to the expanded play by play, it would work as a check for changes to the engine and we would be able to see if the proper player is given credit where it should occur during game play.


POPULATE HEISMAN!
2/27/2012 9:38 PM
Sounds like some good stuff, norbert!
Please make sure this is EXTENSIVELY beta-tested BEFORE it is released to the masses. I don't know if the GD council is still around, but be sure to put them on it and anyone else they may recommend.
2/27/2012 11:21 PM
I see no mention of Player IQ.....is it still going to be part of the new game?


2/28/2012 8:00 AM
Posted by bhouska1 on 2/28/2012 8:00:00 AM (view original):
I see no mention of Player IQ.....is it still going to be part of the new game?


I won't be reworking ratings in the sense that I won't be changing player development or adding or removing ratings.  What will happen is that ratings may get folded into the engine differently.  Nothing to the point that player positions change their desired ratings.  I plan on building the rating inputs in a way that will allow us to change the ratings in the future.  So for Formation IQs, I will be reviewing how they are used in the engine and try to make sure they make sense and take into account the lower rating development (i.e. not use 50 as the average point).  Whenever we look at updating ratings and development, then is when we would look at if we want Formation IQs or if there is a better way to implement what they are trying to accomplish.
2/28/2012 10:52 AM
I think you are on your way to making this game too detailed.  I am against adding plays, but for adding more formations.  You talk about lining up WRs in different places.  How do you set up different defenses for that and will it even make a difference.  If you are thinking about giving the QB the ability to change the play, are you going to give the defense the ability to change also?

The game only needs some tweaks, not a complete redo.  The funny part is that the Depth Chart and the Distribution changes were taken away from us with this new engine and will now be part of the game again.  That is a good thing.
2/28/2012 3:09 PM
◂ Prev 1...11|12|13|14|15...31 Next ▸
Planned Update - Later this Year Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.