Posted by 2chair on 11/18/2010 7:53:00 PM (view original):
Joe, I understand you could not test every little thing, but - did you test a lousy team against a good team? These are not minor or subtle flaws. But it makes a big difference to have you listening to complaints. Overall, we want these games to make sense. I think the biggest immediate concern is allowing sufficient advantage for better talent and stamina. If you want more parity, then make recruiting good talent easier for new coaches. I would like for new coaches to take over a aim and be competitive in 2-3 seasons instead of 8-12. But we should not be shocked when slid64er beats a sim! Better teams usually win, and they should not lose just because of some aebitrary desire for parity.

Posted by lyonzfan37 on 11/18/2010 7:59:00 PM (view original):
I think there are some unintended consequences with the fact that the advanced depth charts are no longer used.  The coach is now on the same level as the Sim in terms of substitution.  I suspect this will lead to less populated worlds, as many will not want to undertake the challenge of a rebuild, as even defeating a Sim run team has become a struggle.

Bottom line, I don't think there will be many people sticking around after they get beat by the sim repeatedly.

Thanks.

Posted by onside on 11/18/2010 8:02:00 PM (view original):
Joe, 

Another question - does weight play a factor in the decision to make a DL into a DT?   Ordinarily, you would look for the high strength 310-330 lb guys for DT and not put 280 lb high strength guys at DT

Thanks for taking the time to answer questions.

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 7:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jag22 on 11/18/2010 7:51:00 PM (view original):
When doing a recruit search, we can see the core categories,  ATH, SP, DUR, WE, STA, STR, BLK, TACK, HAN, GI, EL, TEC  but there's no way to know what a recruits GPA is without opening the recruit's profile.  IF GPA is now a factor in intelligence and a factor that could cause you to steer away from a recruit than that is enough to warrant inclusion as an additional core category.  Instead of having 12 we should have 13.

I hadn't thought about that...we may be able to get something in there for it.

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by 2chair on 11/18/2010 7:53:00 PM (view original):
Joe, I understand you could not test every little thing, but - did you test a lousy team against a good team? These are not minor or subtle flaws. But it makes a big difference to have you listening to complaints. Overall, we want these games to make sense. I think the biggest immediate concern is allowing sufficient advantage for better talent and stamina. If you want more parity, then make recruiting good talent easier for new coaches. I would like for new coaches to take over a aim and be competitive in 2-3 seasons instead of 8-12. But we should not be shocked when slid64er beats a sim! Better teams usually win, and they should not lose just because of some aebitrary desire for parity.

Of course we testing every range of team.  When I run 5000 games of a 80 average rated team against a 20 average rated team, the 80 rated team wins more than 99% of the time.  I think this is reasonable.  The percentage moves closer to 50% as the team average ratings move closer to 50 vs. 50 where it is 50%.  The progression makes perfect sense when viewed at this macro level.

Am I concerned over the number of upsets that are showing up in these early games?  Honestly, yes.  I want talent to be the overriding factor and we thought we had the engine calibrated accordingly.  I do not currently know why so many upsets are happening.  There are many very complicated interactions going on in the simulation of each game and pinpointing where changes are needed is time not a quick process.

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.

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.

Posted by JConte on 11/18/2010 8:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by lyonzfan37 on 11/18/2010 7:59:00 PM (view original):
I think there are some unintended consequences with the fact that the advanced depth charts are no longer used.  The coach is now on the same level as the Sim in terms of substitution.  I suspect this will lead to less populated worlds, as many will not want to undertake the challenge of a rebuild, as even defeating a Sim run team has become a struggle.

Bottom line, I don't think there will be many people sticking around after they get beat by the sim repeatedly.

Thanks.

Sim teams should not be complete walk overs either.  I don't think that it is good to have them be guaranteed wins.  At the same time, I agree that sims beating coached teams all the time is not good either.  It is a delicate balance and we need to find it.

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.