Going off of what mrfortune3 said above about Red Zone settings, I'd like to suggest allowing us to define what "Red Zone" means for our team. Having it hardcoded to being the from the 20 to the goal line as it is right now can make it difficult to really make effective game plan decisions.

For example, on defensive I might choose to run a 4-4 against the I-Formation inside my 5 yrd line rather than the 4-3. However, I really can't make that choice right now because in the current settings I'd have to starting running the 4-4 inside my 20, which is probably not the best idea.

Comparable scenarios exist for the offensive, of course. I may want to switch to conservative or very conservative throws inside my opponents 10, but not necessarily outside that range.

I'd like to think I bring an interesting perspective to this discussion since I played under the old system, took almost 2 years off, and I am now back.  A lot of things have improved, but one thing has gotten worse.  It used to be that having 50 player that can all play mattered.  Now its pretty clear a team with 30 quality players is not a significant disadvantage over the the team with 50.  Players 31-50 should matter.  Maybe this gets accomplished with formation specific depth charts like it used to.  Maybe the importance of stamina is increased and the out of position penalty is increased.  Maybe there are more small injuries.  There are a number of good ways to accomplish this.  Somehow, especially on defensive and on the offensive line, depth should matter.

Already been brought up to some degree, but formations should matter more:

ANY team, even a bad rushing team, should be able to easily run (with I-Form, NDB, or WB) on a Dime defense.  For example: the median rushing attempt ought to be 8 or 9 yards when the talent is equal, and even if the Dime D is way better than a rushing, the median rushing attempt still oughta be 4-5 yards.  Against Nickel it probably ought to be 6-7 yards in the first case, and 3-4 in the second. 
And the same thing (perhaps to a lesser extent) on passing out of Trips or SG vs 4-4 or 5-2: maybe a 10% or 20% boost to the chances of completing a pass, and an extra 3-4 YAC. 

The same principle should apply when passing out of NDB or WB against Dime or Nickel, but in reverse.

Some RBs should be designated as Darren Sproles types (high ELU, H, ATH, maybe GI too)- and actually catch a lot of passes, if the coach so desires (and their ability allows)!

If these changes do happen, then recruiting needs to change.  You should be able to recruit all over the country to find players that fit your system.  If you run a pistol offense and try to recruit a pro-style QB, he should not be interested in your school.  Be more specific with recruits.....DB's that are good at man to man, or better at zone, or can do both well.  Sending out letters/phone calls during the season to see if recruits would be interested in your program before we start recruiting would be very helpful.  Maybe during the process, the level of interest could go up if he becomes more/very interested in your program and recruiting should be easier for that recruit.   The system that you play, the coaches loyalty and reputation, team record under the coach, ranking, CC won, NC won, should all be a factor if the recruit would be interested in coming to your school (not who has the most money).  Proximity should be a factor, but not the biggest factor in recruiting.  Also, there should be a group of recruits that are just ATH (athletes) that can play many positions without penalty...and/or bring back the positions changes that we used to be able to do without much penalty.  It makes recruiting more interesting if you can change players to other positions and find some great players that others missed.  Changing positions in college happens all the time...this is how TCU does it in real life.

This would help stop cookie cutter teams...the old sim (all run), the new sim (mostly pass) and people would have to build a system/recruits that all work together.  Just like in real life if a coach leaves or is fired and they hire a new coach with a different system, it will take him a few years to get his recruits to fit his system.  This might make jumping to different teams more difficult.  Everybody wants to be at an elite, but if the other coach doesn't run your system, you might just want to stay at your program if you are already successful because you know that it would take a few years to change the system at your new school.

As far as improvement, I don't have a problem with improving ratings via individual practice, formation IQ via formation practice, and WE via starts and PT.  I would like to see a bump in Ratings and Formation IQ for Playing Experience, in real life it's often true that game experience is key to a player's development as much or more than practice and film study.  Let us benefit by getting backups in the game some, let them be meaningful snaps.

Also, just for fun and realism, I wish recruits had a star system, from 1 up to 5.  More of less window dressing.  It would be arbitrary, like the WIS rankings, and a 3-star may actually be preferred over a 4-star by a coach, but that's true in real life, especially when upside is considered.

I would like to see very little done to recruiting.  I think its close to perfect.  I'd be happy to see the take back your mistake as long as it hasn't simed yet suggestion, but that would be about it.

I'm also happy with recruiting but I'd like to see Juco players added.

I like some of the new attributes katzphang88 proposed. Seems more direct and less confusing than now.  Recruiting would be better if we had a system where we didn't have to send out so many CV. Doesn't seem so realistic for a player in D1AA to visit the campus like 20 x.

Posted by katzphang88 on 1/29/2012 8:51:00 PM (view original):
I realize that Norbert has stated that he intends to work on game planning and the game SIM during the update, but I would like to offer the concept of reshaping the players to the community.

Currently we have some attributes which have difficulty relecting various skills for some players (EX are: STR for QB - count for run strength and pass strength, hands for OL, block for WR, blocking during passing/running, pass rushing strength/Elus/tech?) Along with the concept of normalization (which should be taken out) some of these should be revised to reflect football related skills. I propose the following SKILL attributes:

PASSING - Overall ability to pass the ball.
RUSHING - Overall ability to run the ball for QB, RB, WR, TE. Ability to rush the backfield for DL, LB, DB.
BALL CONTROL - Overall ability to catch the ball, hold the ball without fumbling, defense to cause fumbles, to intercept passes.
PASS ROUTES – For WR, TE, RB to precisely run pass routes, QB to find reciever, LB and DB to defend a pass.
BLOCKING – For OL,TE, WR and RB technique and ability to block at the LOS.
TACKLING – Technique and ability to tackle,
LINE SKILLS – For DL, LB, OL, RB, TE for ability to move within the LOS. Good for run blocking, finding the open holes, pass rushing.

I propose the following PHYSICAL attributes:

SPEED – Modifier for all positions when downfield speed is required - includes aspects of quickness, elusiveness, reactions, at speed.
ATHLETICISM - Modifier to be used for relationships in regards to balance, agility, control, etc. modifies positively or negatively for Game Skills.
DURABILITY – Combination attribute of endurance, recovery and likelihood of injury. Affects reduction of Health during game and recovery during season.
STRENGTH – Modifier of physical strength for rushing, blocking, tackling.
HEALTH - Overall current level of the ability to perform.  Modifies all Game Skills, Speed and Strength.

I propose the following MENTAL attributes:

GAME INSTINCT – Inherent ability to understand the game. Important for defensive players and offensive players if initial play breaks down. Values will determine frequency of penalties and turnovers for all players.
APTITUDE – Ability to increase Mental Capabilities. (Relates to potential)
AMBITION – Ability to increase Game Skills. (Relates to potential)
DETERMINATION – Ability to improve Physical Characteristics. (Relates to potential) Modifier to improve or decrease Physical Characteristics of team in fourth quarter if behind, high values show willingness to work hard when behind.
CONCENTRATION: Modifier for Game Skills to increase or decrease those attributes of the team in fourth quarter. Also used for kicker and punter abilities.

As you see, football skills are separated from physical abilities and mental abilities. Potential is divided into three different aspects and so players can develop Skills, Physical Abilities and Mental Abilities at different rates. These would provide more direct cause effect with 2 - 3 primary characteristics determining outcomes and some modifiers during game simulation and for player growth.

I feel like we have just hit gold. GREAT SUGGESTION!!

And one small thing, Norb, that would be really easy to implement: allow a coach to post in another Conference's Coaches Corner, like HD has. It would add a more unified feel to the levels and worlds.

far as recruiting is concerned there needs to be a separation between unofficial and official campus visits.
you can only visit a campus officially one time. and it should be the biggest impact along with the home HC visit.
it should also be only able to be used once, one for the assistant and one by the head coach.

i know that visits and the overall budget is to restrict coaches from going nuts but if you can offer booster gifts then recruiting should resemble real life a tad bit more.

First, norbert, thank you so much for not only your efforts but also your attempts to seek input from the users. Whether WifS recognizes it or not, your efforts are making money for them by keeping people like me playing in anticipation of some improvements to GiD.

I'll try not to let this post get too long but I've been thinking about this idea for a while. As you're probably aware, since the last major engine change, most users seem to believe that there is some random factor affecting the outcome of games.  No one wants a game in which the team with the best players wins every game, but if there is a random factor making players sometimes play above or below their ratings, I believe that we should know what that factor is.  This is a ratings based simulation, not real life.  Unknown factors produce unexplainable results which then produce unhappy users, in my opinion.

So the idea that I came up with is adding a rating for each player called Focus. Focus would represent the mood, attitude, and focus of the player for each game. This rating would fluctuate completely randomly to simulate real life and would affect the way a player plays in the game that day, either in a negative way or a positive way.  So a player with a higher than normal Focus rating would play above his ratings that day and a lower Focus would mean he's likely to have a subpar day.  Each player could be affected differently by his Focus so that it wouldn't be obvious just how good or bad a day he was going to have.  But a coach who paid attention would be able to figure out how his players would perform as their Focus went up or down after looking at each player's performance over the course of a season or a career.  This would lead to more strategy is setting depth charts for each game as the coach would have to decide if, for example, his #2 RB with a higher Focus for the upcoming game should start over his #1 RB who happens to have a lower Focus for this game.  And it would allow for upsets to occur and not appear as random as they appear to be currently.  If the more talented team happened to have several players with low Focus ratings and his opponent had many of his players with high Focus ratings, it would help explain why an OL with a 10 point rating advantage was unable to get the running game going, or why a QB who threw only 7 interceptions in 300 pass attempts throws 4 in one game, for example.

It's just an idea. It may not even be possible.  I'm sure there are things that I'm not considering and there may be better ways to address the issue.  As much as we want the game to reflect real life, it is not and the results should not be artificially manipulated just to produce life-like outcomes.  I just have trouble accepting the idea that there is some unknown, random factor which the users can never have any control over or knowledge of and yet it is helping to determine the outcome of a ratings based simulation.

Again, thank for all your efforts, norbert, and thanks for listening to all of us.

Posted by nittanylions on 1/25/2012 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Formation specific depth charts

Please do this!  I hate not being able to use a receiving TE in some formations and then a blocking TE in another, for example.

Alright, lets see here:

1) Please split up 1st and 2nd half stats in the box score.  It makes it easier to see what kind of affect your halftime changes made in the second half.

2) In the depth chart, please figure out a way to separate the correlation between OLB and the Nickel formation.  Meaning, currently the Nickel uses our top 2 OLB.  But say we have a stud LB and we play him at ILB (bc he can more easily cover the whole field bc he's a stud) so he plays at ILB in the 4-4, 4-3, 3-4.  Consequently, he does NOT get used in the 5-2, Nickel, or Dime bc he's listed at ILB.  This should be changed.

3) Ive said it a million times, but create a cause and effect relationship like there used to be under the old engine.  Aggressive defense used to stop conservative offense, Aggressive offense used to do well against aggressive defense, etc.  This is THE BIGGEST change needed.

Lot of good ideas here norbert. Whatever way you go though, test this thing out. Use the players you have to set up a test league. You may wanna consider recruiting people now to get on board.

Who cares if its May or October? As long as it works this time. Another last time and you'll be able to hear your typing echoing against the walls of WIS.