This helps explain some regarding the wide fluctuation of values. I understand better the flow of ingredients that constitute a play. I really like the way the play flows through multiple zones, with different players in that zone being able to take part. This in itself should provide enough variation that computer generated distributions of results would not be needed. I also like the momentum hit concept. I would like to offer this suggestion (let me know if this is how it works). To make each level of decision within the play more identifiable, to use the momentum hits as a score on how the play is progressing from behind the line to the end zone. I know that we see it more down the field, but it would be good to start publishing it from behind the line. Consider this for a running play: At the snap, the play is evaluated for behind the line for blocking as it is now and the results of DefenseBreakthrough, DefenseStrong, EqualBlocking, OffenseStrong, OffensePush are generated and a corresponding mHit is generated and published (say 4mHit for DefenseBreakthrough, 3 for DefenseStrong, 2 for EqualBlocking, 1 for OffenseStrong, 0 for OffensePush or such #'s to make the play acceptable). Make each category a specific % range. Next evaluate if the RB gets through the line with again blocking but adjusted with tackling and RB attributes to break tackle. mHits are evaluated for blocking as above, and + mHits for tackle and - mHits for avoiding and score posted again. So say score for mHits hit 10 - tackle made. Less than 10 play continues, but we as coaches would know how well our offense is doing. Again all scores for various categories are in a specific % range. No probability or predetermined distribution. Best match-ups produce more advantagous scores. Play would continue until 10 mHits are obtained and tackle occurs.
What has dismayed me thus far is that even in a D1A vs DIII tested game, the Sim was producing very lopsided value match-ups and giving the low score a top result. This is the situation we are in now, with head shaking moments when obvious discrepencies produce illogical (not talking real-life comparisons - this is a computer game) outcomes. When attribute comparisons are taken into consideration, and those numbers are modified by tech, athl, stamina, form IQ, play calling placing different #'s of players in certain positions, I don't see how any of the values are going to remain static and produce a result that will be predicted just by looking at the values before the game. Add chance occurances such as injuries, penalties, field position and it makes it more variable. YET all this could be done without the simulation itself making calls on which array of a set of results will be picked. I fear that the simulation now is going to produce more illogical results, as the talent gap of the teams widen, if the set of results it picks from is not significantly narrowed.