All Forums > Oriole - Give us some insight
6/25/2013 8:50 PM

6/25/2013 9:10 PM
Welcome back Oriole - we missed you. I feel some small need deep inside to comment. I have deleted some segments as those were understandable and responded to well.

I knew you would.

The last numbers in that list (0.2/-0.2) that is the advantage of the line on the inside and on the outside. That is the Manpower advantage number.
Do the other numbers being compared include other modifiers, or are they calculated after?
I'm not sure I understand your question here, but yes, the numbers here are the combination of the other modifiers weighted to value the important modifiers for the given position.

The majority of the time, the results will go according to the line numbers, but given the randomness of each play and the general equality of the two teams the play of the line can vary. This is DefenseModerate because on this specific play one of the defensive players got a jump on one of the linemen and put pressure on the QB.
Randomness is a very bad word and a very bad concept in this game. It detracts from player attributes. PLEASE eliminate randomness!
You cannot have any game based on statistics that is not RANDOM, that is the very definition of statistics. I understand that you are frustrated with the results of one play, but the engine (and really any engine that is built on statistics) is built upon chance. The player attributes affect the chance but they cannot determine it or there would be no variation. The benefit of attributes is in aggregate. You are more likely to win because a normalized distribution will favor the opponent with the better attributes. In support of what I think you are saying, I agree that the randomness should be known a little better, and that is currently what I'm trying to do. But if your ideal is for me to eliminate the randomness then you have to realize that is not going to happen. That is not this game.

We are not looking at the pressure on the QB here, this is the pressure on the PASS. The pass is open. the Heavy pressure is what made the QB checkdown to an outlet short pass and throw the ball in step 2 of the progression.   Whoa! Wait a minute! In the answer just above you said "one of the defensive players got a jump on one of the linemen and put pressure on the QB" Now you are saying it is not about pressure on the QB, even though it says heavy pressure on Hawkins - QB. Also in my offense - OutsideShort is a #1 option. Just a little screwy!
I apologize if that was confusing, what I was saying is that the pressure in that statement is a different type of pressure than the pressure in the previous statement. The pressure is relative to the man with the ball. The previous statement the man with the ball was the QB, this statement the man with the ball is the WR. So there is no pressure on the WR because he was open. The problem is the confusion of the statements, and I think it is appropriate for you to point this stuff out as it will help me clarify the PBP.

?This seems a bit suspect. I plan on looking into the advantage of the lines and how that number is calculated. There stands a small chance that this was a terrible roll and the DEF got lucky, but it's one that deserves a second look.
Again, the "DEF got lucky" is muy malo. Luck should not play a part in the sim.
This is a philosophical battle for which type of game play is better, and unfortunately this game is a statistical game (read random in small sample sizes). Again, I agree with the concept of knowing more thoroughly if the randoms are correct, but not doing away with randoms.

This really depends on the positioning of Hankins more than the raw numbers. If hankins was not in the right position to tackle then he misses this tackle
The better question here is that he is not in position despite the defense advantage. I can't explain this thoroughly right now. It will get a deeper investigation.
I'll let you try again, Hankins is the TE, Hayes is the Defender - still don't know how it even gets close to a DefenseModerate BLKResult. No number advantage so should be one on one. Just confusing.
Switched names, my bad. You are correct, confusing, will try to expand to make it more understandable.

Best answer, Randomness. I know it seems simplistic, but on a single play each comparison rolls the random number is created for each comparison
Oooooh, there's that Randomness word! You can't use player attributes as the real source of outcomes if randomness comes into play so much!
Oh, there is your aversion to a statistical game again :)

I'll look into. Seems fishy from the numbers but the result seems fair. I'd guess that the raw advantage numbers aren't the only factors in this part of the play.
So if the raw advantage numbers aren't reflected in the 76 - 60 and 76 - 55 comparisons, what is changing those numbers to be advantage defense and why can't we see what is modifying those numbers.
Fine line here. I want to give you enough data to know how to make your team better and how to consider what is going on, but I'm not looking to write the code in the play by play.

Oriole, glad to see you back. But we have been analyzing this game for about 1.5 years and the beta for about 4 months. I feel that biggest problem is that too many items have been added to the game that waters the player attributes down and injects way too much randomness. PLEASE attempt to track down these random occurances, eliminate them so we can see what the game does without them and them we can add them back once the rest of the engine runs more consistently.

Unfortunately you have guys have been at this way longer than I, so my newness at times does show. The company really appreciates you helping out with this analysis, and as I continue to grow my knowledge base of the game I'm sure that I will enjoy your comments more than I already do. I am/will continue to attempt to validate the randomness in this game, again, it is not something that I can or want to eliminate though.
6/25/2013 9:23 PM

Randomness is a very bad word and a very bad concept in this game. It detracts from player attributes. PLEASE eliminate randomness!
You cannot have any game based on statistics that is not RANDOM, that is the very definition of statistics. I understand that you are frustrated with the results of one play, but the engine (and really any engine that is built on statistics) is built upon chance. The player attributes affect the chance but they cannot determine it or there would be no variation. The benefit of attributes is in aggregate. You are more likely to win because a normalized distribution will favor the opponent with the better attributes. In support of what I think you are saying, I agree that the randomness should be known a little better, and that is currently what I'm trying to do. But if your ideal is for me to eliminate the randomness then you have to realize that is not going to happen. That is not this game.

I think this is and has been one of the hardest concepts for folks here to grasp.  They confuse a "random seed used to give a variety of results" with a "random result that apparently has no causal effect."  ?Unfortunately we've had so much of the latter that the word itself has become a curse word.
6/25/2013 9:27 PM
You need to make player attributes matter again.  There needs to be a clear cause/effect between attributes and play results.  jconte blurred the results in 2.0 and 3.0 is going even further away from causation.  If players don't see results they expect, they'll conclude the engine is crap.  Right now, there are far too many plays where the results don't make much sense, both individually and in groupings like entire games.  Many in the GD community have made this plea to jconte and norbert to no avail.  I hope you are open enough to take coaches opinions and work with them instead of ramming dog food down our throats and telling us it's prime rib.
6/25/2013 9:29 PM
Well said Bhazlewood. I too have seen the random results with no causal effect, and that is the part that I'm looking to fix. By the time I'm done maybe that random word won't be so terrible. (though should I not attain such lofty aspirations try not to be too hard on me :) )
6/25/2013 9:43 PM
slid64er - I see where you are coming from and I'm on a mission to help create a better engine that will minimize these oddities. In the long run my hope is to revitalize this game with the support of the experts (you guys) while introducing a game to newbies that they want to play. This all starts with the engine. Unfortunately, I'm up against time right now, so I'm looking to maximize the impact of the changes I'm making before settling in on the details. Perhaps this beta won't be prime rib by the time it's released, but hopefully it will be closer to a nice sirloin than dog food.

6/25/2013 9:49 PM
Frankly to me the randomness isn't the problem, but when I'm a 6+ point across the board better than any team, I should win 99% of the time. The only way I should lose is if I turn the ball over several times and probably never to a SIM. It just seems that the ratings don't mean anything because the completion rates are still at 60-80% no matter what the strength of the teams are. In 2.0 if Ihad a 6+ point advantage the completion rate would always be under 50% and I would usually hold an opponent to 3yds or less per carry. Just my 2 cents.
6/25/2013 9:57 PM
oriole_fan, awesome to see you back in the forums! You mentioned you were "up against time right now". I know you mentioned a couple more seasons then go live. Still in the same ballpark?
6/25/2013 10:00 PM
Posted by oriole_fan on 6/25/2013 9:43:00 PM (view original):
slid64er - I see where you are coming from and I'm on a mission to help create a better engine that will minimize these oddities. In the long run my hope is to revitalize this game with the support of the experts (you guys) while introducing a game to newbies that they want to play. This all starts with the engine. Unfortunately, I'm up against time right now, so I'm looking to maximize the impact of the changes I'm making before settling in on the details. Perhaps this beta won't be prime rib by the time it's released, but hopefully it will be closer to a nice sirloin than dog food.

oriole_fan you are probably one of the nicest guys I would ever want to meet and very little of all of this should be laid on your shoulders. Yet. However when you say that you are up against time and that this game won't be prime rib by the time it is released puts the handwriting on the wall for me.

I would have liked to have seen a finished GD product released that aside from the tweaks that become revealed when full seasons are played would be that finished product. Since this will not be the case I will finish out my final season at Rutgers and move on with other hobbies.

I wish you well oriole and my fellow GDers. maybe I'll try HD or something. Too bad, this game had/has such great potential.

6/25/2013 11:37 PM
I will pick one point this time:

The majority of the time, the results will go according to the line numbers, but given the randomness of each play and the general equality of the two teams the play of the line can vary. This is DefenseModerate because on this specific play one of the defensive players got a jump on one of the linemen and put pressure on the QB.
Randomness is a very bad word and a very bad concept in this game. It detracts from player attributes. PLEASE eliminate randomness!
You cannot have any game based on statistics that is not RANDOM, that is the very definition of statistics. I understand that you are frustrated with the results of one play, but the engine (and really any engine that is built on statistics) is built upon chance. The player attributes affect the chance but they cannot determine it or there would be no variation. The benefit of attributes is in aggregate. You are more likely to win because a normalized distribution will favor the opponent with the better attributes. In support of what I think you are saying, I agree that the randomness should be known a little better, and that is currently what I'm trying to do. But if your ideal is for me to eliminate the randomness then you have to realize that is not going to happen. That is not this game.

Now, a statistical basis for this game would supply all the needed match-up data and produce a static, definite outcome for each set of numbers being analyzed. No outcome would have any randomness as each would be set to specific outcomes set by the statistical breakdown of each set of data. (if x = .26 to .34 > mean, or .26 - .34 times the +STD DEV etc  then gain of 2 yards (card theory).
Now, probability would provide a range of possible outcomes based on multiple variables with an outcome derived from expected differences in the data (if x = .3 then 25% chance of 1 yd gain, 50% chance of 2 yd gain, 25% chance of 3 yd gain. (bucket theory)

Neither of these are really random. True randomness would be that all possible outcomes are possible for all decisions and some range generates x result and another range generates y result. BUT when I looked into Norbert's distributions of the probable outcomes (buckets) of the player match-ups, the probabilities overlapped so that  high negative differences and high positive differences both allowed the full range of possible outcomes. I argued at the time (Feb-Mar 2013) that the groupings should be tightened up to allow less range in outcomes, especially for greater differences. This may be something to consider. Even tighter groupings of potential PROBABILITY of outcomes would provide better consistency to the game.

of 2
All Forums > Oriole - Give us some insight

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games