Oriole - Question on Fatigue and DB Attributes Topic

Seems to me that we are still fixing stuff that should have been fixed during beta. Every time I read the forums pertaining to v3, I get frustrated that we are now playing a game that obviously isn't ready. All I see is "I'll be looking into this, I'll be adjusting that, I'll revisit this, I'll investigate that." After 9 months, this is still not correct. We can produce a baby in 9 months, but can't get a stupid SIM game correct. Unbelievable!!! I wish something positive would occur, that would give me faith that this game would be worth the effort. Sorry, but this is really getting old.
11/4/2013 6:05 PM
OK, Day 1 is in the books.  My Princeton team ran 63 offensive plays, not including ones called back due to penalties.  (I didn't count them in the PBP, I just added passing attempts and rushing carries.)  Although I make use of two different OL position roles in my formations, in actuality both contain the same players in the top 5, and the same order of players for spots 6, 7, and 8.

My fatigue settings for OL is set for the default 85%.  None of my players has a STA greater than 56.  The lowest for any starter is 40. My #6 OL played 3% of the plays or 2 plays.  My #7 OL played 1%, or 1 play.  #8 did not get in the game.  With 1:45 to go in the fourth quarter, all five starters were in the game showing at 90% fatigue or higher.

At 9:11 remaining in the fourth quarter, at the end of a 10 play drive, my #6 and #7 linemen finally got in the game, and the three remaining starters were still at 85%.  We didn't have any more long drives in the game after that, which may have contributed to the results being the way they are.

On the defensive side of the ball,  I see some drop off at the 4th DL, 4th DB, and 3rd LB slots, but that can be explained by using different defensive sets.  All of the top depth chart players at those positions played well over 90%.

It's hard to tell whether or not the players' effectiveness was reduced by fatigue, but the amount of fatigue doesn't appear to be a factor in the game.

 

I think the >100% playing time is a result of counting penalties in the "plays participated in" but not n the "total number of plays"

11/5/2013 4:28 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 11/5/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):
OK, Day 1 is in the books.  My Princeton team ran 63 offensive plays, not including ones called back due to penalties.  (I didn't count them in the PBP, I just added passing attempts and rushing carries.)  Although I make use of two different OL position roles in my formations, in actuality both contain the same players in the top 5, and the same order of players for spots 6, 7, and 8.

My fatigue settings for OL is set for the default 85%.  None of my players has a STA greater than 56.  The lowest for any starter is 40. My #6 OL played 3% of the plays or 2 plays.  My #7 OL played 1%, or 1 play.  #8 did not get in the game.  With 1:45 to go in the fourth quarter, all five starters were in the game showing at 90% fatigue or higher.

At 9:11 remaining in the fourth quarter, at the end of a 10 play drive, my #6 and #7 linemen finally got in the game, and the three remaining starters were still at 85%.  We didn't have any more long drives in the game after that, which may have contributed to the results being the way they are.

On the defensive side of the ball,  I see some drop off at the 4th DL, 4th DB, and 3rd LB slots, but that can be explained by using different defensive sets.  All of the top depth chart players at those positions played well over 90%.

It's hard to tell whether or not the players' effectiveness was reduced by fatigue, but the amount of fatigue doesn't appear to be a factor in the game.

 

I think the >100% playing time is a result of counting penalties in the "plays participated in" but not n the "total number of plays"

Based on what was observed in beta, I don't think this matters at all.  Even if players fatigued down to 70%, there was no apparent difference in performance.  Same with players playing out of position.  
11/5/2013 4:36 PM
The fatigue stuff that I took out on the QB were the stats for when he was throwing deep. Originally it was put in there (misguided, I'll give you that) to change the results of the deep passes. I took out the fatigue that was added to deep passes and figured out what the real problem behind passing was and fixed that. 

As for fatigue in the positional players, I'm working on changing the factors so that these numbers are realistic, but this isn't the beta anymore, so my tests are going to be more thorough. 

Players playing out of position to take a penalty for it based on the position they are playing and the position they are intended to play.




11/5/2013 5:18 PM
Posted by oriole_fan on 11/5/2013 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The fatigue stuff that I took out on the QB were the stats for when he was throwing deep. Originally it was put in there (misguided, I'll give you that) to change the results of the deep passes. I took out the fatigue that was added to deep passes and figured out what the real problem behind passing was and fixed that. 

As for fatigue in the positional players, I'm working on changing the factors so that these numbers are realistic, but this isn't the beta anymore, so my tests are going to be more thorough. 

Players playing out of position to take a penalty for it based on the position they are playing and the position they are intended to play.




This doesn't address fatigue for everyone besides QBs.  From what I've observed in Beta, fatigue matters very little in play results.  I've seen 70% players operating at what looks to be baseline performance.  Right now, there is no incentive to substitute because of this.

And players playing out of position may take a penalty, but like fatigue, it seems to matter very little in play results.  I've seen teams with 3 DL running nothing but 4 man fronts do a more than adequate job against the run.  Part of that is the out of position penalty and part of that is fatigue.

IMO, both fatigue and out of position penalties are ineffective as they stand.
11/5/2013 6:00 PM
For out of position penalties: one of the things this brings up is the "relativity" of stats, especially the physical stats.  Does a 90 speed mean the same thing as far as a QB and a RB and a WR and an OL and a DL and a LB ?  If so, then the ranges of stats at positions needs to be dramatically adjusted.  STR is one of those things that means one thing to an OL and something dramatically different to a QB. And then there are the non-physical attributes like GI and the much reduced TECH.  IMO those should be reduced to near zero for out of position players.

Another issue with fatigue is trying to figure out what x% evaluates to -- is 85% breathing heavy, gasping for breath, or needing oxygen?  I realize this is basically a spreadsheet with a football veneer on, but does 85% fatigue level mean you are marginally less effective than 90% ?  If, as is commonly assumed, the fatigue is simply factored into the raw attributes (85% fatigue means you get 85% of STR, 85% of SPD, etc) then the effect actually gets lower and lower as you go down in divisions.  Is it a linear progression in reduced effectiveness?  Should it be, or would an exponential or logarithmic progression make more sense?

 
11/5/2013 7:25 PM
◂ Prev 12
Oriole - Question on Fatigue and DB Attributes Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.