Posted by bhazlewood on 10/3/2023 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Player attributes are vital to team success. Athleticism is important to all positions. The level of importance you put on each attribute for each positions varies based on what you want those positional players to do, but here are the general attributes you would want for each position in descending order of importance. QB:Technique, Strength, Athleticism, Elusiveness, Game_Instinct
RB: Elusiveness, Speed, Strength, Athleticism, Game_Instinct, Hands
WR: Hands, Speed, Athleticism, Elusiveness, Game_Instinct
TE: Athleticism, Strength, Blocking, Hands, Game_Instinct, Speed, Elusiveness
OL: Blocking, Strength, Athleticism, Game_Instinct
DL: Athleticism, Strength, Tackling, Game_Instinct, Speed
LB: Tackling, Game_Instinct, Strength, Athleticism, Speed
DB: Game_Instinct, Speed, Athleticism, Tackling, Hands, Strength

This is a fairly big change from previous iterations of "Core Attributes"

If these are truly the most important attributes I've been recruiting wrong for a lot of cycles and all of my teams are severly jacked up. Can anyone confirm these are for sure THE most important attributes? If so, I'm going to need to completely start over on four year rebuilds ??

my understanding is dynasty's been through three iterations and many tweaks

and the site three or four owners

in 30 years maybe?

to ask for answers from the new owners/managers/designers/programmers/interns is to consult the magic eightball

you gotta rely on yourself and people you trust

Q: Is there an exploitable loophole in recruiting that some people take advantage of and the rest of us don't know about?

A couple of disgruntled users made this claim on the forums before leaving the game. After communicating with these players, searching through their on-site communications, and checking their recruiting behavior, we found zero evidence of this.

To further elaborate, there USED TO BE an exploitable loophole in recruiting, but after enough users complained and one well-known coach spilled the beans on WIS before he left, WIS took it out. So for now, at least, there is less opportunity to cheat than before, and that is certainly an improvement. Why WIS wouldn’t take credit for it when they actually improve the game is difficult to understand.
In a related development, a friend of mine walked directly into a tree and injured his forehead. He explained that he communicated with the tree, searched its on-line communications and checked its leaf-shedding behavior and found no evidence the tree even existed. Of course, if he were to do it with his eyes OPEN, he might better understand the big wound on his forehead.

Winning the NC gives that school a large boost in appeal rating, which is used in recruiting, but it is not directly considered by recruits."

This makes perfect sense, since recruiting and recruits have absolutely nothing to do with one another. You should not even use the words "recruiting" and "recruits" in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence.

If, on the other hand, recruiting had anything to do with recruits, as for example if a coach recruited recruits, or if recruits were the target of a coach's recruiting efforts, the last part of that answer could be construed as obfuscation. Thank you very much.

Posted by chainsaw4 on 10/3/2023 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Q: With the player ratings updates, what do the ratings look like?

The new player ratings are very similar to GUESS, with a few notable differences based on findings while looking through the game engine. Mainly we value Game_Instinct less for QBs, don't value Technique at all for RBs unless you want them catching passes, value Game_Instinct less for WRs, and don't value Technique at all for OL, DL, LB, or DB. We also value Athleticism more for all positions. What the actual F?

Since Technique now has no value at any position, are you considering simply erasing any remaining mention of it, so as to confuse newbies a little less. You have to realize that three or four sets of "core" attributes, all said to be valid and all in direct conflict with one another might make it difficult for newbies to pick up the game.

Or is it possible that Technique actually DOES have an effect on play outcomes, and therefore DOES have value, and your answer might just have been a tad misleading?

Actually, jholthus, I applaud your efforts at transparency here. I have always thought that the long-standing practice of inside information being given privately to a small number of long-time coaches instead of on the open public forums violated the principles of fair play that WIS espoused, and I surely hope that this is the dawning of a new era of transparency and puts to bed once and for all the practice of private, selective dissemination of inside information. Please let that be true.

And come to think of it, transparency combined with clarity, wow, that would be a great thing for GD.

I’ve searched past chats with the developers and nitros’s research and it’s always been important to focus on technique. I read that CB’s are reliant on technique for pass deflections. Same for OLB’s. Same for WR’s. Same for passing TE’s. Same for QB’s. To have this new information come out makes things contradicting. To pair it up with FIQ is weird. FIQ is its own separate engine. I believe FIQ gives you % boost to the consistency output and chances of penalties goes down.

Posted by DeBeque on 10/7/2023 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Winning the NC gives that school a large boost in appeal rating, which is used in recruiting, but it is not directly considered by recruits."

This makes perfect sense, since recruiting and recruits have absolutely nothing to do with one another. You should not even use the words "recruiting" and "recruits" in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence.

If, on the other hand, recruiting had anything to do with recruits, as for example if a coach recruited recruits, or if recruits were the target of a coach's recruiting efforts, the last part of that answer could be construed as obfuscation. Thank you very much.

this is amazing. if gd employees find a way to sleep at night after reading this, they should easily find a way to monetize their sleep techniques - so WIS is probably done. Totally worth it though!

I had submitted several questions and was a tad disappointed the main one didn't get brought up. Maybe I'll have luck here. it deals with formations and realism. Most of the good players use run heavy formations, wishbone or Notre Dame box, yet they are passing the heavy majority of the time. This is the opposite of realism and should be looked at. It is to the point of a glitch because nearly all of the top players at the top programs are doing this and it’s nearly impossible to beat them or even stay competitive if you aren’t another blue blood program. How did this discrepancy become so widespeard?

Posted by DeBeque on 10/7/2023 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Actually, jholthus, I applaud your efforts at transparency here. I have always thought that the long-standing practice of inside information being given privately to a small number of long-time coaches instead of on the open public forums violated the principles of fair play that WIS espoused, and I surely hope that this is the dawning of a new era of transparency and puts to bed once and for all the practice of private, selective dissemination of inside information. Please let that be true.

And come to think of it, transparency combined with clarity, wow, that would be a great thing for GD.

Clarity you say?

Out of curiosity, after this recent attribute debacle I took a look at the Player's Guide. Guess what? It also says completely different things about player attributes than what jholtus just told us:

Player's Guide tells us that GI is a primary attribute for QBs, and lists ATH and ELU as secondary attributes.

GD incorporated GUESS ratings into the game which has GI weighted as a primary.

Then... jholtus just told us that that GI is less important for QBs than ATH and ELU and is only the 5th most important attribute.

(that's just one example, there are others too)

I mean seriously, WTF? Niewski told us the engine has not changed.

I'm assuming that the devs that wrote the Player's Guide also had access to the game code. So why is jholtus saying something completely different than what devs wrote for the official Player's Guide?

jholtus is essentially telling us previous devs(and coaches) didn't fully understand the game. Were the devs that wrote the Player's Guide wrong(and generations of NC winning coaches and GUESS), or is jholtus? If jholtus is indeed correct, why hasn't the Player's Guide been corrected? Why did GD also endorse promoting GUESS ratings, which are also incorrect according to jholtus?

Now, vet coaches are confused. Can you imagine what a new coach would be thinking after reading the Player's Guide and with all of this conflicting information out there?

This whole episode doesn't pass the smell test and has caused me to lose a lot of confidence in WIS. What a shitshow.

Posted by Huesmann49 on 10/8/2023 3:47:00 PM (view original):
I had submitted several questions and was a tad disappointed the main one didn't get brought up. Maybe I'll have luck here. it deals with formations and realism. Most of the good players use run heavy formations, wishbone or Notre Dame box, yet they are passing the heavy majority of the time. This is the opposite of realism and should be looked at. It is to the point of a glitch because nearly all of the top players at the top programs are doing this and it’s nearly impossible to beat them or even stay competitive if you aren’t another blue blood program. How did this discrepancy become so widespeard?

i think it's just you got a lot of intelligent and very contrarian individuals trying to figure out how to exploit the sim

my experience used to be Everyone runs pro-set and 34 and passes 60% of the time and runs outside 60% of the balance

i think veteran game players want to do it different out of boredom with the old and curiosity to the new

Posted by narcotico on 10/8/2023 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DeBeque on 10/7/2023 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Actually, jholthus, I applaud your efforts at transparency here. I have always thought that the long-standing practice of inside information being given privately to a small number of long-time coaches instead of on the open public forums violated the principles of fair play that WIS espoused, and I surely hope that this is the dawning of a new era of transparency and puts to bed once and for all the practice of private, selective dissemination of inside information. Please let that be true.

And come to think of it, transparency combined with clarity, wow, that would be a great thing for GD.

Clarity you say?

Out of curiosity, after this recent attribute debacle I took a look at the Player's Guide. Guess what? It also says completely different things about player attributes than what jholtus just told us:

Player's Guide tells us that GI is a primary attribute for QBs, and lists ATH and ELU as secondary attributes.

GD incorporated GUESS ratings into the game which has GI weighted as a primary.

Then... jholtus just told us that that GI is less important for QBs than ATH and ELU and is only the 5th most important attribute.

(that's just one example, there are others too)

I mean seriously, WTF? Niewski told us the engine has not changed.

I'm assuming that the devs that wrote the Player's Guide also had access to the game code. So why is jholtus saying something completely different than the official Player's Guide?

Were the devs that wrote the Player's Guide wrong(and generations of NC winning coaches and GUESS), or is jholtus? If jholtus is indeed correct, why hasn't the Player's Guide been corrected? Why did GD also endorse promoting GUESS ratings, which are also incorrect according to jholtus?

Now, vet coaches are confused. Can you imagine what a new coach would be thinking after reading the Player's Guide and with all of this conflicting information out there?

This whole episode doesn't pass the smell test and has caused me to lose a lot of confidence in WIS. What a shitshow.

computer science 101

programmers do not update documentation when they update code

they have a technical writer do it

and he or she don know the code

so he or she guesses, generalizes, blabbity blabs

Posted by bagchucker3 on 10/8/2023 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Huesmann49 on 10/8/2023 3:47:00 PM (view original):
I had submitted several questions and was a tad disappointed the main one didn't get brought up. Maybe I'll have luck here. it deals with formations and realism. Most of the good players use run heavy formations, wishbone or Notre Dame box, yet they are passing the heavy majority of the time. This is the opposite of realism and should be looked at. It is to the point of a glitch because nearly all of the top players at the top programs are doing this and it’s nearly impossible to beat them or even stay competitive if you aren’t another blue blood program. How did this discrepancy become so widespeard?

i think it's just you got a lot of intelligent and very contrarian individuals trying to figure out how to exploit the sim

my experience used to be Everyone runs pro-set and 34 and passes 60% of the time and runs outside 60% of the balance

i think veteran game players want to do it different out of boredom with the old and curiosity to the new

I certainly think there could be some truth to that but there still is a certain amount of finding some kind of glitch or exploiting something in the game. If it were only down to trying new things and being smart, those same owners would figure out on D how to stop it. I had heard most people used to run pro set and I, like you said.

Posted by bagchucker3 on 10/8/2023 4:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by narcotico on 10/8/2023 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DeBeque on 10/7/2023 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Actually, jholthus, I applaud your efforts at transparency here. I have always thought that the long-standing practice of inside information being given privately to a small number of long-time coaches instead of on the open public forums violated the principles of fair play that WIS espoused, and I surely hope that this is the dawning of a new era of transparency and puts to bed once and for all the practice of private, selective dissemination of inside information. Please let that be true.

And come to think of it, transparency combined with clarity, wow, that would be a great thing for GD.

Clarity you say?

Out of curiosity, after this recent attribute debacle I took a look at the Player's Guide. Guess what? It also says completely different things about player attributes than what jholtus just told us:

Player's Guide tells us that GI is a primary attribute for QBs, and lists ATH and ELU as secondary attributes.

GD incorporated GUESS ratings into the game which has GI weighted as a primary.

Then... jholtus just told us that that GI is less important for QBs than ATH and ELU and is only the 5th most important attribute.

(that's just one example, there are others too)

I mean seriously, WTF? Niewski told us the engine has not changed.

I'm assuming that the devs that wrote the Player's Guide also had access to the game code. So why is jholtus saying something completely different than the official Player's Guide?

Were the devs that wrote the Player's Guide wrong(and generations of NC winning coaches and GUESS), or is jholtus? If jholtus is indeed correct, why hasn't the Player's Guide been corrected? Why did GD also endorse promoting GUESS ratings, which are also incorrect according to jholtus?

Now, vet coaches are confused. Can you imagine what a new coach would be thinking after reading the Player's Guide and with all of this conflicting information out there?

This whole episode doesn't pass the smell test and has caused me to lose a lot of confidence in WIS. What a shitshow.

computer science 101

programmers do not update documentation when they update code

they have a technical writer do it

and he or she don know the code

so he or she guesses, generalizes, blabbity blabs

There is probably a 1% chance GD has a technical writer on staff. There's a tiny handful of people that are responsible for all of GD, there shouldn't be this much contradiction/misinformation/confusion.

Posted by Huesmann49 on 10/8/2023 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bagchucker3 on 10/8/2023 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Huesmann49 on 10/8/2023 3:47:00 PM (view original):
I had submitted several questions and was a tad disappointed the main one didn't get brought up. Maybe I'll have luck here. it deals with formations and realism. Most of the good players use run heavy formations, wishbone or Notre Dame box, yet they are passing the heavy majority of the time. This is the opposite of realism and should be looked at. It is to the point of a glitch because nearly all of the top players at the top programs are doing this and it’s nearly impossible to beat them or even stay competitive if you aren’t another blue blood program. How did this discrepancy become so widespeard?

i think it's just you got a lot of intelligent and very contrarian individuals trying to figure out how to exploit the sim

my experience used to be Everyone runs pro-set and 34 and passes 60% of the time and runs outside 60% of the balance

i think veteran game players want to do it different out of boredom with the old and curiosity to the new

I certainly think there could be some truth to that but there still is a certain amount of finding some kind of glitch or exploiting something in the game. If it were only down to trying new things and being smart, those same owners would figure out on D how to stop it. I had heard most people used to run pro set and I, like you said.

It's because the game is a math game disguised as a football game. With Box you have 4 Receivers (2 RB/2 TE) that the game engine has LBs (traditionally worse in coverage) and Safeties as primary defenders.

It is also easier to recruit RBs with amazing WR attributes than LBs with amazing DB attributes.