Warrior General Games

TO: jdbolick

1. There are VAs and SAs that control morale. Which allow players to diminish the morale hit after a TO.
2. Before we compare math capabilities (and you make a fool out of yourself). By control I do not mean that you can totally remove the effect of morale (that would be silly), confidence should lower the morale hit after the TO. If you can keep the morale high enough after a TO the change to the next to TO change should not be too drastic. At this point feel free writing your proposed model, we can check the numbers together (and since the numbers will be made up I will so you made up numbers that support my claim)
3. The game you show is not a clear example of a death spiral. I cannot prove one way or another, but a clear example would be such that the rate of TO increases (# of passes between TO decreases).

Originally posted by Skoll Wolfrun
Ok, but what if a RB tucks the ball next time & still coughs it up because the tackler is just an out & out monster?
You don't think there should be some sort of morale & confidence hit?

You see players go through patches of Drops, Fumbles, and Interceptions in football.
Baseball sees hitting streaks & slumps, error streaks, and the like.


I'm not saying he shouldn't have huge morale hits and his confidence shouldn't affect this. I'm saying that confidence should not be a huge role in fumbles, because that isn't what it is about. Most of the time you see a player fumble the ball he will not have it tucked away correctly. Sure, often times it is a great play by a defender to get it out, but usually if they had have just tucked the ball away correctly that opportunity never would have presented itself. I just don't think confidence should play that big of a role

And also, I have know knowledge that it does. I am just saying this in response to those who are a saying that this cascade of fumbles is caused by low confidence. I also have no knowledge that the OPs argument is legit at all. I'm not necessarily trying to side with him either.

Originally posted by jdbolick

It's not a common occurrence. It has happened many times, but out of all GLB games that's still only like a 0.1% chance of happening, which is why most people haven't been bitten by it. The problem is that when your 0.1% chance of a turnover cascade hits, you lose. There's no build which can overcome it, you just lose. This has been proven over and over again in turnover-related threads as people posted examples of high confidence players who had this happen along with low confidence players who have never experienced anything of the sort. Confidence is not remotely strong enough to mitigate the multiplicative penalty Bort has coded for turnovers.


1 - the number .1% that you pulled out of no where, where did you get this number? A guess? Or do you have actual data parsed for this?

2 - The multiplicative penalty that you claim is coded in the game. How do you know about this? Another guess? An assumption? I know you can't have real hard data on this because there would be way to many variables for it to be usable, and if you are so good at math you'd surely know this.

just wondering

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

Reading comprehension--try it. The OP raises the question whether the "fix your build" crowd has missed something--that the build itself is too small a part of the equation regarding turnovers once an initial turnover has taken place. All your reply amounted to was "fix your build" without pondering the question asked.

Reading comprehension--try it. I raised the point that Confidence is the biggest factor on multi-fumble/INT games and your response was "there should be more than just Confidence."

Reading comprehension--try it. The OP says:

Originally posted by jdbolick
Here is what currently happens: (note that these percentages are theoretical and should not be considered accurate)

Which means the rest of the numbers he throws out there are not based on fact, but opinion. Throw out some real numbers of players with high Confidence being as susceptible to multi-fumble/int/drop games as ones with low Confidence and there's a point to be had.

Till then, this thread is "I don't like Confidence."

Originally posted by tragula
1. There are VAs and SAs that control morale. Which allow players to diminish the morale hit after a TO.
I looked through the VA list and didn't see any which boosted morale aside from Motivational Speaker, which the players in question already benefited from. A few others add confidence, but as already shown, there is no evidence to support the notion that high confidence has any significant effect on preventing this phenomenon.

Originally posted by
2. Before we compare math capabilities (and you make a fool out of yourself).
I took discrete mathematics and chaos theory in high school, and I learned the basics of differential calculus while in third grade. Trust me when I say that comparing our capabilities will not make me look bad. One of the reasons I am so perpetually cranky is that I quickly see things it takes other people hours if not days if not years to realize, so I have to sit around either waiting for them to catch up, or trying to drag them along until the realization finally dawns on them.

Originally posted by
By control I do not mean that you can totally remove the effect of morale (that would be silly), confidence should lower the morale hit after the TO.
And I'm not saying that confidence has no effect, I'm saying that the effect is insignificant. Because it's an additive factor, it's like trying to bail the Titanic with a bucket. I've shown the rudiments of this earlier in the thread. If confidence gives you a fixed reduction to the morale penalty, but the morale penalty is multiplicative, then the fixed reduction is going to be overwhelmed in short order. Even if confidence is applied by percentages (i.e. 68 confidence reduces morale effects by 5%), the overall consequence is nonexistent. You're then looking at a sequence of ((2*0.95)X - 6.8 - 5)%, then ((4*0.95)X - 6.8 - 5)%, and then ((8*0.95)X - 6.8 - 5)% instead of (2X - 6.8 - 5)%, then (4X - 6.8 - 5)%, and then (8X - 6.8 - 5)%. The effect of that is minimal at best.

Originally posted by
If you can keep the morale high enough after a TO the change to the next to TO change should not be too drastic.
Because the effect is multiplicative, it's not so much the second turnover that's the problem. As in the original example, if your turnover chance merely doubles from 3% to 6% then it's still not terribly likely. The problem is what happens if you get several "unlucky" rolls in the same game. At that point the percentages quickly accelerate out of control.

Originally posted by
3. The game you show is not a clear example of a death spiral.
The QB in question had 6 INTs in one game despite 68 confidence. He's had 44 in his other 127 regular season games combined. And for the record, that defense was not one designed for turnovers. That one game accounted for half their non-gut interceptions on the whole season.

Originally posted by Jed




Reading comprehension--try it. I raised the point that Confidence is the biggest factor on multi-fumble/INT games and your response was "there should be more than just Confidence."


You ALLEGE that confidence is the biggest factor. The OP believes otherwise. I lean that way as well.

Originally posted by Chysil
1 - the number .1% that you pulled out of no where, where did you get this number? A guess? Or do you have actual data parsed for this? 2 - The multiplicative penalty that you claim is coded in the game. How do you know about this? Another guess? An assumption? I know you can't have real hard data on this because there would be way to many variables for it to be usable, and if you are so good at math you'd surely know this. just wondering
I am known professionally for an ability to spot patterns within large amounts of data. It's a gift that I possess. Of course these are all just estimations because none of us but Bort have access to the source code, so insisting on that kind of "proof" is a copout which allows you to never agree with anyone on anything. My explanation is not only valid, but it squares with the actual results observed in numerous games where players had mass turnover experiences despite having "good" builds and not being turnover-prone in general. But do I actually know for a fact that this is what's happening? No, I don't. It's merely the best hypothesis I can form based on the available data, and it's one I have seen bolstered rather than undermined by subsequent data.


Originally posted by Jed
Which means the rest of the numbers he throws out there are not based on fact, but opinion. Throw out some real numbers of players with high Confidence being as susceptible to multi-fumble/int/drop games as ones with low Confidence and there's a point to be had. Till then, this thread is "I don't like Confidence."
Dude, after how thoroughly you embarrassed yourself in the X-factor thread, I figured that you would just give up on the forums for a while. I really think you should, especially since you insisted that confidence was an explanation for the X-factor as well.

Again, it has been shown numerous times that players with third and fourth capped confidence may experience these turnover cascades. Moreover, they do not appear to be any more likely among players with low confidence. Confidence seems to have no correlation whatsoever with these mass-turnover games, and that's precisely because the designed effects of confidence are much, much smaller than the penalties coded for turnovers.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by Jed

Which means the rest of the numbers he throws out there are not based on fact, but opinion. Throw out some real numbers of players with high Confidence being as susceptible to multi-fumble/int/drop games as ones with low Confidence and there's a point to be had. Till then, this thread is "I don't like Confidence."
Dude, after how thoroughly you embarrassed yourself in the X-factor thread, I figured that you would just give up on the forums for a while. I really think you should, especially since you insisted that confidence was an explanation for the X-factor as well.

Again, it has been shown numerous times that players with third and fourth capped confidence may experience these turnover cascades. Moreover, they do not appear to be any more likely among players with low confidence. Confidence seems to have no correlation whatsoever with these mass-turnover games, and that's precisely because the designed effects of confidence are much, much smaller than the penalties coded for turnovers.

Do you happen to have any of these numerous examples on hand? Or are they to hard to link?

Originally posted by DL24
Do you happen to have any of these numerous examples on hand? Or are they to hard to link?
This is the only thread I bookmarked because it was my own, but I made this suggestion precisely because there was a massive thread in the GLB forum at that time where people were listing examples of turnover cascades. So no, unfortunately I don't. And I am 100% fine with you not acceding to my judgment without seeing that data, I just don't want people screaming "Confidence! Confidence!" when that element has already been disproven. The only other potentially valid explanation I can think of is that these events are merely extremely unlikely yet still possible consequences of the RNG. I disagree with that explanation because of the circumstances of the data (you would expect a normal distribution of turnovers if they were strictly random), but it's still possible.

dupe

It should also be noted that in my teams 5 turnover loss/upset, the summary page showed ending morale in the high 90s for all but a few players. I'm thinking turnovers trigger turovers, regardless of confidence/morale.

Originally posted by Jed
So is this thread really just complaining that people don't want to have to put more into Confidence in order to do what Confidence does at higher levels?

I've been stricken twice. First in a season opener in a pro league when my WR/KR fumbled SIX times on kickoff returns - each going back for TDs. He had 50+ in carry and 50+ in confidence. One fumble is acceptable. Two is a bad day. Three is a horrible day. SIX is a fuckin' joke. Show me a gameplan that can overcome a 42 point deficit. Try to rationalize how this could be realistic. Also, he did not fumble any more that season. He was not a fumble prone build. He just got sucked into the turnover death spiral.

My QB is the other player who has been affected, and I documented his situation earlier in the thread. He has 71 confidence. I would think this is adequate. But maybe not?

dupe

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by DL24

Do you happen to have any of these numerous examples on hand? Or are they to hard to link?
This is the only thread I bookmarked because it was my own, but I made this suggestion precisely because there was a massive thread in the GLB forum at that time where people were listing examples of turnover cascades. So no, unfortunately I don't. And I am 100% fine with you not acceding to my judgment without seeing that data, I just don't want people screaming "Confidence! Confidence!" when that element has already been disproven. The only other potentially valid explanation I can think of is that these events are merely extremely unlikely yet still possible consequences of the RNG. I disagree with that explanation because of the circumstances of the data (you would expect a normal distribution of turnovers if they were strictly random), but it's still possible.

Sure...

But I've only seen one game in the last 3 seasons where a QB threw 5 INTs in a 1st-round playoff loss, after throwing only 7 all season. And fumbles of course are very dependent on your opponent, so those can be explained easier.

Originally posted by markm6770
It should also be noted that in my teams 5 turnover loss/upset, the summary page showed ending morale in the high 90s for all but a few players. I'm thinking turnovers trigger turovers, regardless of confidence/morale.

Originally posted by Jed

So is this thread really just complaining that people don't want to have to put more into Confidence in order to do what Confidence does at higher levels?

I've been stricken twice. First in a season opener in a pro league when my WR/KR fumbled SIX times on kickoff returns - each going back for TDs. He had 50+ in carry and 50+ in confidence. One fumble is acceptable. Two is a bad day. Three is a horrible day. SIX is a fuckin' joke. Show me a gameplan that can overcome a 42 point deficit. Try to rationalize how this could be realistic. Also, he did not fumble any more that season. He was not a fumble prone build. He just got sucked into the turnover death spiral.

My QB is the other player who has been affected, and I documented his situation earlier in the thread. He has 71 confidence. I would think this is adequate. But maybe not?

50 Carrying is extremely low if you are handling the ball multiple times in a pro league. I'd have it to at least 61, if not 68, since you're facing defenders with at least 60+ Strength and 60-70 Tackling.

Originally posted by markm6770


I've been stricken twice. First in a season opener in a pro league when my WR/KR fumbled SIX times on kickoff returns - each going back for TDs. He had 50+ in carry and 50+ in confidence. One fumble is acceptable. Two is a bad day. Three is a horrible day. SIX is a fuckin' joke. Show me a gameplan that can overcome a 42 point deficit. Try to rationalize how this could be realistic. Also, he did not fumble any more that season. He was not a fumble prone build. He just got sucked into the turnover death spiral.

My QB is the other player who has been affected, and I documented his situation earlier in the thread. He has 71 confidence. I would think this is adequate. But maybe not?






Thanks for those examples. I now await the usual non-readers to yet again post the equivalent of "Needs more confidence!".