Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DL24
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.

If he has a build prone to fumbling as you claim, then why did he not fumble again the rest of the season?

Originally posted by DL24
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.
It's not a common phenomenon because the turnover chance in general is fairly small, so the odds of being "unlucky" and hitting that several times in short order to produce a turnover cascade are pretty long ones. If the base turnover chance was higher, then you'd not only see these more often, but also see 10+ turnover games from individual players. Actually that ties into your second comment, as teams which force a higher base chance of turnovers are more likely to see these turnover cascades. If the effect I describe didn't exist, then their caused turnover distribution would presumably be normal. Instead you generally see them either causing few to no turnovers or quite a lot.

Originally posted by jdbolick
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.



I'm professionally known for my ability to smell BS from a mile away... and my nose is burning.

ok so we should just take your word on it? I mean you didn't really do anything but say "ya that seems right?"

And it's not a copout... it wouldn't be too hard to calculate the the number of games where a QB throws 3+ interceptions a game. I detail it.

Using a random number generator, you'd pick let's say 300 games at random from different leagues (you'd number all the leagues, than the teams and than the game, so for each game you'd use the RNG 3 times to get the specific game). Than you'd throw out an replace any blow out games (due to stats not being accurate for that). You could choose to ignore lower levels, since they don't pass much (or replace any game where the QB doesn't throw a certain number of passes). Than just count every game that has a QB throwing 3 picks or more. It's work, but it's still scientific. You'd have to do more research to show that there was most likely not a build correlation. I don't blame you for not doing the work, but it's possible, so don't say it's a copout, and don't spew out crap and act like you've done the work

I mean, call me skeptic, but I'm not just going to take a total stranger on his word and him saying that he's "professionally" known for this ability...

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
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!".


Fumbles and interceptions are extremely different occurences in GLB. Fumbles are influenced way more directly by the opposition, imo. You can not use a case of the fumble-itis in a Pro League as justification for an argument involving interceptions, of which we have seen only one link, from a few seasons ago.

Originally posted by butler312
Originally posted by DL24

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.

If he has a build prone to fumbling as you claim, then why did he not fumble again the rest of the season?

What player was he even talking about? His only WR is in Canadian AAA, and didn't return any kicks or punts the last few seasons.

Originally posted by DL24
Fumbles and interceptions are extremely different occurences in GLB. Fumbles are influenced way more directly by the opposition, imo. You can not use a case of the fumble-itis in a Pro League as justification for an argument involving interceptions, of which we have seen only one link, from a few seasons ago.

because the players that make the interceptions don't have catching, vision, jumping, and the speed/agility etc to get in front of the ball...

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by driftinggrifter

Link a game with a death spiraling 3rd capp'd confidence QB.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=475766

And there are many, many more examples, I just didn't bookmark all the ones from previous threads complaining about turnover cascades. You're not new to this game, so stop pretending otherwise. You've seen numerous threads in the GLB forum where people said that their QB had high confidence (sometimes 70+) and yet had mass-turnover games.

Moreover, I HAVE EXPLAINED THE MATHEMATICS OF WHY THIS HAPPENS. You continue to troll this thread by yelling "Confidence! Confidence! Confidence!" as if you're completely incapable of processing any new information and simply repeating the same phrase over and over again like some trained parrot. "Fix your builds!" is the most common response to any thread on GLB precisely because it is so useless and takes no thought whatsoever. It is the standard response of the useless troll who wants nothing more than for flaws and exploits to be left alone in the game, on the off chance that they might benefit from them.

Wouldn't have anything more recent would you? Probably something like this season maybe?
That is from season 9, two seasons ago.

Moreover, you continue to troll by trying to insult people and act as though you have more knowledge about the coding than anyone in this game. If that were the case, then you would realize that a season 9 game would have no bearing on a present day arguement since the sim has been tweaked/changed twice since then.

Originally posted by Chysil
ok so we should just take your word on it? I mean you didn't really do anything but say "ya that seems right?"
Apparently you're not very familiar with science or the concept of proposing hypotheses. I can't do experiments on this because I don't have access to the test server, but relatively little of our collective human understanding has come from controlled scientific experimentation. Most of it has come from postulating potential explanations which fit the data, and then seeing if subsequent data conforms to the expectations.

Again, if turnover chance did not operate in the fashion I describe, then turnover incidence would be expressed in a normal distribution, and the chances of anyone having a 6+ turnover game would be fantastically improbable. Turnovers in general are much less common in GLB than in real life, correct? Yet mass turnover games are more common in GLB. That's because Bort has coded in penalties for turnovers which make subsequent turnovers much more likely. If these were just random events, then the odds of someone having 1/3 of their total turnovers in 1 out of 16 games would be incredible. That's not a reasonable explanation of what's happening.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

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

OK, I see how this works now. 0 proof required, a random guess is good enough proof?

Originally posted by jdbolick
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.

1) No, not so much. Nice revisionist history, I prefer the actual truth where I didn't believe jack shit till I saw proof.....at which point I was one of the biggest driving forces to get Bort to look at it.

2) "Shown numerous times," yet all you can do is make up #'s in your OP. That tells me that this is more guessing and 0 proof. If there's proof, it should be in the OP. If there's not, then this is the "I don't like Confidence" thread.




If there is proof that there is a bug where a player with higher Confidence/Carrying (and maybe Clutch) is getting more multi-fumble games than one with lower in those categories, then post it. If not, this is just a guess with absolutely no backing.

Originally posted by butler312
Originally posted by DL24

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.

If he has a build prone to fumbling as you claim, then why did he not fumble again the rest of the season?

Player tactics, defensive SA's and VA's, and player builds.

I was part of a team in Pro's that were known for their ability to make fumbles happen multiple times a game while other teams could only get the typical one or two.

Originally posted by DL24
What player was he even talking about? His only WR is in Canadian AAA, and didn't return any kicks or punts the last few seasons.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=477042

There was a huge thread in the forums about this game because it was such obvious evidence that turnovers were out of control. Multiple people posted similar results, and Bort actually responded to that thread by making changes to the sim. Unfortunately he didn't implement the one in the OP, otherwise no more threads would be needed. Instead we see this issue crop up periodically for seven seasons now.


Originally posted by driftinggrifter
Moreover, you continue to troll by trying to insult people and act as though you have more knowledge about the coding than anyone in this game. If that were the case, then you would realize that a season 9 game would have no bearing on a present day arguement since the sim has been tweaked/changed twice since then.
When you come into my thread spouting nonsense just to try and disrupt valid discussion, then that means you're the troll. Me getting pissed about your trolling, and subsequently exposing the ludicrous nature of your supposed explanations is just the natural reaction for someone with a low tolerance for your kind of behavior. Moreover, good job on highlighting your ignorance by insisting that S9 has nothing to do with the current sim even though it's been mentioned numerous times that this phenomenon has been observed since S5, if not before. Bort's changes sometimes bury or mask this flaw in the code, but it inevitably pops up again because he's not addressing the root issue.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Apparently you're not very familiar with science or the concept of proposing hypotheses. I can't do experiments on this because I don't have access to the test server, but relatively little of our collective human understanding has come from controlled scientific experimentation. Most of it has come from postulating potential explanations which fit the data, and then seeing if subsequent data conforms to the expectations.

Again, if turnover chance did not operate in the fashion I describe, then turnover incidence would be expressed in a normal distribution, and the chances of anyone having a 6+ turnover game would be fantastically improbable. Turnovers in general are much less common in GLB than in real life, correct? Yet mass turnover games are more common in GLB. That's because Bort has coded in penalties for turnovers which make subsequent turnovers much more likely. If these were just random events, then the odds of someone having 1/3 of their total turnovers in 1 out of 16 games would be incredible. That's not a reasonable explanation of what's happening.

1 - I outlined a way to do an experiment, perhaps you didn't see that? Or you ignored it?

2 - you are claiming it is not normally distributed, but yet you haven't done the work to SHOW it.... you know how many games are simed every day? So is it possible that you are getting pointed to the far radical ends of the normal curve when you are shown the huge turnover games?

did you take 1 stats class and assume you know it all now? I'd get your money back from the classes you took

Nvm...

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by DL24

What player was he even talking about? His only WR is in Canadian AAA, and didn't return any kicks or punts the last few seasons.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=477042

There was a huge thread in the forums about this game because it was such obvious evidence that turnovers were out of control. Multiple people posted similar results, and Bort actually responded to that thread by making changes to the sim. Unfortunately he didn't implement the one in the OP, otherwise no more threads would be needed. Instead we see this issue crop up periodically for seven seasons now.


Originally posted by driftinggrifter

Moreover, you continue to troll by trying to insult people and act as though you have more knowledge about the coding than anyone in this game. If that were the case, then you would realize that a season 9 game would have no bearing on a present day arguement since the sim has been tweaked/changed twice since then.
When you come into my thread spouting nonsense just to try and disrupt valid discussion, then that means you're the troll. Me getting pissed about your trolling, and subsequently exposing the ludicrous nature of your supposed explanations is just the natural reaction for someone with a low tolerance for your kind of behavior. Moreover, good job on highlighting your ignorance by insisting that S9 has nothing to do with the current sim even though it's been mentioned numerous times that this phenomenon has been observed since S5, if not before. Bort's changes sometimes bury or mask this flaw in the code, but it inevitably pops up again because he's not addressing the root issue.


YOu get pissed and call people trolls because of their differing nature to your opinion and the fact that they will actually debate with you?
Brilliant.
Guess, for all your supposed smarts, you haven't figured out how to be the bigger person and actually debate or even go as far as ignoring the people that disagree with you? Without trying to insult people.

Originally posted by Jed
OK, I see how this works now. 0 proof required, a random guess is good enough proof?
No, here's how it works: If confidence was the answer that you claim, then you would attempt to produce some kind of mathematical model or even just basic evidence that high confidence prevents these results. Or you could focus on whether or not low confidence produces these results more often. Barring that, you could just stop embarrassing yourself by realizing that people have already addressed confidence multiple times in this thread, and pointed out that high confidence doesn't prevent these turnover cascades, nor does low confidence make them more common. That's because the effects of confidence are minor compared to the penalties currently associated with turnovers.

Originally posted by
1) No, not so much. Nice revisionist history, I prefer the actual truth where I didn't believe jack shit till I saw proof.....at which point I was one of the biggest driving forces to get Bort to look at it.
Dude, you're the only one who believes that. Seriously, ask around. You are viewed as a guy who insulted PierreThomas, locked his thread, and did everything possible to disrupt his attempt to prove the existence of the X-factor. You repeatedly insisted that he was full of crap and that the answer was confidence. If not for Deathblade stopping you and proving you wrong, we probably never would have gotten a supposed fix for that "problem." And he's the one who got Bort to do something, not you. You locked the thread and only brought it to Bort's attention after Deathblade embarrassed your intolerance and lack of knowledge.

Originally posted by
2) "Shown numerous times," yet all you can do is make up #'s in your OP. That tells me that this is more guessing and 0 proof. If there's proof, it should be in the OP. If there's not, then this is the "I don't like Confidence" thread.
I don't know what community college you attended, but they obviously didn't have a course on mathematical modeling. If you're interested, I can recommend some books that would teach you a thing or two.

Originally posted by
If there is proof that there is a bug where a player with higher Confidence/Carrying (and maybe Clutch) is getting more multi-fumble games than one with lower in those categories, then post it.
I love how you insist that confidence is the answer while never providing any proof of your own. That's why you ended up getting humiliated in the X-factor thread, because you're a bully who runs his mouth and expects everyone else to bow down just because you say so. Unfortunately your track record on being right is abysmal, so a lot of people aren't willing to just shut up and accept whatever blanket statement you make to disrupt threads.

Again, this has happened to players with high confidence, and it is not more common among players with low confidence. If confidence was such a huge factor in this phenomenon, then those two things would not be true.