Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick
This is still screwing teams over. Bort, FIX THIS PROBLEM!

It is not remotely realistic for a turnover to increase your chances of having more turnovers. Not getting off your ass and correcting that means that these turnover cascades kill teams, and there's absolutely nothing their builds can do to stop it. I have explained the issue mathematically, so there is no excuse for ignorance, JUST FIX IT!

NO U


Confidence seems to work wonders as well. Confidence is part of a players build. So is Strength, carrying, throwing, vision, catching............all things that help reduce/avoid turnovers.

Originally posted by driftinggrifter
NO U Confidence seems to work wonders as well. Confidence is part of a players build. So is Strength, carrying, throwing, vision, catching............all things that help reduce/avoid turnovers.
Confidence has nothing whatsoever to do with this because it has been proven numerous times that no amount of confidence has enough of an effect to counter-act a turnover cascade. If you have not taken a college level course in probability, then maybe you just don't understand what's going on here. That's fine, but then stay away from the thread until you've become educated enough to participate intelligently.

Confidence seems to play a bigger factor in the playoffs imo. Just because it didn't seem to hurt someone in the regular season doesn't mean it won't bite them in the ass in the playoffs.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by driftinggrifter

NO U Confidence seems to work wonders as well. Confidence is part of a players build. So is Strength, carrying, throwing, vision, catching............all things that help reduce/avoid turnovers.
Confidence has nothing whatsoever to do with this because it has been proven numerous times that no amount of confidence has enough of an effect to counter-act a turnover cascade. If you have not taken a college level course in probability, then maybe you just don't understand what's going on here. That's fine, but then stay away from the thread until you've become educated enough to participate intelligently.

Ohhh look at you. Always trying to insult people who disagree with ya.

Like I said

Confidence seems to work wonders as well. Confidence is part of a players build. So is Strength, carrying, throwing, vision, catching............all things that help reduce/avoid turnovers.

Originally posted by Mightyhalo
Confidence seems to play a bigger factor in the playoffs imo. Just because it didn't seem to hurt someone in the regular season doesn't mean it won't bite them in the ass in the playoffs.
Jesus H. Christ. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONFIDENCE. The players involved have very high confidence, and it has been proven many times that even fourth capped confidence does not stop these cascades. The reason for that is straightforward for anyone who understands basic fucking mathematics. The effects of confidence are additive, while the coded effects of turnovers are multiplicative. A base -1% reduction to your turnover chance from confidence quickly gets overwhelmed by the doubling of your chance from the previous event's occurrence.

Originally posted by driftinggrifter
Ohhh look at you. Always trying to insult people who disagree with ya.
It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. I would have the exact same opinion of your intelligence if you decided to follow me around and agree with everything I say. The fact is that your posts show that you don't have even the faintest inkling of a clue about what is happening here. You don't have the slightest idea, which is why your posts are annoying and counter-productive. Instead of realizing your ignorance and asking to try and understand, you pontificate as if you already know when you clearly don't.

Originally posted by
Confidence seems to work wonders as well. Confidence is part of a players build. So is Strength, carrying, throwing, vision, catching............all things that help reduce/avoid turnovers.
Attributes are additive factors. The current problem with turnovers is that their effects are multiplicative. Additive factors cannot even begin to keep up with mutiplicative factors. This is basic, basic mathematics, so please enroll in some sort of class that can help you.

What team had the fumble problem? I would love to dig a little deeper.

^ Needs moar confidence IMO. 2x as much

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by driftinggrifter

Ohhh look at you. Always trying to insult people who disagree with ya.
It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me. I would have the exact same opinion of your intelligence if you decided to follow me around and agree with everything I say. The fact is that your posts show that you don't have even the faintest inkling of a clue about what is happening here. You don't have the slightest idea, which is why your posts are annoying and counter-productive. Instead of realizing your ignorance and asking to try and understand, you pontificate as if you already know when you clearly don't.

Originally posted by

Confidence seems to work wonders as well. Confidence is part of a players build. So is Strength, carrying, throwing, vision, catching............all things that help reduce/avoid turnovers.
Attributes are additive factors. The current problem with turnovers is that their effects are multiplicative. Additive factors cannot even begin to keep up with mutiplicative factors. This is basic, basic mathematics, so please enroll in some sort of class that can help you.




You are my favorite ¢¾¢¾¢¾¢¾¢¾¢¾¢¾¢¾¢¾

Originally posted by Mightyhalo
What team had the fumble problem? I would love to dig a little deeper.
Many, especially in S9 before Bort made some changes to reduce the base fumble chance. He's done that kind of thing several times where he puts a band-aid solution which might cover up the problem for the most part, but it inevitably crops up again because he's not addressing the root issue.

Here, I'll try to explain this again:

Let's say that a running back has an X% base chance of fumbling on any particular play. That X% is then modified by the additive factors of carrying, Cover Up, and avoid fumble AEQ. So if we say that carrying reduces your fumble chance by 0.1% for every point in carrying, then you'd have a fumble chance of (X - (0.1 * carrying)%. Ditto for Cover up if it reduces your chance by 1% for every point in that.

The problem is that these additive factors quickly become outweighed by the multiplicative factor currently coded into the sim as a consequence of previous turnovers. In my hypothetical, the chance of fumbling doubled with each previous fumble, as that seems to be a fairly realistic approximation based on the data.

So if a guy has 68 in carrying and 5 in Cover up, then he'd have an (X - 6.8 - 5)%. But if fumbling doubles your chance of a subsequent fumble, then you're looking at (2X - 6.8 - 5)%, then (4X - 6.8 - 5)%, and then (8X - 6.8 - 5)%. The additive factors of the attributes can't even begin to keep up with the multiplicative effects. With just a few "unlucky" rolls, things quickly spiral out of control to a degree that absolutely no build can stop because additive factors can't counter-act such a dramatic effect.

Is that making any sense?

After reading 7 pages, I have to say I've never seen anyone defend a suggestion like this for a long time.

A for effort, E for the suggestion. You can't remove confidence from one aspect of bad play, without removing it from all aspects of bad play. If you do, you make it worthless.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player_game_log.pl?player_id=32107 - One game with more than one fumble

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player_game_log.pl?player_id=633456 - Two games with more than one fumble

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player_game_log.pl?player_id=818194 - One game with more than one fumble

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player_game_log.pl?player_id=434586 - Two games with more than one fumble

I could keep going, I'm sure, but I don't see the need for drastic changes to the sim, and removing confidence would be a gigantic change. With the teams I'm associated, I don't see a ton of multiple fumble games.

This suggestion, IMO, is a knee jerk reaction to one bad sim.

Originally posted by supgreg
A for effort, E for the suggestion. You can't remove confidence from one aspect of bad play, without removing it from all aspects of bad play. If you do, you make it worthless.
Can you point me to any place in this entire thread where I suggested removing confidence from the sim? No, you can't because I did not, which is what makes your response so maddening. In fact, I specifically said that confidence should be a factor in the base turnover chance, like carrying for fumbles or throwing for interceptions.

Originally posted by
I could keep going, I'm sure, but I don't see the need for drastic changes to the sim, and removing confidence would be a gigantic change.
Again. no one in the entire thread suggested removing confidence, so I have no idea what thread you thought you were responding to. Perhaps you should go look for that one. In the meantime, the "need" for this fix is obvious because it has been costing teams games for at least 7 seasons now. There is an underlying problem with how turnovers are coded in the sim, and while is certainly a rare effect, it is nonetheless a crippling one. When this happens to your team, you will lose. It doesn't matter what builds you have or what gameplan you're losing, if you're unlucky enough to hit this turnover cascade then you're done. It's a very easy fix to an obvious problem, but unfortunately it seems like few people who play GLB actually took basic math.

Originally posted by
This suggestion, IMO, is a knee jerk reaction to one bad sim.
Dude, this has happened to numerous teams over numerous seasons. Your earlier comment suggested you read the thread, but if you did then you obviously didn't understand it. Most of the time people just create a bitch thread in the GLB forum to complain about their team suddenly having a crapload of turnovers when they never had before, and that's because few understand the dynamic behind these events. The problem is how turnovers are coded, and it needs to be fixed. Maybe it only affects 0.1% of games, but when those games become a guaranteed loss regardless of your builds or gameplan, then that's still a serious problem, and it needs a fix. Bort has tried to "fix" the turnover problem in a couple of different ways, but none of them addressed the root issue. This would.

Problem is you are working off a series of assumptions with no examples to back it up.

If it was working as you suggest, we would see threads everyday asking how someones HB fumbles 6 times in a game, or why did my team have 10 fumbles and 5 picks?

You like to say it's been costing teams for 7 seasons! But if that is true, it could be argued that it has also been helping teams for 7 seasons too who are properly built.

If you have a build that is susceptible to a confidence spiral (downwards) then that's purely your own fault.

If you listened to all the Build experts who left confidence as their last stat to do anything with then again it's YOUR fault.

Confidence and Stamina are massive in this game as they effect EVERY other stat out there. (They may even effect themselves which would be a double whammy)

I'm certain the OP has some merit. I personally witnessed a QB go an entire 16 game schedule (back when schedules were more competitive than they are today) and throw only 15 picks spread out over more than 500+ passes. He then proceeded to throw NINE picks in our opening playoff game in a little over 30 passes...before giving way to the backup QB who threw a TENTH. We had beaten that particular team earlier in the regular season.

Its fine (and probably true) that many wish to believe that "Confidence matters bigtime in the playoffs". But the current coding amounts to the chance for a unrealistic "death spiral" to occur where players put up ridiculously unrealistic amounts of turnovers, and I'm pretty certain that "death spiral" effect is due in part to what the original poster would refer to as the "multiplicative effect of previous turnovers upon the chance of rolling future turnovers". Something is amiss.