Warrior General Games

Probably I didn't understand well, but what about guys like Steven Jackson for example? They are heavy, fast and quick.
But you said..

100 Speed
Heavy-------------------------------------------Light
Slow-----------------Average-----------------Fast

He isn't light, so should he be slow?

100 Strength
Heavy-------------------------------------------Light
Powerful------------Strong---------------Average

And again... he isn't light, so why should he be clumsy?

100 Agility
Heavy------------------------------------------Light
Clumsy--------------Average--------------Quick



Again, sorry if I missed the answer to this above.

The general idea here is to make it harder (but not impossible, mostly) for heavy guys to be fast and light guys to be strong.

The best solution would've been flexible caps (and equivalent differences in training rates) from the beginning, but that is not an option today with out the option of a server wipe. The "true attribute" system is basically a workaround for achieving the same effect without a wipe.

Truth is I don't really like either system. A couple pages back I offered the alternative idea that weight along with the attribute values (and their use on the play) could combine to vary how much energy is used on a given play. IMO a variable energy system offers a lot more flexibility and strategy to player builds, team building and even game strategies (if the AIs are upgraded to support better situational substitutions).

I see these "true attribute" systems as an attempt to not really change the game but "secretly" nerf positions on both extremes of the weight scale.

Originally posted by PowerBack22
what about accounting speed into effect here, in the OP, the scale says this:

100 Strength
Heavy-------------------------------------------Light
Powerful------------Strong---------------Average

Shouldn't this be depending on the speed the person is traveling as well?
A light person going extremely fast can knock a harder hit than a heavy person going slow. but what this suggests is that No matter what the speed, the heavy person will always knock a harder hit.
(sorry if this has been brought up in the last 10 pages, I really didnt feel like checking every post to see if this has been brought up)

That's momentum and what not, not pure functional strength. When talking about "strength", we're talking about the ability to push a player backwards, or to take a hit.

Originally posted by dkmfan
The best solution would've been flexible caps (and equivalent differences in training rates) from the beginning, but that is not an option today with out the option of a server wipe. The "true attribute" system is basically a workaround for achieving the same effect without a wipe.

Implementing the "true attribute" system for currently players really is not feasible either. It can be done, but it will piss off an awful lot of people to suddenly have their player be slower or weaker than they built them to be.

Originally posted by dkmfan
Truth is I don't really like either system. A couple pages back I offered the alternative idea that weight along with the attribute values (and their use on the play) could combine to vary how much energy is used on a given play. IMO a variable energy system offers a lot more flexibility and strategy to player builds, team building and even game strategies (if the AIs are upgraded to support better situational substitutions).

I didn't see that earlier. That makes some sense. Heavier players use more energy to run, but require more energy to interact with? Come to think of it, I believe I vaguely remember Bort saying weight already has a slight effect in this manner?

Originally posted by Al Morgan
Probably I didn't understand well, but what about guys like Steven Jackson for example? They are heavy, fast and quick.
But you said..

100 Speed
Heavy-------------------------------------------Light
Slow-----------------Average-----------------Fast

He isn't light, so should he be slow?

100 Strength
Heavy-------------------------------------------Light
Powerful------------Strong---------------Average

And again... he isn't light, so why should he be clumsy?

100 Agility
Heavy------------------------------------------Light
Clumsy--------------Average--------------Quick



Again, sorry if I missed the answer to this above.

It's harder for a heavier guy to be faster than the lighter guys, but it's possible.
It's harder for a lighter guy to be stronger than a heavier guy, but it's possible.

In order to build a player like Steven Jackson, you'd end up simply needed to spend more points on your physical skills in order to get up there.

Plus, you can't generalize the game based on a few freaks of nature

Originally posted by TrevJo
Originally posted by dkmfan

The best solution would've been flexible caps (and equivalent differences in training rates) from the beginning, but that is not an option today with out the option of a server wipe. The "true attribute" system is basically a workaround for achieving the same effect without a wipe.

Implementing the "true attribute" system for currently players really is not feasible either. It can be done, but it will piss off an awful lot of people to suddenly have their player be slower or weaker than they built them to be.

Originally posted by dkmfan

Truth is I don't really like either system. A couple pages back I offered the alternative idea that weight along with the attribute values (and their use on the play) could combine to vary how much energy is used on a given play. IMO a variable energy system offers a lot more flexibility and strategy to player builds, team building and even game strategies (if the AIs are upgraded to support better situational substitutions).

I didn't see that earlier. That makes some sense. Heavier players use more energy to run, but require more energy to interact with? Come to think of it, I believe I vaguely remember Bort saying weight already has a slight effect in this manner?

I agree with more energy being used, but at the same time, that doesn't directly impact the skills until the player has fatigued. I honestly think this is as realistic as any game can get. The lighter guys have a tougher time becoming as strong as the bigger guys. The bigger guys have a hell of a time being as fast as the smaller guys, etc.

If this was day 1, I'd be okay with caps, but that isn't an option at this point, so simply adding a formula to the SIM is the best way to go. Of course, that's my opinion.

Something should be done

I really like the way this has fleshed out. It factors in a players natural build (i.e. height/weight) without slapping artificial caps on already created players. Gives our builds another layer.

Originally posted by Staz

I agree with more energy being used, but at the same time, that doesn't directly impact the skills until the player has fatigued. I honestly think this is as realistic as any game can get. The lighter guys have a tougher time becoming as strong as the bigger guys. The bigger guys have a hell of a time being as fast as the smaller guys, etc.


As I understand it the fatigue factor is adjusted for at least before every play already, the system I'm talking about just makes the swings in energy far more pronounced. Higher attributes (strength or speed especially) = more energy used in a play. For really fast "fat bodies" a single play could cost 20-30 energy, with the understanding that energy regeneration could be as high as 10-15 for a play their not in for (just as an example).

This would lead to every down players and special role fillers (ie 3rd down specialists). To fully make good use of this, some AI tweaks might be needed and possibly a new game XP system (based on energy use more than plays). IMO it just adds more to the game if it were to be done this way.

I suggested speed and strength should be scaled by weight for another football game and it got shot down by the same uninformed opinions that "Well X player didn't weigh much and he was stronger than guys bigger than him". Essentially my rebuttal was that if that player were to gain 10 or 20lbs then wouldn't they be even stronger and if not then why are professional athletes asked to gain and shed weight in order to remain competitive at their position.

I absolutely agree that weight should have an effect on a players attributes to give a (somewhat feigned) sense of momentum.

Originally posted by "hiuhyoi"
There should be a range for where a players weight can go for each position and possibly an option to ask the player to add or lose weight, this would only apply to select players as most will stay at around the same weight their entire career. Some players will lose and gain weight uncontrollably as an added risk while others will have the flexibility to gain or lose weight to adapt to their position. The bonuses would be automatic because speed and strength would be scaled by weight so there's no need to alter those attributes.
At the time this was from the perspective of an owner having control over AI controlled players.

As long as I dont have to do that math +1

Heavier guys does not equal slow. Muscle weighs more than fat and the stronger your legs are the more muscle you have making you faster yet stronger and heavier. How does this make much sense at all, it doesn't. Think of a new idea because this is just so unreal. There should be maybe something like this.

This is what we should do, is give everyone these options for their players build type.
HEAVY SET, STOCKY, or SLIM.
*Heavy Set would mean that the player is going to take a 5 percent hit to their agility but a 5 percent bonus to strength.
*Stocky would mean that the player takes no hit to any attributes or gain any bonuses.
*Slim would mean that the player is going to take a 5 percent hit to strength but get the 5 percent to agility.

However Bort should keep the other weight factors in as well.
I don't feel that speed should play any factor to the weight scenario at all, as I have seen some fatties run just as fast as the dinky ones. Running is about leg strength, height, and heart condition not weight. Speed and jumping could be determined by height somehow.

Players who want to keep their players the same can just pick the stocky type and be done with it. Anyone who likes this idea please +1 it because this is an epic idea out of my tiny little brain.

Brilliant ideas in this thread, its hard not to be impressed

Originally posted by Staz
People are going livid about power backs trucking DTs, about DTs flying around like mosquitos, about OTs being able to fend off Speed Rushing DEs as if their little skipping school girls. The solution is obvious. Make certain players' skills hindered. How do we do this?

Solution A: Limit Players Effectiveness by Position DENIED
-Why I don't like this approach: Just because a player is at the LB position shouldn't mean he can't be as strong as a DE. Some DEs are in the 250lb range, while some LBs are in the 250lb range. Limiting a players abilities based on his POSITION is not the way to go about it

Solution B: Put Positional Caps on Skills DENIED
-Why I don't like this approach: Not only would this require a large reworking of the current players, but it's just putting a band-aid on a larger issue. 100Speed on any player shouldn't be the same.

Solution C: Weight Caps on Skills Maybe
- Why I don't like this approach: If this was Day 1, I'd be all for it. However, there are already THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDs of players that have been created without these caps. To implement them now would cause tremendous problems with interaction between current and new players. This would be insanely complex to figure out, and implement. Adding a simple formula to the SIM seems to be the way to go. See: Solution D

Solution D: Make Weight a Larger Factor in Physical Skills BINGO
-Why I like this approach: It factors into real life as well. A 300lb OL isn't going to be as quick or evasive as a 215lb HB, but at the same time, that 215lb HB isn't going to hit as hard as the 265lb DE. Yes, there are players who break this mold in real life, and that's something we can't always emulate. However, 100 Strength shouldn't be the same across the board. The simplest, and most logical way to do this is to make Speed, Agility, Jumping and Strength all hindered or increased by weight.

Maybe something like this?

100 Speed
Heavy-------------------------------------------Light
Slow-----------------Average-----------------Fast

100 Strength
Heavy-------------------------------------------Light
Powerful------------Strong---------------Average

100 Agility
Heavy------------------------------------------Light
Clumsy--------------Average--------------Quick


As you can see in almost every real life situations, the heavier players are generally slower and less "agile". Sure, linemen might have good footwork, but are they as quick with their movements as HBs? No. Why is that? It's not because of the position their in, but rather their size.

It has been said that weight plays a factor in things already, but it's obviously not enough. A 350lb C with 100 Strength should be MUCH stronger than a 180lb WR with 100 Strength, while the WR should be MUCH faster with 100 Speed than should the C.


Issues that Might Arise:
Originally posted by MVCoach91

Well
2 ways to fix weight for those in season 1 who did not know it would be an issue

1. Allow incremental weight training

2. Allow them 5 re rolls on weight
If they find one weight they like cool beans, but would force them to think about it before they just re roll
but limiting to 5 would keep them from going until they hit a certain weight

I think that #2 could be applicable to ALL players, no matter what season. Would weight then need to be a separate roll when creating a player?

Originally posted by SikoraP13

Originally posted by Staz


Originally posted by SikoraP13



As long as you implement a training system to alter weight in small increments, +1

This is a possibility. Maybe some off season type deal?

I was thinking something more along the lines of 10TPs (5 days) = +/- 3-5 lbs
--My Thoughts: I like this, but at the same time I don't like this idea. The reason I'm not fond of it, it due to gaining weight during the season. It's very tough to GAIN weight while actually in a competitive season. Weight loss is much less difficult, so that I could see, but weight GAIN is usually achieved during the offseason. If we could move this to then, and reduce the cost (or even add a different option), that would be ideal

Plus, I think that the more weight you gain, the lower the gains you'll make. Very similar to training as it is. If you're on the lighter end of the scale for your position, weight gains will be larger. However, if you're on the heavier side, weight gains will be slower. Eventually, gains will be so minimal (1lb?) that it's not even worth the effort. This would make sense and fit in with reality as well. When initially beginning to 'bulk up', people often find it a little easier. However, the longer they go, the slower the gains, to the point where they're doing whatever they can to 'squeeze' out the pounds.

Should go for weight loss as well. Heavier = Easier, Lighter = Harder. This could easily prevent people from training their RB up to 280lbs and putting him as a power back.
Problem:Originally posted by Deathblade

Late to the party...but this would make builds stupid.

O-Linemen with 100 blocking, 100 strength, 60 agility, and 50 speed after this change, would need to have 70 blocking, 70 strength, 90 agility, 70 speed just to be like they are now. It doesn't make builds more realistic, it forces builds to be less realistic.

Solution:Originally posted by Staz

Actually, why don't we make a curve? The higher the skill, the more effect weight has upon it, but the lower it is, the less weight effects it? That way, your 48 speed C isn't running around as if he's got 30 speed. The curve will make it as if he's got 45 speed, or something to that sorts.

Then, the higher you pump the skill, the more of an effect it has?

Here's how I see the formulas working out:

Formula for Speed
x =weight
(attribute-45)=A%
A%(x-180)x .167=y%
100%-y%=z%
attribute x z=final score

180lb WR @ 90 Speed
(90-45)=45%
45%(180-180)*.167=0%
100%-0%=100%
90*1 = 90
"True" Speed = 90

225lb LB @ 90 Speed
(90-45)=45%
45%(225-180)*.167=3.38175%
100%-3.38175%=96.61825%
90*.9661825=86.956425
"True" Speed = 86.9...

275lb DE @ 90 Speed
(90-45)=45%
45%(275-180)*.167=7.13925%
100%-7.13925%=92.86075%
90*.9286075=83.574675
"True" Speed = 83.5...

325lb C @ 90 Speed
(90-45)=45%
45%(325-180)*.167=10.89675%
100%-10.89675%=89.10325%
90*.8910325=80.192925
"True" Speed = 80.1...

(Smaller numbers obviously lead to less of a 'hit')


Formula for Agility
x =weight
(attribute-60)=A%
A%(x-180)x .167=y%
100%-y%=z%
attribute x z=final score

180lb WR @ 80 Agility
(80-60)=10%
10%(180-180)x .167=0%
100%-0%=100%
80 x 100% = 80
"True" Agility = 80

225lb LB @ 80 Agility
(80-60)=10%
20%(225-180)x .167=1.503%
100%-1.503%=98.497%
80 x 98.497% = 78.7976
"True" Agility = 78.7...

275lb DE @ 80 Agility
(80-60)=10%
20%(275-180)x .167=3.173%
100%-1.503%=96.827%
80 x 98.497% = 77.4616
"True" Agility = 77.4...

325lb C @ 80 Agility
(80-60)=10%
20%(325-180)x .167=4.843%
100%-4.843%=95.157%
80 x 95.157% = 76.1256
"True" Agility = 76.1...


Perhaps make it a slightly heavier curve? Could change the x-60 to x-55?


Formula for Jumping
x=weight
(x-240)x .167=y
100-(y)=z%
attribute x z%=A
A x 55 = B= jumping height
B+ height (in inches) = jumping radius

180lb 6'0" WR @ 70 Jumping
(180-240)x .167=-10.02
100-(-10.02)=110.02%
70 x 110.02%=77.014
77.014% x 55"=42.3577"
42.357" + 72" = 114.3577"

Vertical = 42.3577
Radius = 114.3577

240lb 6'0" LB @ 70 Jumping
(240-240)x .167=0
100-(0)=100
70x100=70
70%x 42"=38.5"
38.5" + 72" = 110.5

Vertical = 38.5
Radius = 110.5

310lb 6'0" C
(310-240)x .167=11.69
100-11.69=88.11%
70 x 88.11=61.677
61.677% x 42"=33.92235"
33.92235 + 72" = 105.92235

Vertical = 33.92235
Radius = 105.92235

That's with the assumption that the "average" vertical on the high end of the scale is 42" or 70 jumping. Many receivers are around 60 jumping, which is slightly less, obviously. This would most likely put more WRs in the high 30's, which is about right in comparison to real life. I think?

Formula for Strength
x=weight
-(x-300)x .167=y%
100%-y%=z%
attribute x z%= final score

180lb WR @ 100 Strength
-(180-300)*.167=20.04%
100%-20.04%=79.96%
100* 79.96%= 79.96
"True" Strength = 79.96

225lb RB @ 100 Strength
-(225-300)x .167=12.525%
100%-12.525%=87.475%
100*87.475%=87.475
"True" Strength = 87.475

275lb DE @ 100 Strength
-(275-300)x .167=4.175%
100%-4.175%=95.825%
100*95.825%=95.825
"True" Strength = 95.825

Now, the 325lb C will be over 100 strength with this, so maybe there is a "cannot be greater than your skills" restriction. That way, even if the equation comes out to 105.4 strength, if you've only got 100 in it, it's limited to 100?

Thanks to johnbarber for throwing these equations out there. If you've got a better way of doing things, let me know. I think these actually work out quite well.

Awesome dude! that rules...I am in favor of this!

This is an excellent idea. +1 from me.

One question ; would the training percentages gained be lower for the attributes that are intended to be harder to get? For example, a 300lber uses more training sessions to increase speed than a 180lber who both have the same skill points in it?

Also, for the already established players, having their numbers reduced or increased depending on their weight shouldn't really be a problem, as if ya trained a DE to have 100 speed, wanting a quick guy, even when the change comes in, he'll still be a really quick guy in that position. Seeing as everyone would be affected, i'd say that nobody would be at an advantage.

doobas™