Warrior General Games

Originally posted by OttawaShane
I still maintain the way around these questions isn't to make 100 strength different depending on how much a player weighs, for the reason cited above - it will simply allow larger players to put fewer points into strength and allow them to get faster easier.

Instead, the best approach is one that the OP dismissed - have weight affect the caps. IRL, it is harder for a guy with a small frame to hit "100 strength" than a large framed guy. So...make the strength soft cap 48 for smaller players and 60 for larger players. Meanwhile, the small guys would get a higher cap for speed/agility.

This is THE route to more equitable builds and realism, IMO. The final answer is much more complex, where strength, confidence, speed, agility, etc are all tied tied together, football skills become uber-important to compete, etc, etc - but it all starts by making certain attributes easier/harder to build depending on body type (ie, size and position).

I like this idea as well. It would require less randomness in the weight assignments per position but easy to implement for new players. I don't see how it would work for veteran players.

Staz's, et. al. idea on weight would work for players already at high levels and seems easy enough to implement. It would require some *ahem* adjusting by owners once implemented though.

Haha, I'm working on a post to get the formulas up and examples placed. JohnBarber is the math man on this, so any issues should be directed at him. I'm getting the post typed up, will reply and add it to the OP. The numbers are really looking pretty good, IMO

Originally posted by OttawaShane
I still maintain the way around these questions isn't to make 100 strength different depending on how much a player weighs, for the reason cited above - it will simply allow larger players to put fewer points into strength and allow them to get faster easier.

Instead, the best approach is one that the OP dismissed - have weight affect the caps. IRL, it is harder for a guy with a small frame to hit "100 strength" than a large framed guy. So...make the strength soft cap 48 for smaller players and 60 for larger players. Meanwhile, the small guys would get a higher cap for speed/agility.

This is THE route to more equitable builds and realism, IMO. The final answer is much more complex, where strength, confidence, speed, agility, etc are all tied tied together, football skills become uber-important to compete, etc, etc - but it all starts by making certain attributes easier/harder to build depending on body type (ie, size and position).

The reason I dismissed that is you would need to go back into all of the current players, and restructure their builds. You'd get the same results, probably more accurate actually, by making allowing their physical skills to be affected by their weight.

If this was Season 1, Day 1, I could definitely see that being a viable option, but we're too far into the game to start making chances to the cost of skills, caps, builds, etc. The only thing we can really do is make the changes in the sim.

The curve will help prohibit players from 'abusing their weight' so to speak. Yes, you'll be stronger when you're the heaviest man out there, but the strength curve (hopefully) won't be as drastic as the speed curve. Speed is probably the biggest thing here, as you see OL running 5.0ish in the 40, while RBs running 4.4ish, if not lower

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?

What if 100 ST was the same across the board? (And speed, agility and jumping et all)

Now let's deal with weight.

You *could* do something where you migrated players from their current stats to stats that increased based on phenotype (weight & height).

Now imagine instead of the standard increments for SP costs, they were modified by the phenotype. (FEE-no-typ) For example a lighter person might have to pay for a higher ST at a lower number where a heavy player could get his ST higher with less cost.

Inverse for speed. Heavier players would have to pay more to get the same Speed as lighter players because the increase in cost would hit them sooner.

But OUCH... how do you deal with all these players that have built their players already? It's not fair!!

Easy enough. Make the changes happen over time. Say over two seasons. Your tubby linemen will get stronger over the next two seasons while your light HB might have the same strength and your WR that you've been using for blocking on screen passes would slowly lose Strength over the course of the two season.

Originally posted by neoliminal
What if 100 ST was the same across the board? (And speed, agility and jumping et all)

Now let's deal with weight.

You *could* do something where you migrated players from their current stats to stats that increased based on phenotype (weight & height).

Now imagine instead of the standard increments for SP costs, they were modified by the phenotype. (FEE-no-typ) For example a lighter person might have to pay for a higher ST at a lower number where a heavy player could get his ST higher with less cost.

Inverse for speed. Heavier players would have to pay more to get the same Speed as lighter players because the increase in cost would hit them sooner.

But OUCH... how do you deal with all these players that have built their players already? It's not fair!!

Easy enough. Make the changes happen over time. Say over two seasons. Your tubby linemen will get stronger over the next two seasons while your light HB might have the same strength and your WR that you've been using for blocking on screen passes would slowly lose Strength over the course of the two season.

Personally, I think just making the sim include weights instead of making the builds reflect weights would be a much simpler addition. You've got a incredibly large amount of coding under your belt, where as I have none, but I'd imagine simply putting in these formulas and having them apply to ALL players would be easier than going in, adjusting the costs, then having to deal with the players that have been around for ages all of a sudden having different costs? How do you adjust those guys?

I still think simply updating the sim would be the best way to go about it, actually. Don't change the cost per position, player, etc. just have the sim factor in weight to the player's movements.

First, let me say I really like the idea that weight should have more of an impact on certain physical characteristics than it currently does. Where I think an issue arises is with limiting builds in certain ways without any recourse for changing a player's weight, you are simply stuck with what was rolled for your player.

For example, say you roll an HB that weighs 190 lbs. when you create him. Using your examples above, if the agent for this player wanted to make him a power back, he would always be 190 lbs. and as a result would have diminished effective strength for the entirety of his career, which isn't particularly fair. Especially so when you apply this to everyone who has created their players before these proposed changes ever existed (which I do see you recognize as a potential issue).

I would propose instead to take a slightly altered route to this issue. Why not have a player's weight increase as the strength attribute is increased? No 190 lb. HB should have 100 strength, this I think we can all agree upon. But instead of limiting the player's strength potential because of his low weight, just increase his weight as strength is increased, so when he has developed to having 100 strength, his weight has climbed to 260 lbs., reflecting the added mass developed to be a bruiser.

At this point, utilize the other formulas that affect speed, agility, jumping, etc. based upon what current weight is. So the now super strong power back won't be able to be quite as quick as he once could have been, had he developed along a path of speed and agility.

Now with a starting level 1 OL or DL that weighs 300 lbs., I wouldn't lower their weight because they start at with 20 Strength. I think this would reflect poor functional strength compared to their overall body mass, and as they increase their strength attribute, their weight would remain stable as they simply convert fat to muscle tissue and become functionally stronger compared to their weight. Only once their strength attribute gets extreme, say 130+, should they possibly have small increments added to their weight.

I'm not sure what the exact specifics for when weight gain should begin to occur for a player. Perhaps once strength is increased beyond a certain point (25? 30?), have the code check against the weight, and if it is below a certain value, have it begin to add weight to the player.

The benefit to all of this is it could easily be applied retroactively to existing player's. The 80 strength WR's out there that currently weigh 195 lbs. would just get beefed up to 240 lbs. and low strength guys that focused on speed and agility would remain at their current weight.

In a nutshell, how a player is built should be a determining factor of weight, not the other way around.

That is actually a sound idea, but I think one that would be complicated and bring about more issues than simply basing strength off of weight. I think we addressed the weight issue with a specific type of training, costing 10TP, and allowing you to gain or lose a range of weight. The figure tossed out early on was 3-5lbs for 10TP. My issue with that was 80TP are given per regular season, and if you decide to use half of those points to train, you could gain anywhere from 12 to 20lbs, which is unrealistic during the regular season. I can see LOSING that weight, but gaining it isn't likely.

My thoughts were that some sort of weight gain/loss plan should be available during the offseason. How that would work is something I haven't put much thought into, but perhaps we could get that discussion started?

In regards to your "No 190lb RB should have 100 strength" comment, I'd agree. That's why his 'true' strength would be much lower, probably in the low 80's (without doing the math, I'm guessing around 80-81)

So, if you wanted a power back at 190lbs, that'd be about as good as you'd get. With 100 strength, you'd be the equivalent of 80 strength in today's sim. Then, should you choose to do the weight gain option in the offseason, you can increase your 'true' strength by packing on the pounds. I think 10-15lbs per offseason should be the extent of a GOOD weight gaining cycle.

I don't like the idea of increasing his weight as he builds strength. What if I want my guy to be quick, yet strong for his size? I wouldn't be able to pump up his strength because he'd start to gain weight. While heavy lifting does add mass, you can easily pack on strength while not really gaining much mass. I've had that happen to me multiple times (when I actually get off my ass and lift), but that was mainly due to a poor diet That's a whole other conversation though.

The main thing is having weight be adjustable through some method or another. This I agree with. But I'm still not sure I agree with a 190 lb. player having a functional strength of 80, still seems pretty high. Of course, this is just a game after all, not everything needs to make perfect sense.

I edited the OP to include some ideas already bounced around. Mainly ones about weight gain/loss

Originally posted by Makalele
The main thing is having weight be adjustable through some method or another. This I agree with. But I'm still not sure I agree with a 190 lb. player having a functional strength of 80, still seems pretty high. Of course, this is just a game after all, not everything needs to make perfect sense.

Yeah, it might seem a touch high, but if a 190lb RB has 100 strength, he probably won't have much speed/agility, which is where his "strengths" would lie. If he's going against 240-250lb LBs, he's going to be slightly above them, but not much. Especially if they're rolling around with 100 strength. A 240lb LB with 100 strength would be somewhere around 90 if I'm not mistaken, 10 strength higher than that RB, which should make a nice difference. Of course, the formula can always be adjusted.

Perhaps change the 300 in the equation to 315? Should bring things down slightly without throwing them way out of proportion.

Dead?

Simmering

I think this being moved to Epic was a curse.

Having the weight gearing your player will just make guys think before they decide what they want. That 190 lbs HB could be a really strong bastard. The agent that made him has just wasted points. You get a 190 lbs HB, you make him elusive to make the most of the output you were given. If you want a Power-back, roll again.

I like the idea. Makes physics actually work in game. Isaac Newton, anyone?

Originally posted by Xar
Having the weight gearing your player will just make guys think before they decide what they want. That 190 lbs HB could be a really strong bastard. The agent that made him has just wasted points. You get a 190 lbs HB, you make him elusive to make the most of the output you were given. If you want a Power-back, roll again.

I like the idea. Makes physics actually work in game. Isaac Newton, anyone?

Bingo. Think a little more before building a player. If you want a 190lb power back, go for it. Just understand that he'll perform more like Deuce McAllister, not Greg Jones (In his FSU Days)