User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Test Server Discussion > Current Sim Issues
Page:
 
Blutoski
offline
Link
 
+1 I'd like the difference in QBs more the difference between Peyton Manning and Rex Grossman. Instead we get Peyton vs his 6 year old neighbor

Originally posted by yello1
Well no.

But then again if the QB was that horrible he would not actually be in the league, would he?

IMO the game needs to "Curve" the system a bit more. Its unbalanced and unsatisfying to have teams get rolled 255-0 or 100-0 or even 75-0 on a regular basis. Its also stupid. What league exists like this?

I think the game needs to have an underlying presumption that if a player is in a league that that player is competitive enough to play in that league, and to adjust his playing abilities accordingly. Consider it Playing Up - and Playing Down - to the level of competition if you wish to rationalize it beyond that.

Basically take all the players in a league and average their effective Level (by position if you like or by side of the ball or just over all) and then "curve" all players abilities so that they are no more than X percentage, reducing or raising them to match their location on the curve of players abilities (ie if X is 20% and they have the lowest effective level then their skills would all be raised where necessary to be no more than 20% below the norm, if they were in the middle of those below the average then their skills would be raised where necessary to be no more than 10% below the norm etc). This would still make them not as good as the people they are playing against usually, but it won't make them so awful that its a boring embarrassment not even worthy of a Good Game post.

I'd put this at the top of the game issues needing addressing in GLB myself.


 
TCR
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by yello1
I am more concerned with the AI calling plays that are Flow Chart impossible to reach with the settings put in on the OAI or DAI.

Has happened more than once, verified by Mods.

Its frustrating to have that much time dedicated to making a game plan and then have it go balls up and cost you a TD or the game or the satisfaction that you at least DID something with all that time.



No matter how much you raise the issue about plays being called with a 10% chance over a play with a 50% chance it will never be acknowledged.This issue keeps getting swept under the rug and in countless games my AI has started on the lowest AI setting.
 
odg62
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by eaglesfan20
Originally posted by Mat McBriar

While I agree the decision making needs work, one of the biggest things people need to realize is that real life QBs are not robots. They do not see every window or hit every open receiver.

QBs can't be perfect, both in the real world and the dotball world, or defending the pass will be an absolute nightmare.


i dont think anyone wants the QBs to be perfect- that would be crazy but completing less than 50% of passes and general not great decisions arent making things much fun either
look at this play http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1192820&pbp_id=19288359

why does the QB pass up the 1 on 1 coverage to throw into a man covered by 4 guys - at least go to the receiver who has a chance to make a play


Youd be suprised how many people lobby for their QBs to be perfect, several misguided major changes have occured over the seasons thanks to the "influence" of those people...
 
odg62
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by yello1
Originally posted by Xar

I actually think that most of the decisions are correct. You have to take into account the builds that we are playing with. At WL most of the problems are not an issue because the builds are good enough.

It is part-and-parcel of the build structure we have that no positions acts properly and logically. You can't have a QB with 80 throwing and 10 vision and expect him to see anything.


Well no.

But then again if the QB was that horrible he would not actually be in the league, would he?

IMO the game needs to "Curve" the system a bit more. Its unbalanced and unsatisfying to have teams get rolled 255-0 or 100-0 or even 75-0 on a regular basis. Its also stupid. What league exists like this?

I think the game needs to have an underlying presumption that if a player is in a league that that player is competitive enough to play in that league, and to adjust his playing abilities accordingly. Consider it Playing Up - and Playing Down - to the level of competition if you wish to rationalize it beyond that.

Basically take all the players in a league and average their effective Level (by position if you like or by side of the ball or just over all) and then "curve" all players abilities so that they are no more than X percentage, reducing or raising them to match their location on the curve of players abilities (ie if X is 20% and they have the lowest effective level then their skills would all be raised where necessary to be no more than 20% below the norm, if they were in the middle of those below the average then their skills would be raised where necessary to be no more than 10% below the norm etc). This would still make them not as good as the people they are playing against usually, but it won't make them so awful that its a boring embarrassment not even worthy of a Good Game post.

I'd put this at the top of the game issues needing addressing in GLB myself.


no way, you dont fix parity by artifically influencing builds, you fix it by creating a market where all teams have equal acess to competitive talent.

Hopefully the changes that are/have gone through promote that.

Unfortunatley, a few planned changes that would have got whined out of the game.
Edited by odg62 on May 19, 2010 19:21:14
 
odg62
offline
Link
 
One more thing, and someone please correct me if this got nixed and i missed it.....

Having player performance affected by salary level is hands down the worst idea that has ever come down the pipe (and there is some sstiff competition in the bad decision department in GLB)

That would completley ruin the game for so many people and its just plain cheesy.
 
SlashNDash
DASHING
offline
Link
 
Didn't read through the whole thing, so if this has been mentioned already, please change it.


I'd like an option added to the DPC where I can tell players where to actually zone to if their man stays in to block.

For example; If the SS is set to cover the HB out of the backfield, but the HB stays in to block, I'd like to be able to tell the SS to Zone Strong Middle instead of just 'Zone'. There have been too many times where the SS/FS just sits in space when he could be getting back into coverage to help with the pass. I think all of the backs (LBs and DBs) should have that option.

It should be a reasonably simple fix since the only thing that needs to be added are options that already exist.
Edited by SlashNDash on May 19, 2010 20:07:26
 
odg62
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by SlashNDash
Didn't read through the whole thing, so if this has been mentioned already, please change it.


I'd like an option added to the DPC where I can tell players where to actually zone to if their man stays in to block.

For example; If the SS is set to cover the HB out of the backfield, but the HB stays in to block, I'd like to be able to tell the SS to Zone Strong Middle instead of just 'Zone'. There have been too many times where the SS/FS just sits in space when he could be getting back into coverage to help with the pass. I think all of the backs (LBs and DBs) should have that option.

It should be a reasonably simple fix since the only thing that needs to be added are options that already exist.


It has been mentioned, but its a great suggestion and honestley i never get tired of hearing it....

Great idea Slash!
 
whitewolf
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by odg62
One more thing, and someone please correct me if this got nixed and i missed it.....

Having player performance affected by salary level is hands down the worst idea that has ever come down the pipe (and there is some stiff competition in the bad decision department in GLB)

That would completely ruin the game for so many people and its just plain cheesy.


Why? There's nothing but bitching in this post, no reasoned analysis supporting your assertions that it's the worst idea ever that would ruin the game for people.
 
odg62
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by whitewolf
Originally posted by odg62

One more thing, and someone please correct me if this got nixed and i missed it.....

Having player performance affected by salary level is hands down the worst idea that has ever come down the pipe (and there is some stiff competition in the bad decision department in GLB)

That would completely ruin the game for so many people and its just plain cheesy.


Why? There's nothing but bitching in this post, no reasoned analysis supporting your assertions that it's the worst idea ever that would ruin the game for people.


first off, hey pot, my name is kettle...

Anyway, if u need the reasons why its a shitty idea that will hurt the experience of most users explained to you, you prolly have no buisness arguing about it.

In other words, the reasons are so blatantly obvious it would be wasteful and unessacery to go into detail on them here.

Think about it for about 10 seconds and you should be able to figure out at least a few reasons why its a bad idea.
 
whitewolf
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by odg62
Originally posted by whitewolf

Originally posted by odg62


One more thing, and someone please correct me if this got nixed and i missed it.....

Having player performance affected by salary level is hands down the worst idea that has ever come down the pipe (and there is some stiff competition in the bad decision department in GLB)

That would completely ruin the game for so many people and its just plain cheesy.


Why? There's nothing but bitching in this post, no reasoned analysis supporting your assertions that it's the worst idea ever that would ruin the game for people.


first off, hey pot, my name is kettle...

Anyway, if u need the reasons why its a shitty idea that will hurt the experience of most users explained to you, you prolly have no buisness arguing about it.

In other words, the reasons are so blatantly obvious it would be wasteful and unessacery to go into detail on them here.

Think about it for about 10 seconds and you should be able to figure out at least a few reasons why its a bad idea.


First off: I wasn't saying for or against the idea, I was looking for you to expand upon your post with more than just "this sucks!".

Second off: I wasn't arguing about it. See my "first off".

Third off: If you can't come up with a reasoned post explaining your opinion, just say so. I have my own thoughts on the topic, I was hoping you had actual reasons rather than just mindless bitching about a change.

The whole point of this thread is to discuss what's going on in the sim. This, by definition, means that it is not "wasteful and unnecessary to into detail on them here."

I'm sorry you couldn't handle being called out for mindless bitching.
Edited by whitewolf on May 20, 2010 15:56:20
 
whitewolf
offline
Link
 
Now, as to my thoughts on salary affecting performance. My initial reaction is in favor. I like the idea of the extra planning and strategy involved on the league level (as opposed to just the in-sim stuff like the AI). I also have always been in favor or more strategy being involved on the financial side.

I also plan on reserving judgment to see how it actually plays out.
 
odg62
offline
Link
 
Whitwolf, i dont have to prove anything to you, especially not on the internet. You say you have your own thoughts, which are most likely pretty similar to my own. why not just draw on your own thoughts instead of asking me to rehash the specifics which have been stated a few hundred times in various GLB fourms.

There are 12 pages of issues pointed out here and most of it does not come with a drawn out post as to why its a problem with the sim. Why? cause most of this stuff is old news and anyone reading this prolly knows exactly why everthing in here is in here and there is little need for it.

If you do think it is in fact that important to go into the obvious problems that change will cause, feel free to make a "reasoned post" of your own.

You are either trolling or you really believe its your job to make sure everyone validates every statement they make (its not)

Either way,

Stop cluttering the thread. Im done.
 
yello1
Preacher
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by odg62
no way, you dont fix parity by artifically influencing builds, you fix it by creating a market where all teams have equal acess to competitive talent.

Hopefully the changes that are/have gone through promote that.

Unfortunatley, a few planned changes that would have got whined out of the game.


That will not fix the problem, for several reasons.

For instance

1) If Owner A gets bored with the game and bails mid season, his team will be CPUs no matter how much access he had to competitive talent. This makes for a 255-0 win for every other team. Boring and stupid result. All opponents, AI or otherwise, should be challenging just like the AI in any other online or console or PC game.

2) If Owner A is slow building his farm team with his sights five seasons down the road in another league and team, then his team is going to suck because he had no intention of utilizing his access to competitive talent.

3) Boosting. Some teams are gonna boost. Some are not. It happens after the leagues are balanced for competition (if its a balanced league to begin with). So immediately some teams will be three levels higher than others - if they were all the same level to start with. Doesn't matter how even your access to quality players, the quality players will tend to drift to boosting quality teams, leaving the rest to suffer as pells in lopsided 100-0 or 255-0 games.

So far as I can tell all of the above is exactly how Bort wants the game to be. Which means temporarily Curving performance (not the actual stats but the effectiveness of those stats) across each league or conference is the only way to fix the problem.
 
Xar
offline
Link
 
Boosting three levels should not create such disparity.
 
odg62
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by yello1


That will not fix the problem, for several reasons.

For instance

1) If Owner A gets bored with the game and bails mid season, his team will be CPUs no matter how much access he had to competitive talent. This makes for a 255-0 win for every other team. Boring and stupid result. All opponents, AI or otherwise, should be challenging just like the AI in any other online or console or PC game.

2) If Owner A is slow building his farm team with his sights five seasons down the road in another league and team, then his team is going to suck because he had no intention of utilizing his access to competitive talent.

3) Boosting. Some teams are gonna boost. Some are not. It happens after the leagues are balanced for competition (if its a balanced league to begin with). So immediately some teams will be three levels higher than others - if they were all the same level to start with. Doesn't matter how even your access to quality players, the quality players will tend to drift to boosting quality teams, leaving the rest to suffer as pells in lopsided 100-0 or 255-0 games.

So far as I can tell all of the above is exactly how Bort wants the game to be. Which means temporarily Curving performance (not the actual stats but the effectiveness of those stats) across each league or conference is the only way to fix the problem.


First things first, when i talk about parity im mostley referring to AAA and up (and at least some leauges in the upper minors). Parity in the minors would be nice but yes some slowbuild teams will make it slightly tougher

As for your points....

1.) The main reasons teams gut is not because the owner gets bored, it is because of either their inability to compete with or lack of drive to do what needs to be done to catch up with the top teams. (This includes financial wealth which should be curbed with some of the changes about to be rolled out). In short, you dont have to be the smartest guy in the world to realize that your 7th place team most likely cant catch the 1st place team unless you go back in time and start your team in s1.

So by giving more teams the type of talent to make them viable and level the playing feild, owners can see a light at the end of the tunnel and the number of guts is reduced. That means more parity!

Also, i dont know what leauges your watching but most AAA and Pro leauges are seeing mostley blowouts the way it is now anyway. So the results are already "Boring and stupid" for the majority of games.

2.) Again i want to say im talking about upper leauges when i say promote parity, but still, while slowbuild teams do struggle early on, if run correctly, they can be competitive after only 3 or 4 seasons.

To blame slowbuild teams for lack of competition is not accurate at all. At worst they are a small contributor.

3.) I dont know what teams your involved with, but in 15 seasons (not counting LU) i have never been involved with a team that did not have at least 75% boosters and since s8 id say i've never seen less than 90%. Maybe i have been lucky and been on teams with active agents but thats unlikely since i have been involved with at least 35 teams since i started and some of them were pretty bad (but still boosted).

Even if non boosting teams were as big a problem as you say they are, if you equalize the talent pool, those teams that dont boost will all drop to the same place while the teams that do boost will rise up to the same place which directley promotes parity in a big way.

And again, the majority of teams are already suffering the boredom of "lopsided 100-0 or 255-0 games"

In closing you obviously think that the lack of parity is a big problem, i do too (i think its the biggest), but yet you say the changes wont help. Maybe they wont, but the way things are now blowouts are at a all time high, so why not make the changes? No one can gaurunttee they will fix it, but trying them sure is better then leaving this blowout happy game the way it is....GLB has nothing to lose.

Get rid of a region and follow through with the farm team rules from last offseason while going through the currently slated changes and fix parity in GLB and make the dam game fun again, not a game where only 2-5 games out of 16-20 matter in the majority of the leauges.

Artifically curving performance is the stupidist way to fix the game. It is hands down a cop out and a blend between not wanting to make the tough decisions that will fix things and not wanting to admit that previous decisions put the game where it is now in terms of parity.

Its time for this game to stop letting a small group of influential users push their agendas on the game while the masses suffer with a complete lack of parity. The list of that occuring is long and hushed up.

GLB needs to realize that the path of allowing a few to influence the game so heavily has been leading steadily downhill and the way to get back on the up is to start making decisions that promote the best experience for the masses (of GLB users).

I know this was all pointless, but god dam hope has me thinking that this game with so much potential can get get over of that hump of pandering to a few a becoming something truely great.....

I hate hope.
Edited by odg62 on May 20, 2010 22:41:39
Edited by odg62 on May 20, 2010 22:36:27
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.