New Sticky Note

NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - Beta Chat

Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By TarquinTheDark
11/28/2019 11:38 am
CrazyRazor wrote:
TarquinTheDark wrote:
CrazyRazor wrote:
I just feel like it has taken steps backwards.


Is it finally time to change priorities? Instead of continuing to tighten the screws on the game engine (there seems to be a consensus that they are already too tight), it might be helpful to take a break and work on trade scores, AI management logic, etc. - the issues that create an environment where too many leagues die. We should also remember that what goes on in beta no longer accurately reflects what happens in younger leagues.


Are you seriously lobbying to remain in this code any longer than we already have to?! Please tell me you are not. I'll agree that those issues need to be worked on, but what we're running right now is just ugly. Unfortunately, "ugly" seems to accompany each new update.


I'm saying the code has always had issues, but every new fix seems to narrow the range of what is effective. I preferred 4.2 (with all it's faults), simply because there were more options that worked.

I applaud the efforts to fix zone defense and QB reads, I think 4.6 will be better than 4.5. I'm saying we simply can't know 4.6 is better, because beta doesn't reflect what happens in newer leagues, which is ... all of them. The ineffectiveness of the punt block exploit here reflects that. I think we're overdue for a reset.

I'd rather contribute towards solutions than problems, that's why I'm here. That said, I've always thought we've been wasting time in beta, missing the forest for the trees. If the basic issues that drive away newbies and harm leagues get worked on, ownership goes up. The game as a whole (the 90% where the user bumps into the the interface) becomes better, not just what happens on the field. I'm saying those issues should actually be easier to improve on than tweaking what happens on the field.

As a former coder, I'm saying that taking a breather from the current task to work on the overall project ... will allow jdb's mind to resolve a few things and come up with better, more elegant, less nerfy ideas for future on-field updates. (fixing issues with solutions instead of band-aids)

I stated publicly when I joined beta that I had my own agenda. This is it. So, YES. I don't want to be answering your question with a yes, but I am.
Last edited at 11/28/2019 11:46 am

Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By raymattison21
11/29/2019 7:23 am
raymattison21 wrote:
shauma_llama wrote:
setherick wrote:
shauma_llama wrote:
I was doing that with an excel spreadsheet, don't have SQL on my game machine, then I got bored with it as I decided gameplanning really didn't mean much.


I got tired of not having real stats.


It'd be nice if the game told you the completion percentage on the various passes along with that average gain. It must know.


I have been passing the same thru 4. 4 and on. 4.5 had huge holes in zone but it wasn't in the middle of the feild . Alot of pass plays strong side have the favor of an extra defender that way...making big plays on forced pass. Those big play are less than 4.4 and 4.5 but 4.6 just doesn't have those huge holes, but passing is the same.

I used my te converted to wr to create seperation . Hes like 220 lbs now, plays the slot, and sometimes wr2 as a reserve but his catch percentage is up a good 10 points. Plays matter but the personal matters more. Those couple points of speed makes plays work better .

I need a cross section of stats showing plays tied to player speed. Especially interceptions, broken tackles, reciever catch % and yards receded by a cover guy. One day


https://lol.myfootballnow.com/watch/567#99661

Here a play from 4.5 where either the LBers get confused on who to cover, the guy who should cover the FB just doesn't , or the cover guy just stops mid route . You see him cover the te or not cross the hash as the fb continues to drift out into the flats .

I saw this alot in zone but at least for this man under play It's clearly broken in 4.5 too. 4.6 could still do this as I focused on zone plays then.......I probably pulled it in most leagues , but there's no reason to stop in coverage here. Or the MLB should have stayed on the te and other lb should have got the fb.

Just like the offense throwing to the same guy alot, this coverage bug happens in the flats and is squewing stats. Maybe the qbs look off played a part, but I think it has more to do with the player assignments and the fact the SS is blitzing . As he might have the TE or hb that stayed in to block if he didn't blitz .



Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By raymattison21
11/29/2019 10:20 am
TarquinTheDark wrote:
CrazyRazor wrote:
TarquinTheDark wrote:
CrazyRazor wrote:
I just feel like it has taken steps backwards.


Is it finally time to change priorities? Instead of continuing to tighten the screws on the game engine (there seems to be a consensus that they are already too tight), it might be helpful to take a break and work on trade scores, AI management logic, etc. - the issues that create an environment where too many leagues die. We should also remember that what goes on in beta no longer accurately reflects what happens in younger leagues.


I


Are you seriously lobbying to remain in this code any longer than we already have to?! Please tell me you are not. I'll agree that those issues need to be worked on, but what we're running right now is just ugly. Unfortunately, "ugly" seems to accompany each new update.


I'm saying the code has always had issues, but every new fix seems to narrow the range of what is effective. I preferred 4.2 (with all it's faults), simply because there were more options that worked.

I applaud the efforts to fix zone defense and QB reads, I think 4.6 will be better than 4.5. I'm saying we simply can't know 4.6 is better, because beta doesn't reflect what happens in newer leagues, which is ... all of them. The ineffectiveness of the punt block exploit here reflects that. I think we're overdue for a reset.

I'd rather contribute towards solutions than problems, that's why I'm here. That said, I've always thought we've been wasting time in beta, missing the forest for the trees. If the basic issues that drive away newbies and harm leagues get worked on, ownership goes up. The game as a whole (the 90% where the user bumps into the the interface) becomes better, not just what happens on the field. I'm saying those issues should actually be easier to improve on than tweaking what happens on the field.

As a former coder, I'm saying that taking a breather from the current task to work on the overall project ... will allow jdb's mind to resolve a few things and come up with better, more elegant, less nerfy ideas for future on-field updates. (fixing issues with solutions instead of band-aids)

I stated publicly when I joined beta that I had my own agenda. This is it. So, YES. I don't want to be answering your question with a yes, but I am.


I am in full agreement with sticking to the game engine , but changing the value of speed for defaults and essentially creating speed minimums, similar to madden, would make the game at a state where you could move forward on both fronts.
Last edited at 11/30/2019 11:43 am

Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By Infinity on Trial
12/26/2019 11:38 am
I have long lobbied for a speed correction, which in my opinion was at the root of many gameplay problems. Previous versions of code were problematic because they favored bombs away offense and a high number of sacks.

The first step should have been normalizing speed across all positions, then considering minor tweaks. Instead, we got a bundle of massive over-corrections where nobody can get open, nobody can catch the ball when they do get open, and nobody can get to the quarterback — all of which makes the game not fun.

(There were concerns about QBs never dumping the ball off to RBs. The fix? Make QBs progress from shortest route to longest, no matter what, with every play, in every situation.)

Back to speed: Let's consider a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is a 6.2 40 time and 100 is a 4.2 40 time.

Virtually all the linemen should have speed in the 40 to 60 range. This would have lowered the volume of sacks without artificially nerfing the pass rush.

Most of the CBs and WRs should be clustered in the high 80s, with a range of about 75 to 100 for rare outliers. No more games where 90+ speed WRs fly past DBs who move at the speed of a punter with a hangover.

Correcting the speed would radically change the game in virtually all aspects. My concern with the current game engine is that a speed correction at this point would eliminate the small semblance of offense that remains. I get why JDB seems to have lost his passion. There's no easy way out of this mess, and the obvious solution is to throw away two years of hard work and regroup.

Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By raymattison21
12/26/2019 4:27 pm
no point to throw it all away. just the way speed is done and maybe using only weight to moderate fatigue

Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
12/31/2019 11:53 am
Let me try reducing the range of the speed value slightly, i.e. increasing the speed of a 0-speed player and see if you all notice a difference.

Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By Infinity on Trial
12/31/2019 2:03 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
Let me try reducing the range of the speed value slightly, i.e. increasing the speed of a 0-speed player and see if you all notice a difference.


I'm not sure there's a concern with the value of 0 or 100. What we're looking for is greater variation from one position to the next, and less variation within a single position group.

Edit:
It would require an overhaul of player generation, which would wreak havoc on established leagues.
Last edited at 12/31/2019 2:05 pm

Re: [0.4.6] Version e9a5a849

By raymattison21
12/31/2019 6:03 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
Let me try reducing the range of the speed value slightly, i.e. increasing the speed of a 0-speed player and see if you all notice a difference.


I like it! Get those 300 pound low speed players to run a 7 second 40 and you might be on to something, but that might be a minimum to see some real effect