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 09d60821

By raymattison21
9/10/2020 12:31 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
If the problem is throwing into tight windows, why are you advocating for tighter coverage?


Definitely not tighter man but certainly better zone. Run a heavy zone defense, with the underneath coverage zone as well and look at the stats of the middle of the field for the passing game.....then compare it to the man under schemes in those same areas . Note the difference in both when blitzing is applied as the penalties are incurred. Man shuts down the outside and zone allows middle completions like it should but the balance is off. It should be a bit easier vs outside man and a bit harder vs inside zone.

Picking run keys with a zone blitz will force a quick throw and maybe an interception cause the LBs have proper depth....most of the time they are too deep like that LBer flats play where they stop the hitch in the deep curl. I don’t think any of that’s too intuitive and life like.

In the old 4.6 zone defenders reacted quicker when playing off the ball , had more balanced spacing throughout the zones , and that caused reads to be different. Man under was still effective but defenders played trail a lot more making it a bit less effective in the flats. Pressure was off caused by the blocking algorithm but it still is low for 4.5 if you take 46 plays out.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By raymattison21
9/10/2020 12:35 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
I'm also still confused why the "solution" to the speed problem was to narrow the difference between a slow and fast player, rather than fix the speed distribution by position.


I think it is just easier and has been done before in the same manor in prior codes. Using body mass index instead of weight would level things as well by making that part ( speed/ fatigue) more realistic

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By Infinity on Trial
9/10/2020 12:37 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
Infinity on Trial wrote:
If the problem is throwing into tight windows, why are you advocating for tighter coverage?


Definitely not tighter man but certainly better zone. Run a heavy zone defense, with the underneath coverage zone as well and look at the stats of the middle of the field for the passing game.....then compare it to the man under schemes in those same areas . Note the difference in both when blitzing is applied as the penalties are incurred. Man shuts down the outside and zone allows middle completions like it should but the balance is off. It should be a bit easier vs outside man and a bit harder vs inside zone.

Picking run keys with a zone blitz will force a quick throw and maybe an interception cause the LBs have proper depth....most of the time they are too deep like that LBer flats play where they stop the hitch in the deep curl. I don’t think any of that’s too intuitive and life like.

In the old 4.6 zone defenders reacted quicker when playing off the ball , had more balanced spacing throughout the zones , and that caused reads to be different. Man under was still effective but defenders played trail a lot more making it a bit less effective in the flats. Pressure was off caused by the blocking algorithm but it still is low for 4.5 if you take 46 plays out.


I (kind of) get what you're saying, but I still don't see how making coverage better will lead to more completed passes.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By Infinity on Trial
9/10/2020 12:38 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
Infinity on Trial wrote:
I'm also still confused why the "solution" to the speed problem was to narrow the difference between a slow and fast player, rather than fix the speed distribution by position.


I think it is just easier and has been done before in the same manor in prior codes. Using body mass index instead of weight would level things as well by making that part ( speed/ fatigue) more realistic


It is a mistake to generate players who are too slow to be effective at their given position.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By raymattison21
9/10/2020 12:41 pm
Smirt211 wrote:
The only reason that nerf was put into place was because Ray figured out how to burn bad DBs by running long routes.


This was when he tested the 2-1-2 SE Post as every single offensive play, which as you said would be no one's game plan and thus produced atypical results and a wrong reaction to it.



I used 3 passing plays but the same thing could happen any time on any deep play. I actually think the same thing happens in this code of an smaller scale and it tied to ball carry. The problem is the DB would stop right before the pass got there. I just exposed it to the max.

Defensively we called one deep one blitz plays every time and put up monster sack and interception numbers as well. That was 4.3 and I love some version back then the most of all of them but it was too easy. It was a six play scheme..... since then play abuse was upped and the long pass nerf was put in.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By raymattison21
9/10/2020 12:44 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
Infinity on Trial wrote:
If the problem is throwing into tight windows, why are you advocating for tighter coverage?


Definitely not tighter man but certainly better zone. Run a heavy zone defense, with the underneath coverage zone as well and look at the stats of the middle of the field for the passing game.....then compare it to the man under schemes in those same areas . Note the difference in both when blitzing is applied as the penalties are incurred. Man shuts down the outside and zone allows middle completions like it should but the balance is off. It should be a bit easier vs outside man and a bit harder vs inside zone.

Picking run keys with a zone blitz will force a quick throw and maybe an interception cause the LBs have proper depth....most of the time they are too deep like that LBer flats play where they stop the hitch in the deep curl. I don’t think any of that’s too intuitive and life like.

In the old 4.6 zone defenders reacted quicker when playing off the ball , had more balanced spacing throughout the zones , and that caused reads to be different. Man under was still effective but defenders played trail a lot more making it a bit less effective in the flats. Pressure was off caused by the blocking algorithm but it still is low for 4.5 if you take 46 plays out.


I (kind of) get what you're saying, but I still don't see how making coverage better will lead to more completed passes.



I am just speaking that all the DBs are jumping routes so bad they are 5 yards behind the ball when they had good position prior. It happens too often by good players. Give up the 15 yard gain but not the 75 yards after the catch.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By raymattison21
9/10/2020 12:50 pm
Infinity on Trial wrote:
raymattison21 wrote:
Infinity on Trial wrote:
I'm also still confused why the "solution" to the speed problem was to narrow the difference between a slow and fast player, rather than fix the speed distribution by position.


I think it is just easier and has been done before in the same manor in prior codes. Using body mass index instead of weight would level things as well by making that part ( speed/ fatigue) more realistic


It is a mistake to generate players who are too slow to be effective at their given position.


Yes , but just generating faster players would not allow for the whole scale of skill ratings to be used. That’s what we’re dealing with right now . Add some abused plays in , maybe some familiarity , speed and acceleration, probably accuracy and the actual skill ratings don’t matter anymore.

The slowest DBs played in beta have 40 speed , I saw a 10 speed 250 pounder ... that’s probably the slowest in the game. So raising zero speed is creating faster players but in the end it’s making acceleration more important, which is heavily tied weight.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By Infinity on Trial
9/10/2020 1:00 pm
I disagree. Right now, a 30-60 point advantage in speed is so valuable, the skills don't matter. If the range of speed for DBs and WRs were, say, 75-95, the vast majority of matchups would come between players who have a marginal difference in speed. That would place all the emphasis on skills.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By TheAdmiral
9/10/2020 2:24 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
setherick wrote:
Removing a nerf that makes people mad is one line of code. Fixing zone requires rewriting much of the game engine. In terms of a value proposition, it seems like an obvious choice.


There is no "nerf" - there is a reduced probability for longer passes to be completed, which I think is what you are referring to here. Without a reduced probability for long passes to be completed, there is no reason to not just go all out in a long passing game.

That said, it may be too strong, and I can give you that. I want to look over the stats after this season with the most recent game engine code and see what kind of completion rate range, yards per attempt, and overall passing yards we are getting. If the experience is that it is too low, I can try to improve completion rates for longer passes in the next season, and we can delay the release of 0.4.6 until this gets resolved. Is the low completion rate a show stopper?




My thoughts are that this is a game that is in perpetual development - that's not a bad thing . There are plenty of things that require work but they can be looked at in version 4.7, 4.8, 4.9 etc ad infinitum. The best way to get data to analyse is to open it up to the masses and see what feedback comes.

The idea of Beta is to push the sim to and beyond breaking point, which in turn leads to 'distorted' data and analysis. 4.5 has become dated and stale and people are ready for a new update with new wrinkles. If you want to wait until it's perfect, the game will be stuck in 4.5 forever.

Owners will continue to look for ways to get an edge and casual players will moan about others abusing the sim and finding loopholes. In the meantime, you (jdb) can focus on improving the areas of the game that (in your opinion) need the most attention.

Ask 10 different people what they would like fixed and in what priority and you would get 10 different answers, often with completely opposing viewpoints.

So (my opinion) consign 0.4.5 to history and introduce 0.4.6. Decide your priorities for the next release, be it Zone defense, extra plays in the playbook with a complete overhaul of play overuse penalties and consequencies, making coaches more relevant, improving coach AI, getting technique on a more even keel with speed/accel/strength (fundamentals), making positional familiarity more important so that out of position players are more of a band aid/quick fix than starting WR's at all the skill positions.

Maybe even a completely new game engine! or a design-a-play feature where you decide what routes you want players to run from a limited amount of options. Perhaps introduce pre-snap motion, trick plays etc

Let 0.4.6 collect a season or two of data over 40+ leagues and see what it turns up, what works, what needs work etc.

Re: [0.4.6] Version 09d60821

By setherick
9/10/2020 4:57 pm
The idea of Beta is to push the sim to and beyond breaking point, which in turn leads to 'distorted' data and analysis. 4.5 has become dated and stale and people are ready for a new update with new wrinkles. If you want to wait until it's perfect, the game will be stuck in 4.5 forever.


This is a problem. If people aren't playing the game in beta like they would in a non-beta league, there is no validation testing going on at all.