RB "Endurance" Check-In With 6.1a and NFL

[Ben E Lou]

Further tweak running back choice algorithm. Study real-life limits, remove part of the exploit for putting low-endurance backup on chart.So, RB usage is based on real-life limits. Let's think about that for a moment. What's the primary reason people complain about RB "endurance"? When they have one guy who is intended to be the feature back, and he doesn't get a high enough percentage of the team's carries. So, let's think about that in NFL terms. When an NFL team has one guy who is intended to be the feature back, what limits his percentage of the team's carries? I can think of two primary things:

1. injury
2. needing a breather (what we think of as "endurance")

Now, here are the problems with modeling that in the FOF environment--one that is at least partially user-created.

1. People don't want to play with a realistic number of injuries.
2. Injuries that sideline a player for part of the game, but then allow him to return, do not exist in FOF. (Either the guy is gone for the game, or he's "toughing it out." The current version of FOF doesn't allow for the common scenarios of a guy getting his bell rung and sitting for two sets of downs, or getting a leg cramp, or needing to go into the locker room until after halftime.)

So, given those two limitations, "endurance" has to be on some level a proxy for the injuries that would normally limit carries. Otherwise, we'd have people complaining about something entirely different: RBs getting too many carries every season (at least at default injury settings).

If one looks at it that way, then, on a global level, the distribution of carries in FOF is pretty solid. In my next post, we'll examine some specific comparisons of FOF to the NFL.

[Ben E Lou]

(For this comparison, I'm only looking at carries by RBs. For FOF, using 6.1a, I set injuries to what I think is roughly average for MP leagues right now: 125)

NFL: In 2007, the average RB1 is getting 62.4% of his team's RB/FB carries.
FOF: 67.2%

NFL: There are 6 backs in the league with >75% of the team's RB/FB carries.
FOF: 9

NFL: There are 13 teams on which the highest-percentage back has between 40 and 60%.
FOF: 5 (the majority are between 60% and 75%)

So, it looks like to me that "Endurance" is being used for more than just "getting tired." It's being used to cap RB1 usage to a close to realistic level, given the current limitations of the system. It looks like it's something we just get used to, and just know that if we have a low-endurance back, he's not going to get a bunch of carries.

And, incidentally, I know of no "magic bullet" for getting your guy more carries. If you want to max a guy out in carries, it seems that the best way to do it is to:

1. Give him 100% playing time.
2. Keep him off of special teams.
3. Don't have him in there on "near certain pass" situations.

[cuervo72]

So, it looks like to me that "Endurance" is being used for more than just "getting tired." It's being used to cap RB1 usage to a close to realistic level, given the current limitations of the system. It looks like it's something we just get used to, and just know that if we have a low-endurance back, he's not going to get a bunch of carries.

We're covering this elsewhere, but "endurance" really isn't the best way to look at it. There are backs that just can't carry a full load - think Reggie Bush - but that's not because of endurance per se.

[Subby]

I think it's a mistake to look at this from a league average standpoint. I think you need to take into account that there are teams that *do* work one back and teams that go running back by committee and allow all options.

[Ben E Lou]

I think it's a mistake to look at this from a league average standpoint. I think you need to take into account that there are teams that *do* work one back and teams that go running back by committee and allow all options.

Well, I have no idea how the developer studied it, but things in FOF tend to model real-life on a global level, so that's why I looked at it that way. Just trying to figure out what's going on here.

[Subby]

I think what it comes down to is that Jim is kind of painted in a corner because if he implemented running back durability so that backs wore down and became injury prone he would have to rewrite the game. This is really a workaround fix to keep super backs from getting 500 carries in a season, I guess (which I would argue isn't a huge deal because I seriously doubt a team would be all that successful running such a one dimensional offense.)

[Subby]

SD pointed out that plenty of teams run 500 times per season with success already...so just ignore me.

As the game is coded, I don't think there is an elegant way to make this work in MP - that what it comes down to, right?

[jbergey22]

I completely agree with what Skydog is saying however anyway it is looked at I do not want to see guys getting anywhere close to 500 carries.

The best example I cant think of modern day NFL is Ladanian Tomlinson, he is what most people would consider a horse but even his carries are somewhat limited due to a few reasons.

1. They give Turner a few carries and especially so during blowouts
2. Defenses are usually geared up to stop the run, making their passing game much more successful
3. He breaks a lot of longer runs therefore creates less opportunity to carry the ball


I guess the question then becomes whether there is any scenario where Tomlinson didnt get taken out of the game and the coach was stubborn about sticking to the run could Tomlinson get this many carries and unfortunately I do think it is possible but I dont think the team would win as many games.

Thinking deeper into this, maybe the problem is how defenses gameplan to stop the run in FOF07. If a team cant run they likely wont stick with it enough to let a back get 30-40 carries.

Great topic and I am glad it is being looked into again.

[Synovia]

Larry Johnson had 420 carries last year, IIRC. 450 wouldn't be all that insane (considering that LJ got 420 on a team that wasn't all that good, and teams tend to run more when they win)


I just really have a problem with a game that is designed to be an accurate SIM telling you that you can't do something. It gives you reasonably accurate stats on a league wide level, but it doesn't make any sence. I should be able to run him 500 times, with the caveat that theres no way hes going to make it through the season.

[flair1234]

Larry Johnson had 420 carries last year, IIRC. 450 wouldn't be all that insane (considering that LJ got 420 on a team that wasn't all that good, and teams tend to run more when they win)


I just really have a problem with a game that is designed to be an accurate SIM telling you that you can't do something. It gives you reasonably accurate stats on a league wide level, but it doesn't make any sence. I should be able to run him 500 times, with the caveat that theres no way hes going to make it through the season.


There was a player in my single player league, (Through several patches), that had over 400 carries ten times in a 12 year career. He broke 500 twice. The other two seasons he was in the high 300s. I don't mind it as an abberation once in a while; but I do think it is "Maddenesque".

[ShaneTheMaster]

Thanks for the research, as always, SD.

I have mentioned this before, but I will mention it here, as well. The biggest problem I have with the game is in the "randomness" of determining which RB plays. It should not be random - he should only get subbed if he is tired, coach decides to take him out, etc.

Example: My team runs the ball only 11 times in a game, but my starting RB only getting 5 of them.

[tarcone]

I hate when I get inside the 5 yards line and my 2nd stringer gets the carries. I always hope for a 5 yard penalty. If that happens my 1st stringer gets the ball again.

[Front Office Midget]

I agree with the last comment by tarcone, but aside from that, I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with RB Endurance. Looking at season statistics, they seem pretty accurate overall. I don't feel like any games are ruined by RBs not getting enough carries. The way it is is MUCH better than back when I saw RBs running over 500 times in a season (I saw Shaun Alexander run 550 times in a year). Some people might want more control, but to me, seeing such insane statistics was a game-ruiner for me.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I agree with the last comment by tarcone, but aside from that, I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with RB Endurance. Looking at season statistics, they seem pretty accurate overall. I don't feel like any games are ruined by RBs not getting enough carries. The way it is is MUCH better than back when I saw RBs running over 500 times in a season (I saw Shaun Alexander run 550 times in a year). Some people might want more control, but to me, seeing such insane statistics was a game-ruiner for me.

Why not have both? You can still implement in-game endurance more realistic, and still get realistic yearly stats. It may take more tweaking and testing, but it is worth it, IMO - than to see your backup show up randomly in a crucial situation. Oh, and it can be coded so that a RB would be less likely to take himself out of the game in a crucial situation, too.

[RedKingGold]

I agree with the last comment by tarcone, but aside from that, I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with RB Endurance. Looking at season statistics, they seem pretty accurate overall. I don't feel like any games are ruined by RBs not getting enough carries. The way it is is MUCH better than back when I saw RBs running over 500 times in a season (I saw Shaun Alexander run 550 times in a year). Some people might want more control, but to me, seeing such insane statistics was a game-ruiner for me.

Go away.

Well, it worked with yabanci. :D

[cuervo72]

I hate when I get inside the 5 yards line and my 2nd stringer gets the carries. I always hope for a 5 yard penalty. If that happens my 1st stringer gets the ball again.

Heh. My FOFL team (http://www.thefofl.com/teampages/summary.php?t=6) after four games has 8 rushing TD's. 2 from a rookie backup (in week 1, injured in week 2), 3 from another backup (2 in week 3 - on 13 carries for 7 yards), one from the QB, and 2 from the starter.

[PiemasterUK]

But a lot of teams in the NFL do use their 'backup' a lot more when they are inside the 5 yard line.

The Giants are an example. Brandon Jacobs is their open field back, but Reuben Droughns gets the majority of their short-yardage carries.

[ShaneTheMaster]

But a lot of teams in the NFL do use their 'backup' a lot more when they are inside the 5 yard line.

The Giants are an example. Brandon Jacobs is their open field back, but Reuben Droughns gets the majority of their short-yardage carries.

That's fine, but the coach is not rolling a dice on the sidelines to determine which one to put in the game, which is what is happening in FOF.

[Ben E Lou]

That's fine, but the coach is not rolling a dice on the sidelines to determine which one to put in the game, which is what is happening in FOF.I'm genuinely curious here: are you going to whine about this from now until whatever new version of FOF changes this model? It is what it is, and I'm fairly sure it has been that way for nine years, The developer has verified that it works that way, and made it clear that it can't be changed before the next version. We don't have to like it, but at some point, you have to move on, too.

[Raiders Army]

I just want guys on IR to get a Super Bowl ring when their team wins the Championship. ;)

[Icy]

Thanks for the research, as always, SD.

I have mentioned this before, but I will mention it here, as well. The biggest problem I have with the game is in the "randomness" of determining which RB plays. It should not be random - he should only get subbed if he is tired, coach decides to take him out, etc.

Example: My team runs the ball only 11 times in a game, but my starting RB only getting 5 of them.

Agree and that is my only issue too, when for example i see my backup RB rushing in my first running play or in a clutch play just because i had a bad dice roll. Anyway as Skydog said, there is no way to avoid it until a new version of the game is developed and a new method for endurance is applied.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I'm genuinely curious here: are you going to whine about this from now until whatever new version of FOF changes this model? It is what it is, and I'm fairly sure it has been that way for nine years, The developer has verified that it works that way, and made it clear that it can't be changed before the next version. We don't have to like it, but at some point, you have to move on, too.

No, but I may allude to it from time to time if someone posts something as if they don't know how it works, if that's okay.

[Front Office Midget]

That's fine, but the coach is not rolling a dice on the sidelines to determine which one to put in the game, which is what is happening in FOF.

That put a funny image in my head of someone like Tom Coughlin just rolling the dice on the sideline. As you said.

I just worry that with all the bickering Jim will change it to something WORSE than it is now, when what we have now is MUCH better than when the game first came out.

[Synovia]

See, I think that 500+ carries is less of a problem than the starter not getting in during situations you want the starter in.

[ShaneTheMaster]

That put a funny image in my head of someone like Tom Coughlin just rolling the dice on the sideline. As you said.

I just worry that with all the bickering Jim will change it to something WORSE than it is now, when what we have now is MUCH better than when the game first came out.

I am confident Jim knows it is a flaw in the game, and will improve it he decided to change it at all. He mentioned it somewhere that it could work better.

[ShaneTheMaster]

See, I think that 500+ carries is less of a problem than the starter not getting in during situations you want the starter in.

I agree here if this was indeed the case where the randomness was added to solve the 500+ carries problem - not sure if they didn't coexist.

[Ben E Lou]

If I had to guess, I'd say that the dice rolls for participation have probably been there since FOF1. Based on how RBs (and other positions) were used in FOF2K4, I'm 99.99% sure it was there in that version. The difference is that in 6.0-->6.0b, you didn't notice the dice roll as much because the RB1 stayed in the game more (leading to the high carries). This isn't anything new.

[claretonmyshirt]

What i find strange is that my backup HB runs the ball a couple of times after the oppostions has had the ball for 5 minutes, surely he has got his breath back by then !!!

Also if you call a run play to the outside the chances are your Off Co-Ordinator is going to choose the HB who is better running to the outside, I can't see that it is to difficult to put into this game, espeically after the game has been going for 9 years. (just a thought !!!:eek: )

I mean how many 240lb backs who grind out short yardage are asked to get to the outside and turn the corner trying to outrun a fast OLB

[Front Office Midget]

See, I think that 500+ carries is less of a problem than the starter not getting in during situations you want the starter in.

Interesting. A lot of people play the game differently and for different reasons. For me, seeing 550 carries ruined my experience, and I imagine it would be similar for a lot of the people here who don't play on the macro level more. Imagining that my RB has a charlie horse and missed a few plays is a lot easier than imagining that a RB was able to carry the ball over a hundred times more in a season than anyone in history has been able to. Looking at the single-season records and seeing ridiculous records ruins my gameplay experience, RB2 getting the handoff does not. (Though yes, it could work better)

[flair1234]

Interesting. A lot of people play the game differently and for different reasons. For me, seeing 550 carries ruined my experience, and I imagine it would be similar for a lot of the people here who don't play on the macro level more. Imagining that my RB has a charlie horse and missed a few plays is a lot easier than imagining that a RB was able to carry the ball over a hundred times more in a season than anyone in history has been able to. Looking at the single-season records and seeing ridiculous records ruins my gameplay experience, RB2 getting the handoff does not. (Though yes, it could work better)

This is close to how I feel, except that it does not quite ruin it for me. But seeing several backs consistently carry in the mid 400s did bother me and seeing several players do it 2-3 years in a row was irritating as well.

[PiemasterUK]

Interesting. A lot of people play the game differently and for different reasons. For me, seeing 550 carries ruined my experience, and I imagine it would be similar for a lot of the people here who don't play on the macro level more. Imagining that my RB has a charlie horse and missed a few plays is a lot easier than imagining that a RB was able to carry the ball over a hundred times more in a season than anyone in history has been able to. Looking at the single-season records and seeing ridiculous records ruins my gameplay experience, RB2 getting the handoff does not. (Though yes, it could work better)

I agree to be honest.

In fact, I kind of like having elements in the game that I don't control and might not be done the way I want them too. After all, this is a GM simulator, not a head coach simulator. If my team does something that I don't agree with on game day, I just put it down to the head coach making a decision different to what I would have made.

Kind of adds to the realism in a way, because I serverely doubt that A.J. Smith is constantly on the phone to Norv Turner during games saying 'put Turner in' and 'Put Tomlinson back in'.

[Front Office Midget]

Unfortunately, the two people who agree with me have a combined post count of 93...

[PiemasterUK]

Unfortunately, the two people who agree with me have a combined post count of 93...

And that matters how exactly?

[RedKingGold]

And that matters how exactly?

You dont's have the street-cred holmes.

[Subby]

I kind of agree with you - so you can add half my posts.

Hopefully the next game will have a middle ground. You can run your two back offense, but the logic that dictates when RB2 comes in the game works a bit better.

Folks should be allowed to run the legs off their RB, too - but with consequences...

[CU Tiger]

Exactly, I would bee fine if I could get my back 600 carries per year so long as his production declined near the end and his careeer lasted 6-8 years....

You know the Earl Campbell principal (which BTW take his carries and extrapolate them some of these "unrealistic' discussion start getting weaker)

[larrymcg421]

I was one of the people whining about this earlier because I had a starting RB in WOOF who was getting fewer carries than his backup in certain games, even when I only ran it 10-20 times a game. What caused this was a combination of 1) A bad team forced to pass when behind; 2) Significant masking on the starters endurance level; 3) Backup endurance not factored into the equation; 4) Bad dice rolls on running plays.

I solved this in the 2nd half of the season by toning down the 2nd half adjustments screen so I could keep running even when behind. I also started to run the ball more, which meant more carries for both my starter and backup (although not quite as much as the overall dice rolls became more clear.) My starter went from 68 carries for 272 yards in the first 8 games, to 149 carries for 593 yards in the 2nd half.

I think one of the mistakes people (including me) were making is assuming the endurance only referred to carries, but instead it refers to total number of plays. Since I ran a passing offense, my starters endurance was being used up on a lot of passing plays, and the dice rolls on running plays weren't working out in my favor. I do think in a future engine it would be good to penalize more for the punishment a back will take on a running play than on other plays, but this will be workable for now.

My biggest problem was that endurance for the backup wasn't part of the equation when making the dice roll. This turned your backup into a super endurance RB, no matter what his real endurance rating was. This appears to be fixed for this version.

[Flasch186]

No, but I may elude to it from time to time if someone posts something as if they don't know how it works, if that's okay.

ROFLMAO

[cuervo72]

No, but I may elude to it from time to time if someone posts something as if they don't know how it works, if that's okay.


ROFLMAO

Yeah, I found this amusing as well.

[Synovia]

Interesting. A lot of people play the game differently and for different reasons. For me, seeing 550 carries ruined my experience, and I imagine it would be similar for a lot of the people here who don't play on the macro level more. Imagining that my RB has a charlie horse and missed a few plays is a lot easier than imagining that a RB was able to carry the ball over a hundred times more in a season than anyone in history has been able to. Looking at the single-season records and seeing ridiculous records ruins my gameplay experience, RB2 getting the handoff does not. (Though yes, it could work better)


Like I said, In single player, I agree. Multiplayer, absolutely vehemently disagree.


Someone mentioned that the 240lb grinding back shouldn't be running to the outside. I completely disagree. Watch the patriots: Maroney runs just as much to the inside as he does to the outside. The 250lb FB/HB Heath Evans does the same. Why? Because if you always run to the inside with the big guy, he'll never get any yards.

[flair1234]

Like I said, In single player, I agree. Multiplayer, absolutely vehemently disagree.


Someone mentioned that the 240lb grinding back shouldn't be running to the outside. I completely disagree. Watch the patriots: Maroney runs just as much to the inside as he does to the outside. The 250lb FB/HB Heath Evans does the same. Why? Because if you always run to the inside with the big guy, he'll never get any yards.

Unless your name is Craig Heyward

[ShaneTheMaster]

Yeah, I found this amusing as well.

I don't consider myself a "Master" of spelling. :)

[stevew]

Not related to the original topic, but i wish jim would institute a "goal line back" position on the depth chart. Kind of tired of seeing my #1 getting "touchdown vultured" by his backup 6-8 times a year.

[Tormaz]

In the one league I focus on a strong running attack I have noticed a big change since the patch.

My starter went from gettting 15-18 carries a game to getting close to 25 a game without a change in the game plan.

[flair1234]

In the one league I focus on a strong running attack I have noticed a big change since the patch.

My starter went from gettting 15-18 carries a game to getting close to 25 a game without a change in the game plan.

In my SP league, my 67/67 RB has gotten at least 20 carries 3 games in a row since the patch. First time that has happened.

NOTE: my run percentage is set for roughly an average of 40-45% depending on the mix of down and distance