HC not following orders?

[vodkaferret]

Hi folks,

Apologies in advance if there's too much info in this post, but I've a problem happening here and I was wondering if anyone else had seen the same kind of thing - namely, that my HC is not calling plays in the ratio I've set up.

I've got a young QB, starting yr 4, 3rd year as a starter, so the 1st 2 seasons I've run the ball a lot to help him out. My run on 1st and 10 % was set to 60%, then after week 2 I dropped that to 55%...but the playcalling didnt change one iota!! To make sure this was happening I've gone through all the gamelogs for the season.. now anywhere from my 7 to their goalline, whilst tied or ahead 1-3, 4-8, my adjustments to that 55% are 'same', ie I should run 55%, throw 45%. If behind 1-3 or 4-8 there is a slight bias towards passing more (10-30% more, depending on situation). What I have done is counted all the 1st and 10 plays, within those point and yardage bands, for the season. I have not included plays during the mins at the end of the half that fall into the 2 min offense category, or clock draining. QB runs I have counted as pass plays, as I believe these to be scrambles rather than designed runs. Bear in mind that when trailing I should be passing more than 45% of the time, so over the season I would expect the total 1st and 10 run % to be LESS than 55, to take account of that. However, the breakdown came out as follows:

Week Runs Passes Run %
1v STL 18 8 69.2
2v HOU 5 4 55.6
(Above 2 games, set to 60%. Now changed to 55% for rest of season... )
3v GBY 11 3 78.6 (well, that worked then!!)
4 @ WAS 12 6 66.7
5v PHI 9 9 50.0
7v ARI 8 5 61.5
8@ SFO 7 1 87.5
9v DAL 17 8 68.0
10v NYK 8 4 66.7
11@ STL 13 9 59.1
12@ TEN 12 3 80.0
13@ ATL 10 9 52.0
14v JAX 6 2 75.0
15@ ARI 12 5 70.6
16@ IND 0 2 0.0
17 SFO 2 4 42.9

Season Tot: 151 82 64.8
1st 2 games: 23 12 65.7 (this when set to 60%)
next 14 : 128 70 64.6 (when set to 55%)

So: over the season I'm nearly 10% higher on run ratio than I should be, actually more, because this includes the trailing by 1-3, 4-8 areas where I've got a slight increase in pass plays designed. Although the 1st 2 games are not a big sample, a 5% drop in planned runs after that has lead to a 1.1% drop in actual run plays. I've been over my designed run level in 10 out of the 14 games at the 55% run level, and that even includes the indianapolis game where I got blown out early, so only had 2 plays that could be logged.

So what is happening? Does FOF2k7 have a built in run bias? (I never really noticed it too much in FOF2k1). Do I need to do this for more than one season? If it's my HC changing my plan (his Offensive Playcalling is Good, so he's not exactly a guru here) then do I need one with a higher grade to follow my gameplan more? Or do some HC's just have a built in run or pass bias?

I probably need to do some more work on this over a few seasons, but has anyone else seen a similar problem? I need to try to fix this quite soon, cos my QB is gonna be coming into his peak and I don't want to waste him on handoffs :) For the record, in case this has a bearing on things, he started the season graded 49/92 and finished 62/92. He's in the 55-65/90+ range for all skills, except short passes 44/94, 3rd Down 94/100, Timing 86/90, sense rush 96/96 and scramble freq 91/91. Oh, and kick holding 0/0, but I can live with that ;)

Any thoughts / comments would be much appreciated.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This is not surprising. The game is more sophisticated than you are thinking. The plays the head coach calls determines a lot on the defensive schemes. Believe me, if you select your offense to run the ball 80% of the time, and the defense is stacking the line of scrimmage, then your HC is going to start calling more pass plays if the runs are not being succesful -- and so he should. Your HC's playcalling ratings matter too. Much will depend on whether he is rated poor or excellent for instance. You'll have to remember that unless you take over playcalling in-game, you are not the HC and will never be able to ensure precise percentages occur in the game. Finally, in all honesty, dialing down run percentage from 60 to 55% is going to be insignificant when compared to all the other variables involved in playcalling decisons.

[vodkaferret]

Believe me, if you select your offense to run the ball 80% of the time, and the defense is stacking the line of scrimmage, then your HC is going to start calling more pass plays if the runs are not being succesful -- and so he should. <snip> Finally, in all honesty, dialing down run percentage from 60 to 55% is going to be insignificant when compared to all the other variables involved in playcalling decisons.

Fair enough... but the defence did start stacking the line of scrimmage, and things didnt change... for example in the Green Bay game where he called 11 runs to 3 passes we were getting battered by doing it - the 11 runs gained a grand total of 31 yards, longest gain 7, whereas the 3 passes went for 9, 12 and 21. So I'm not sure that logic always holds...

So if a 5% change is insignificant, which I can accept, what sort of level of change do I need to be making to make, say, the desired 5% change in final result?? 20%? (would be about right, given 5% change on screen made 1.1% difference in the game).... which opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm sure your answer will be again, depends on lots of factors, but there must be some way of changing the ratio on the pitch or it all becomes a crapshoot, no??

Still, it's true to life - I've always been defensively minded, and in FOF my D's are nearly always top 10 and offense is making my head hurt. Now thats realism :)

Thanks for your help anyway...

[QuikSand]

Believe me, if you select your offense to run the ball 80% of the time, and the defense is stacking the line of scrimmage, then your HC is going to start calling more pass plays if the runs are not being succesful -- and so he should.

I wouldn't disagree that he should, but are you sure that he does?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

So if a 5% change is insignificant, which I can accept, what sort of level of change do I need to be making to make, say, the desired 5% change in final result??

You'll have to experiment.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I wouldn't disagree that he should, but are you sure that he does?

I would suspect that is where the playcalling skill comes into play. So, I guess I would rephrase it to be that if you have a good playcalling coach, you should expect fewer runs into the stacked line. I'm only saying this because sometimes you do see game results that don't match up with your percentages. What else would explain your HC not calling the right percentages? There has to be an adjustment made somewhere/somehow in-game. And that has to be made based on defensive schemes some of the time, no?

[QuikSand]

I'm really not trying to pick on you, V4P.

I am, however, a little worried that this forum is probably being visited by lots of people who are trying this game out, and getting frustrated by its lacking or ambiguous documentation. If someone comes here to look for answers, they might read a posting from a guy with thousands of posts in this forum that starts with "Believe me" and reasonably conclude that his input is a completely settled argument.

I don't think the role of "playcalling" is very well understood. I started a thread on that subject back in the FOF 2004 days (about a game we understood far better than the current one) and there was nothing close to consensus. I think it would be a real stretch for anyone to say that we think this is a completely settled issue.

So... is it possible that your actual playcalling departs from the percentages on your submitted gameplan because of your coach making decisions to overrule you? Yes, it's certainly possible that's how the game works.

Is it possible that the variation has absolutely nothing to do with the coach? Yes, I think that is also very possible.

There are an awful lot of areas, especially with the new game, where I don't think we're in a position to say "believe me, it works this way and that's all there is to it." This, to me, seems like an obvious inclusion on that list.

[vodkaferret]

So... is it possible that your actual playcalling departs from the percentages on your submitted gameplan because of your coach making decisions to overrule you? Yes, it's certainly possible that's how the game works.

Is it possible that the variation has absolutely nothing to do with the coach? Yes, I think that is also very possible.



Ok, so how do we test this. Obviously things get a bit tricky where new coaches can only be signed at a certain time. So if I was to try running a season twice from new coach onwards, with 2 different coaches, I wonder if I could get a valid comparison. I know from personal testing that the draft is fairly consistent when run multiple times, so I think I would have a decent shot at signing the same players in both versions of the game. FA could be arranged also, as if I'm doing this for testing purposes then I can just save and reload a few times till I get the same outcomes. So if I can start a season with much the same rosters and run the season with exactly the same gameplan, then do the same analysis as I started with here, then would the results be valid in the sense of demonstrating that a coach had x effect or y effect on the play calling? The problem of course is that this would not include any aspects such as injuries (would the availability of certain players change the plays that are called in-game? And what about the availability of players on the opposing team), weather, any of a host of factors that might be involved... so I'm just not convinced that a one or two season test would be enough of a sample to give a valid answer given the amount of variables involved.... however I might give it a go, just to find out....

[QuikSand]

I have tried a bit of testing, and I can't really get the percentages (even over ten seasons or more) to line up anywhere nearly as closely to the gameplan percentages as you seem to be looking for. There does seem to be a correlation in the right direction -- increase your run % in key areas and the team does run more, and so forth. But it just doesn't seem like it's quite as simple and direct as the gameplan suggests.

I don't know whether this is the coach stepping in with his gameplanning, an example of the game making shifts globally outside our control, or something else entirely.

[vodkaferret]

I have tried a bit of testing, and I can't really get the percentages (even over ten seasons or more) to line up anywhere nearly as closely to the gameplan percentages as you seem to be looking for. There does seem to be a correlation in the right direction -- increase your run % in key areas and the team does run more, and so forth. But it just doesn't seem like it's quite as simple and direct as the gameplan suggests.

I don't know whether this is the coach stepping in with his gameplanning, an example of the game making shifts globally outside our control, or something else entirely.

Cool. I already accepted there was going to be some variation, I was by no means looking for exactly the ratios as planned every game, but I think I was looking for a closer correlation than seems to be the case. If it doesnt really work that way then I shall stop stressing and start tweaking!

Thanks.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'm really not trying to pick on you, V4P.

I am, however, a little worried that this forum is probably being visited by lots of people who are trying this game out, and getting frustrated by its lacking or ambiguous documentation. If someone comes here to look for answers, they might read a posting from a guy with thousands of posts in this forum that starts with "Believe me" and reasonably conclude that his input is a completely settled argument.

I don't think the role of "playcalling" is very well understood. I started a thread on that subject back in the FOF 2004 days (about a game we understood far better than the current one) and there was nothing close to consensus. I think it would be a real stretch for anyone to say that we think this is a completely settled issue.

So... is it possible that your actual playcalling departs from the percentages on your submitted gameplan because of your coach making decisions to overrule you? Yes, it's certainly possible that's how the game works.

Is it possible that the variation has absolutely nothing to do with the coach? Yes, I think that is also very possible.

There are an awful lot of areas, especially with the new game, where I don't think we're in a position to say "believe me, it works this way and that's all there is to it." This, to me, seems like an obvious inclusion on that list.

No problem there. Clearly, when I say things like that it is my belief they work that way. But you're right. There's never been any definitive testing I'm aware of on that. In fact, maybe playcalling is just a dice roll modifier. So, it would have been better for me to say "there's a possibility of that" rather than "believe me."

[Autumn]

I have presumed that the play calling works by essentially "rolling" against the percentages you pick. In ohter words, on first down the computer selects a random number between 1-100 and compares it to the run percentage you selected. If so, this means that when you set "run 55% of the time" you're not guaranteed that result, since each particular play is an individual random selection. You're just making the odds better in the direction of a run.

Is this how others understand or know the game to work in terms of the percentages?

[MrBigglesworth]

I have presumed that the play calling works by essentially "rolling" against the percentages you pick. In ohter words, on first down the computer selects a random number between 1-100 and compares it to the run percentage you selected. If so, this means that when you set "run 55% of the time" you're not guaranteed that result, since each particular play is an individual random selection. You're just making the odds better in the direction of a run.

Is this how others understand or know the game to work in terms of the percentages?
That was the commonly held belief, before certain testing was done that seemed to confirm people's suspicions that what was actually called didn't line up with the percentage that you specified in the gameplan. If that's true, it would mean that there is some other factor involved in determining if it is a run/pass, like other aspects of your gameplan. For example, you can set your playing percentage for a starter really high, but his playing time is also a function of his endurance so he might not play as much as another player at the same position with the same playing time number.

[Autumn]

But if the system worked as I described, you wouldn't expect hte run pass percentages to match the percentages you inputted. If each play is an independent selection, putting 55% at run would mean there's more of a chance of running on first down than passing, but at the end of the game you could still end up passing more often than running. It would only give you a general trend.

If hte computer checks each play to see what percentage you've run on first down so far in the game, and alters its playcalling to try to direct you towards the 55%, that should yield fairly accurate but still not precise results.

[MrBigglesworth]

But if the system worked as I described, you wouldn't expect hte run pass percentages to match the percentages you inputted. If each play is an independent selection, putting 55% at run would mean there's more of a chance of running on first down than passing, but at the end of the game you could still end up passing more often than running. It would only give you a general trend.

If hte computer checks each play to see what percentage you've run on first down so far in the game, and alters its playcalling to try to direct you towards the 55%, that should yield fairly accurate but still not precise results.
For a few trials, you would expect them to be off the mark. However, when you sim ten seasons worth of data and come up with a percentage that is 10 pts above what you would expect, there is nearly no chance of that happening by random chance. You would expect to get 6 heads in 10 coin flips, but not 600 in 1000. The odds of the latter happening are slim.

[QuikSand]

I am finding, with increasing frequency, situations where my plays are being called in clear disobeyance to what I put in my gameplan.

A case (not theonly one, but one I happen to have handy) is in my latest game from IHOF. I have been frustrated by seeing my team run more often than i'd like on 3rd and long situations -- so I deliberately made that a 0 in my basic offensive gameplan for both 3rd and 11-16, and 3rd and 17+ situations. That seems awfully simple -- no matter what my adjustments screen says, we should be passing in those situations.

Using a gameplan with zeroes as indicated, here's what happened on 3rd and long in my latest game:

3-13-CHE38 (1Q: 11:55) Amos Delong ran inside the right guard for 4 yards. Tackled by S Jeffrey Stern.

3-13-CHE03 (2Q: 09:06) Ron Lyle pass completed to WR Jeffrey Banta for 55 yards. Tackled by OLB Brad Owens. The receiver ran his route right over the middle of the field. Banta gained 15 yards after the catch. The quarterback threw away from the double coverage.

3-16-CHE28 (3Q: 13:47) Dwight Foreman ran outside the right tackle for 16 yards. Tackled by S Jackie Doering, assisted by ILB Johnnie Braithwaite. Key block delivered by Jerald Thomas.

3-15-CHE40 (3Q: 06:05) Ron Lyle pass completed to WR Harris Douglas for 17 yards. Tackled by ILB Johnnie Braithwaite. The receiver ran his route right over the middle of the field.

3-10-BKN33 (3Q: 00:18) Ron Lyle pass was dropped by RB Dwight Foreman. Brooklyn's Floyd Ramirez was hurt on the play.

3-10-CHE19 (4Q: 10:26) Ron Lyle pass was blocked at the line, intended for WR Harris Douglas. DT Tony Agosto blocked the pass.

3-20-CHE47 (4Q: 05:58) Ron Lyle pass fell incomplete, intended for WR Jamel Dole. DT Terrell Borders hurried the quarterback into a bad throw.

3-10-CHE35 (4Q: 02:00) Dwight Foreman ran around right end for 0 yards and was forced out of bounds. Tackled by OLB Dustin Marsh, assisted by ILB Johnnie Braithwaite.

- - -

That's three out of eight times in 3rd-and-long situations where my team decided to run, complteely against the imutable wishes of my hand-entered gameplan. The last one was with only 2 minutes left and we were polenty ahead, so I suspect (also despite my wishes) we had slipped into the doomed-to-failure clock-killing run-only offense... which I'd rather not be forced to do, but at leats conceptually I understand that.

But *two* times, my team called a play that I deliberately wanted called 0% of the time. It just shouldn't happen, period.


My fear is that there are too many situations where this happens. I don't know if the gameplan math just gets messed up by extreme entries (like my zero here), whether it's some function of the adjustments screen making mistakes, or what.

But I'm with the original poster from this thread more and more as I look at things -- in concluding that what I am getting from time spent in gameplanning is, to a larger degree than I expect, just the illusion of control.


I am trying different things with gameplans, in an exploration of what seems to work and what does not. But all told, it's just very frustrating to find that I can make a conscious decision to do one thing, and have the game either ignore, misunderstand, or override that decision a substantial amount of the time.

I suspect there are layers to this onion.

[gstelmack]

so I deliberately made that a 0 in my basic offensive gameplan for both 3rd and 11-16, and 3rd and 17+ situations. That seems awfully simple -- no matter what my adjustments screen says, we should be passing in those situations.

What does your adjustments screen say? I my (admittedly horrible" memory serves, the options are "Always", "+90%", "+80%", ..., "+10%", "Never". Given the Always and Never entries, perhaps the answer is that "+80%" doesn't mean (base*1.8), but rather (base + ((1.0-base)*.8). So setting base to 0 and adjustment to +80% means you run 80% of the time.

If you set the Adjustment to "Never", do they still run sometimes other than when clock-killing is in effect?

[QuikSand]

Please don't misunderstand me -- i am not suggesting that the game's help file would actually resolve an issue like this, as the game is *clearly* not doing what the help file says. But just to add another element to the discussion:

Offensive Game Plan Adjustments Screen

The Offensive Game Plan Adjustments Screen allows you to set part of the game plan your team uses when simulating games. The settings on this screen determine adjustments to your Offensive Basic Game Plan screen.

The main portion of this screen describes adjustments you make, depending on the game's score and where you have the ball on the field.

Your selections are used to adjust the basic run, short pass (0-8 yards) and long pass (9+ yards) selections you made on the Basic Game Plan Screen. For example, if you lead by 10 points and you have the ball on your opponent's 45-yard line, the selections you make on this screen in the Lead 9-19, Opp 50-21 ydl. section are used to modify your choices for the down and distance.


If it is First-and-Ten and you have, then, runs set to 50%, short passes to 25% and long passes set to 25%. And your setting on this screen modifies runs by 30% more, short passes by 10% less and long passes are the "same," then the game will make the following calculations. Runs = 50 + 30% = 65%, short passes = 25 - 10% = 22%, long passes = 25%. They are then adjusted to add up to 100%. So you would end up running 58% of the time, short passes 20% and long passes 22% in that situation.

[QuikSand]

What does your adjustments screen say? I my (admittedly horrible" memory serves, the options are "Always", "+90%", "+80%", ..., "+10%", "Never". Given the Always and Never entries, perhaps the answer is that "+80%" doesn't mean (base*1.8), but rather (base + ((1.0-base)*.8). So setting base to 0 and adjustment to +80% means you run 80% of the time.

If you set the Adjustment to "Never", do they still run sometimes other than when clock-killing is in effect?

Without parsing the exact situations by score, I can say it's certainly possible, even likely, that the runs in this game did come at points where I had an upward adjustment in my Run %. And you're correct - it may well be that the game doesn't handle zero adjusted by some "% More" well -- whether it's the exact mistke you're suggesting (which would be completely absurd) or just some other nebulous way.

[gstelmack]

Without parsing the exact situations by score, I can say it's certainly possible, even likely, that the runs in this game did come at points where I had an upward adjustment in my Run %. And you're correct - it may well be that the game doesn't handle zero adjusted by some "% More" well -- whether it's the exact mistke you're suggesting (which would be completely absurd) or just some other nebulous way.

Your help file quote clearly contradicts my possibility. Maybe it's the "adjust so they add to 100" that burns here? Someone recently posted a spreadsheet that is supposed to calculate the actual percentages used in all cases. Might be instructive to plug your game plan (or at least the relative parts) into it and see if it still says "zero".

Of course, if it's not adjusting to something like 10% or more, it still won't explain the numbers you are seeing.

[QuikSand]

Your help file quote clearly contradicts my possibility.

Right, but it also contradicts the results I am seeing -- so without a doubt the game is not operating as advertised.

[Icy]

I'm having exactly the opposite problem in the WOOF. I want my team to run most of the times as i have a stud RB and a rookie QB. For any reason, my team is way more pass happy that i would like and in fact i'm going to ask Gstelmack to check and make sure that my gameplans are being imported as i'm a bit paranoid right now.

[wade moore]

Just a quick note..

Based on some gameplan testing I did, i can say with relatively high confidance that the % adjustments add/subtract that exact % number rather than adjust it by that percentage.

Quik, I have that data somewhere, I'll try to dig it up.

[Ben E Lou]

Just a quick note..

Based on some gameplan testing I did, i can say with relatively high confidance that the % adjustments add/subtract that exact % number rather than adjust it by that percentage.

Quik, I have that data somewhere, I'll try to dig it up.Heh. That would explain a lot.

[Ben E Lou]

I think you're on to something, Wade. I just tried a 40/40/20 (in all situations), adjusted by +50%/+50%/+70% (in all situations)

According to the help file, this should result in a 60/60/34 split, or 38.96%/38.96%/22.08%.

According to Wade's theory, this should result in a 90/90/90 split.

The actual split?

393 runs (38.71%)
300 short passes (29.6%)
322 medium/long passes (31.7%)

BUT....

25 of those runs were QB runs. I checked the logs, and 10 of those were kneeldowns. So, assume 15 scrambles. Give 7 to short, and 8 to long, and you get....

368 called runs
307 called short passes
330 called medium/long passes

Given that the team went 10-6, and ended up ramping up the running game late, that looks awfully like a 33.3/33.3/33.3 split to me. I'll try something else...

[Ben E Lou]

OK. I just tried something more outlandish:

60/40/0, with the 50/50/70 adjustments. According to help file, this should result in 90/60/0, which would be 60/40/0. However, the result was...

421 runs (41.8%)
317 short passes (31.5%)
267 medium/long passes (26.6%)

which is suspiciously close to...

60+50=110 (40.7%)
40+50=90 (33.3%)
0+70=70 (25.9%)

GREAT job, Wade. This has been a mystery to many of us! I'd been just creating gameplans and making sure I was getting the desired results in SP before sending them in for MP. At least now we know how to calculate this properly.

[wade moore]

OK. I just tried something more outlandish:

60/40/0, with the 50/50/70 adjustments. According to help file, this should result in 90/60/0, which would be 60/40/0. However, the result was...

421 runs (41.8%)
317 short passes (31.5%)
267 medium/long passes (26.6%)

which is suspiciously close to...

60+50=110 (40.7%)
40+50=90 (33.3%)
0+70=70 (25.9%)

GREAT job, Wade. This has been a mystery to many of us! I'd been just creating gameplans and making sure I was getting the desired results in SP before sending them in for MP. At least now we know how to calculate this properly.

Sorry I didn't speak up on this sooner... I don't check this forum as often as I should and I actually assumed people had figured this out...

Ironically, my assumptions are from some test scenarios I had discussed with SD, just didn't get down to these nitty gritty details.

[Ben E Lou]

Ironically, my assumptions are from some test scenarios I had discussed with SD, just didn't get down to these nitty gritty details.Yeah. I know we went over a bunch of scenarios, but because all of my testing at that time was based on getting 50% run, 50% medium/long pass in so many situations, I hadn't really noticed anything personally.

[QuikSand]

Just a quick note..

Based on some gameplan testing I did, i can say with relatively high confidance that the % adjustments add/subtract that exact % number rather than adjust it by that percentage.

Quik, I have that data somewhere, I'll try to dig it up.

Wow, that would explain a lot.

Funny how the solutions to many of these little enigmas just require that we excuse ourselves from thinking about football, and instead just start thinking about this like a puzzle that's unrelated to anything real. Add instead of multiply... but of course. It's a lot like how "tied" means "well not really tied, but rather unadjusted" in the game.

[QuikSand]

Two quick follow-ups:

(1) I am so disappointed in myself for not seeing this error, as it completely explains each of the previously inexplicable things I had been seeing thus far.

(2) This makes me pretty frustrated about some of the things I have tried to do in my gameplans, which (as long as the backasswards system stays this way) will be mathematically impossible to balance out properly for specialty situations (like the all-pass setup I mentioned earlier).

[wade moore]

Two quick follow-ups:

(1) I am so disappointed in myself for not seeing this error, as it completely explains each of the previously inexplicable things I had been seeing thus far.

(2) This makes me pretty frustrated about some of the things I have tried to do in my gameplans, which (as long as the backasswards system stays this way) will be mathematically impossible to balance out properly for specialty situations (like the all-pass setup I mentioned earlier).

and for me

(1) I knew this, and I still feel clueless

(2) I think this is part of the reason I feel clueless.. I feel like I can't really do what I want because of how this is setup.

[Icy]

Nice, great to know finally how does that work.

But... i'm not sure i like the system a lot. It requires playing with math outside the game for every adjustment, as after calculating the % added/removed, we need to readjust it again to a total of 100% to know exactly what the final % for runs, short passes and long passes will be in each situation.

For each situation you need to do:
R+R1=R2
SP+SP1=SP2
LP+LP1=C2

R2 + SP2 + LP2 = Total

(R2 / Total) * 100 = Final Running %
(SP2 / Total) * 100 = Final Short Passes %
(LP2 / Total) * 100 = Final Long Passes %

NOTATION:
R= run % in gameplan
R1= run % moddifier for that situation
SP= short pass % in gameplan
SP1= Short pass % moddifier for that situation
LP= Long pass % in gameplan
LP1= Long pass % moddifier for that situation


I might try to write a tool to calculate/show the final adjusted % for each situation.

[Icy]

Dola, i see that tool was already made here:
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=57473

But as Skydog noted, it must be adjusted now.

[QuikSand]

But... i'm not sure i like the system a lot.

I suspect that the more you work it through, the more you will find that almost any use of adjustments will lead to disappointing loss of control of what your team does.

[Eaglesfan27]

This solves a HUGE mystery for me. I was screwing up my team so badly when attempting to use the adjustment screen more to the point where I went back to using gameplans that hardly utilized it. Now, I know why it was screwing up.

[Celeval]

OK. I just tried something more outlandish:

60/40/0, with the 50/50/70 adjustments. According to help file, this should result in 90/60/0, which would be 60/40/0.

Actually, no... the help file doesn't imply that at all.

"For instance, if you select '70% less' for a situation, the game takes the current down and distance, and reduces your expectations by 70%. If you select '70% more' for a situation, the game increases your choice by 70% of the difference between the current selection and always."

60 (+50%) = 60 + (50% of 40 =) 20 = 80
40 (+50%) = 40 + (50% of 60 =) 30 = 70
0 (+70%) = 0 + (70% of 100) =) 70

80/70/70 = 36/32/32

[Celeval]

Right, but it also contradicts the results I am seeing -- so without a doubt the game is not operating as advertised.

I disagree here, given my quote from the adjustment screens above. If you're set to throw long 0% on a particular down/distance, and the adjustment is +x%, the overall value will be (0% + (x% * (100-0)) = x% (then adjusted against 100).

If set to 90%, then -30%, for example, it'd be (90% - (30% x 90%) = 90-27 = 63%

This should be testable against Wade's by using large negative adjustments... setting run to 30% then all adjustments to 50% less should result in a 15 value for run, not a -20 value.

[Celeval]

I think you're on to something, Wade. I just tried a 40/40/20 (in all situations), adjusted by +50%/+50%/+70% (in all situations)

According to the help file, this should result in a 60/60/34 split, or 38.96%/38.96%/22.08%.


Another example...

40+50% = (40+60/2 = 40+30) = 70
40+50% = (40+60/2 = 40+30) = 70
20+70% = (20+80*.7 = 20+56) = 86

[Celeval]

A good way to describe it, I think, from an IM conversation:

If you're adjusting your run down 70%, it means that 70% of the time you would run, you don't.

If you're adjusting your run up 70%, it means that 70% of the time you wouldn't run, you do.

[QuikSand]

Thanks for the clarification, Celeval. Very helpful.


I retain many of my frustrations about how this really wreaks havoc on small numbers from the base gameplan... how it completely undermines a 0 or 1 in your base gameplan... but I do see what you're saying.

[Icy]

I disagree here, given my quote from the adjustment screens above. If you're set to throw long 0% on a particular down/distance, and the adjustment is +x%, the overall value will be (0% + (x% * (100-0)) = x% (then adjusted against 100).

If set to 90%, then -30%, for example, it'd be (90% - (30% x 90%) = 90-27 = 63%

This should be testable against Wade's by using large negative adjustments... setting run to 30% then all adjustments to 50% less should result in a 15 value for run, not a -20 value.

Makes sense too but... why the hell are we supposed to do all those calculations to set an increase/decrease of our gameplans tendencies? You formula is even harder to do without a calculator or spreadsheet help, this kills the enjoyment a lot for me.

[Celeval]

Makes sense too but... why the hell are we supposed to do all those calculations to set an increase/decrease of our gameplans tendencies? You formula is even harder to do without a calculator or spreadsheet help, this kills the enjoyment a lot for me.

You don't need a calculator unless you want it exact. It's a question of looking at it differently. If you run 25% of the time:


rrrrrrrrrrpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

And you increase it by 30%, then instead of increasing it by 30% of how much you're already running:


---
rrrrrrrrrrpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
---

You're increasing it by 30% of the time you're not running already:

---------
rrrrrrrrrrpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
---------

[gstelmack]

What does your adjustments screen say? I my (admittedly horrible" memory serves, the options are "Always", "+90%", "+80%", ..., "+10%", "Never". Given the Always and Never entries, perhaps the answer is that "+80%" doesn't mean (base*1.8), but rather (base + ((1.0-base)*.8). So setting base to 0 and adjustment to +80% means you run 80% of the time.

Greg for the win in post 17!

[SchrodingersDog]

Thanks guys, with your help I was able to do this:
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w135/bizaard_photo/allrun.gif

As you can guess, I put 100s in all the newly appropriate places, and the adjustments were all "same". I love no passing qualifiers. Random team btw, and notice the poor tired RB's TD total.

[SchrodingersDog]

While adjusting the "AllRun" offense above, I realized this info may impact the formation usage percentages as well. IE, on the "Extreme Running Situations" screen it states:

"This screen controls the percentage of plays you run the following formations, when the run percentage specified in your game plan ranges from 86% to 100%."

Does this percentage refer to my original game plan or the adjusted percentage? And does the "use for tied score till X minutes have passed" impact it as well?

[QuikSand]

Does this percentage refer to my original game plan or the adjusted percentage? And does the "use for tied score till X minutes have passed" impact it as well?

I am not certain, but I think it's the fully adjusted percentages that are employed.

As for the second item -- not sure exactly, but the "use adjustments for tied score until X minutes are passed" doesn't actually use the tied score adjustment for that many minutes -- instead it's pretty clear that it just reverts to your unadjusted gameplan percentages for that many minutes instead.

[QuikSand]

Greg for the win in post 17!

Yes, sir. I comfess I got completely thrown by the coincidence arising from the example used in the help file, showing a 50% run being increased by "30% more" to yield 65%. Dumb happenstance (a function of using 50% as the start point) makes this example work perfectly for both of the explanations.