albionmoonlight
08-06-2007, 08:20 AM
It seems that a lot of complaints about gameplanning/roster shuffling take the form of "I am trying to get my team to do [X], but I can't find a gameplan that will make them do it."
X here is defined as something like "get my running backs to split carries 50/50" or "blitz about 25% of the time."
One of the problems into which we run is that it can be very hard, working from the bottom up, to do something simple like get a 50/50 split on RB carries. Between playing time, endurance, formation usage, depth charts, etc. we can only make educated guesses about how our bottom up approach will actually play out in a game. I know that sometimes I would have the game play out just how I wanted, only to have the next week completely bullocks up without me changing the gameplan at all. This isn't that suprising since the gameplan is based on percentages.
So, I am just wondering how hard it would be to design a sim (football or otherwise) where you did not imput a complex bottoms-up set of directions, but instead told the game what you wanted to happen in a more simple form.
For instance, you tell the game that you want player A and player B to split playing time 50/50 (or 60/40 or 70/30, etc.). Or you tell the game that you want player X to play the first half, and player Y to play the second half.
This approach, of course, seems much easier when it comes to playing time than it does when it comes to play calling. I don't know if there is much functional difference between instructing a team to take between 15-17 three point shots than instructing them to shoot 3s 40% of the time.
But, at least when it comes to playing time, what are the advantages and disadvantages to the end-focused system? As gamers, we think in terms of "I want my young DE to play about a third of the snaps." Why not let us tell that, in pretty much those terms, to the game?
X here is defined as something like "get my running backs to split carries 50/50" or "blitz about 25% of the time."
One of the problems into which we run is that it can be very hard, working from the bottom up, to do something simple like get a 50/50 split on RB carries. Between playing time, endurance, formation usage, depth charts, etc. we can only make educated guesses about how our bottom up approach will actually play out in a game. I know that sometimes I would have the game play out just how I wanted, only to have the next week completely bullocks up without me changing the gameplan at all. This isn't that suprising since the gameplan is based on percentages.
So, I am just wondering how hard it would be to design a sim (football or otherwise) where you did not imput a complex bottoms-up set of directions, but instead told the game what you wanted to happen in a more simple form.
For instance, you tell the game that you want player A and player B to split playing time 50/50 (or 60/40 or 70/30, etc.). Or you tell the game that you want player X to play the first half, and player Y to play the second half.
This approach, of course, seems much easier when it comes to playing time than it does when it comes to play calling. I don't know if there is much functional difference between instructing a team to take between 15-17 three point shots than instructing them to shoot 3s 40% of the time.
But, at least when it comes to playing time, what are the advantages and disadvantages to the end-focused system? As gamers, we think in terms of "I want my young DE to play about a third of the snaps." Why not let us tell that, in pretty much those terms, to the game?