Gameplanning Adjustments

[dzilla77]

So what exactly does the "Always" setting do in the game planning adjustment screen. It would seem that it would set that characteristic (e.g. run, short pass) to 100% and the other two to zero. However, it doesn't force the others to zero (or never), so what does it really do and what happens if you set additional ones to always?

Trying to figure out how it works so I can develop a game planning adjustment spreadsheet.

[aston217]

I approve 100000% of this thread. Would like someone to really enlighten me as to wtf that screen means.

[Ben E Lou]

*shurg*

I never use "Always" because there's not a single situation where I'd want to do something "always," and I get along fine. The math seems to work out perfectly everywhere else.

[aston217]

You'll have to explain the math to me, Ben! I have a lot of trouble with this screen. Even getting aside from the Always/Never scenarios, I do not know about this math.

Concretely, what if you are running 30/30/40. And your adjustments say "Run 90% more" and "Short Pass 90%" more. That gives you 57 running, 57 short pass, which already adds up to more than 100.

Let's say it's 10% more for run and short pass instead. That should give you 33% run, 33% short pass. I guess that leaves 34% for long pass. So if long pass is "same" here, it goes from 40% to 34%. What if Long Pass says "10% less"? Does it become 36 or 34? What if Long Pass says 10% more?

I mean, there are obvious examples where a set of gameplan adjustments will conflict with one another, and it isn't clear what happens when such conflicts occur.

[Antmeister]

You mean like this:
OpenOffice Game Plan Spreadsheet v.1 - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=80048&highlight=spreadsheet)

[Ben E Lou]

You'll have to explain the math to me, Ben! I have a lot of trouble with this screen.

Concretely, what if you are running 30/30/40. And your adjustments say "Run 90% more" and "Short Pass 90%" more. That gives you 57 running, 57 short pass, which already adds up to more than 100.

Let's say it's 10% more for run and short pass instead. That should give you 33% run, 33% short pass. I guess that leaves 34% for long pass. So if long pass is "same" here, it goes from 40% to 34%. What if Long Pass says "10% less"? Does it become 36 or 34? What if Long Pass says 10% more?It's just pro-rated.

[dzilla77]

You mean like this:
OpenOffice Game Plan Spreadsheet v.1 - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=80048&highlight=spreadsheet)

Yeah, sorta like that. Yours inspired me to do mine, for a couple or reasons.

[dzilla77]

*shurg*

I never use "Always" because there's not a single situation where I'd want to do something "always," and I get along fine. The math seems to work out perfectly everywhere else.

I agree that it is a pretty useless setting, but wanted to include it for completeness.

[aston217]

You mean that when the percentages are applied, the extra or the missing difference is divided evenly between the three (four, for defense) options?

That seems like the easiest solution for how the game will handle it. Thanks.

* 30/30/40, 10% more running and short passing, same everything else: that results in 33/33/40. An extra of 6. Therefore 2% is docked from each to bring it down to 100: 31/31/38 is the result.

* 30/30/40, 10% more running and short passing, 10% less long passing: 33/33/36 is the result. That's an extra of 2. The result is 32.3/32.3/36.3.

* 30/30/40, same running, 50% more short passing, 90% more long passing:
30/45/76 is the result. Extra of 51, 17 is docked from each. 13/28/59 is the result.

I guess this is what used to confuse me. In this last case, you can specify 50% more short passing, but if even more long passing is specified, then you have a net decrease in short passing in this situation. I wasn't sure if that was going to be what happened, or if the running % would just drop to 0 in the light of all the extra passing you are calling.

But it is a lot more predictable now, thanks Ben.