[Dandelion]

Originally Posted by jdavidbakr

The key here is that the game is stats driven, which means the box score will look great, but going through the game log you start to see some of the flaws of the game engine.

And with that You mean that regardless of what I would call in the games' "Play Simulation" part - You know the one in SP mode, where one decides NOT to let the coach call the plays , the one nearly nobody ever uses as it seems.. -well that regardless of what kind of calls I make there, the game has been decided ahead by.. statistics?
If so, why's that part in the game? Should have taken some time to build it in, I guess..

Or did You mean with "stats driven" that the players stats - skills, ablilities, whatever to call them.. - are put up against each other and then the decision is made with a - more or less lucky - roll of the dice? If so, then it doesn't matter, if FOF is a 0d or 3d Sim - even Madden10 is decided by those player stats (not the player on the Joystick.. at least not for 100%..) and some dice rolls..

The problem would rather be, how deep does the simulation part go. Is it a pure "10% that WR1 Rating 70 is targetted. If so: 10% that LCB1 Rating 67 covers him. If so: x% for deflect/Int/catch. Roll dice. Find result in table $1. Next."

Or does the simulation go deeper, using certains skills of the players? Like the PRT/PRS Skill of the DE being used not only to see IF he pressures the QB, but to which extend. And then modifying the QBs Long Passing Skill to see if the WR gets a chance to use his Adjust to catch the ball etc.. etc.. etc..
Of course it's only dice rolls in the end.. but is it a "Pittsburgh plays Cleveland. 50% Cleveland wins - due to addup of player ratings or whatever - *Sound of dice rolling*.. 34.. Cleveland wins by result in table $1 under 34%... with log files made up to fit the dice roll?
Or does what the gamers - we - do to raise the chances of our teams, up to trying to find the right man on the right spot for the right play have any influence?

If you plan your game with that in mind you will do better than micro-analyzing each play and trying to figure out why your team did what it did. So it doesn't invalidate the above strategies, it just means that you need larger sample sizes to make everything play out ok.

The thing that buggers me about the FS blitzing without being told so and the Backup being on the field without being ordered so is more that those tidbitts seem to me as something that takes control away from me. Different gamers have different styles of play. I would never let Rex put up my Off/Def Gameplans or setup my players unless I'm sure he would do it exactly as I want him to do it. As his plans don't use my personnel as it needs to be used (.. or as I don't have the fitting personnel for Rex's plans..) I have to set up the Gameplans myself. And therefore I try to find out what happens when...
As I'm not a numbercruncher, I don't run 1,000 test games in a sterile surrounding, to get to my results. I've done 13 seasons now, easiest financial mode, started with the Steelers of 2008 and got Big Ben four rings in the first eight years.. then several players retired and now I'm in the process of building up a new team, fitting to my "hit them hard and run them down, then pick their long passes.." style of play. Had three bad years, then made it into Div Final and - tadaa - to another ring in the last season.
And all the time I'm modifying bits of my gameplans or settings.. Not in Macro level mode - but by what you could call Micro management.

I've said this before and I'm pretty sure I'm correct in my assumption that who you have on the field for each given play isn't as important as it would be if the game was simmed at the 2-d level, as not every player appears to have an effect on the outcome of each play. Look at the stats on a macro level and you'll appreciate it better, looking at it on the micro level (and thinking you can have a greater effect at that level) can lead to frustration.

I guess you're right about the ".. not every player.." part. Although from my experience it makes a difference if I set up my 100% of the time blitzing SLB to bugger the lousy rated LT/RTs on the opponents o-line.. even though he doesn't make the sack, the DEs or the WLB will make use of his pressure. And - from what I make of the stats my 13 seasons brought me - it does indeed raise the sack rating of the players around my SLB if he's good in PRT/PRS and set to blitz..
So.. adjusting the blitz directions for him - inside or outside - is what.. micro or macro?

And on the 100% playing time thingy.. I ran a meager four test games - two with 100%, two with 50% playing time for the starter - and came up with what I think of as an interesting result..
Under the 100% setup my O-line starters showed a 0 to 15.67% deviation to the 100%.
My starting LG (End 78, rated 70) was on the field 100% of all plays. His backup is a End 35, rating 44 LG.
On the other end of the line is my starting C (End 37, rating 62) who was on the field only on 84.3% of the plays - without getting hurt or suchlike - and was replaced by the End 18 rating 42 Backup C.
Starting LT (End 91, rating 64) was on the field 98.05% (Backup: End 34, rating 52)
From the other deviations, which stand around 2 to 5 % it seems, that neither Endurance nor Rating have a linear influence on the playing time settings.

With a 50% playing time setting for the starters, the deviations stand more equally at about 5%. The above mentioned starting LG was on the field 55.7% of the time, the C 53.57% and the LT made it for also 55.7% of the plays..

So, as each player has less time on the field with the 50% ratings, it seems that endurance does have an influence at playing time (-> higher deviations with 100%, lower with 50%). Though it seems as Endurance isn't the only aspect that has (-> End 91 spent less time on the field than End 78 in 100% mode)..
I would need an html parser to get more data to even have a small chance to find out what aspect that could be.. so up to now it's "Lucky Dice rolls.." all over for me