Looking at evaluating players in a text-sim environment

[Epi_862]

OK. So i'll open up and explain a system for player rating & also evaluation.

The basis is that dont think either the Madden system or the FOF system do a very good job of reflecting the real pro football game, with some very clear hinderances. So the system im proposing, is a three-tiered system.

The whole point of this exercise is to try and come up with a system than can simulate every real-life scenario with the fewest ratings possible. First, i'll list the ratings, and then show you a couple of examples that are currently not possible in FOF, but happen in real life - and how these ratings would implement these scenarios.

This is not meant to be finished or complete by any means, just an opening of a discussion.

Every player has the following ratings:

ATHLETIC (static):

Speed (40 time, straight line speed)
Strength (overall strength)
Agility (e.g. quickness, what have you)

MENTAL (static):

Learning (ability to learn new things)
Intelligence (well, intelligence)
Leadership (self explanatory)
Determination (how determined the player is)
Confidence (how much faith he has in himself)
Endurance

PLAYING (dynamic):

Condition (current physical condition)
Motivation (current mental motivation)
System (current knowledge of the system hes in)
Position (current skill in position)

Thats it. Now, i'm inclined to think that ratings that go from 1-100 are excessive and useless. I'm pretty sure it could be done on a 0-3 scale, but for the sake of discussion, i'll use 1-5 with .5 steps.

EXAMPLE 1: Vince Young's down period.

Not really possible currently in FOF to be replicated. At least not consistently. How it would work in this system, Vince Young:

ATHLETIC (static):

Speed 3
Strength 3,5
Agility 3,5

MENTAL (static):

Learning 2,5
Intelligence 3
Leadership 2
Determination 4
Confidence 1
Endurance

Which means he has a very low confidence. That would mean being benched and sucking, he's dynamic stats would fall to the floor. He takes some time to learn the offense, which contributes to his failure. The all-pro rookie season is a combination of luck and good athletic skills.

When being benched, Vince has:
PLAYING (dynamic):

Condition 4,5
Motivation 0,5
System 2
Position 2

Now, he sits down and his system skills and motivation rise - because he's a determined guy who lacks confidence. This means, when he finally gets back, he has a better grasp on the offense - he's less likely to fuck up and spiral down.

I'm deliberately omitting details on progression at this point, since i think it's pretty clear - and not too important right now. The basis is this: Vince is a determined guy who lacks confidence. He was not ready to start, so with some bad plays he spirals down. When he's benched, hes determination and learning abilities help him in learning the system, and building motivation. When he comes back, he has a higher chance of success. And if it starts of well, he'll stay motivated - and even though he's not too confident a guy, the great motivation and system knowledge will keep him playing well. There would still always be a chance of a meltdown. Through experience, his motivation will rise, too.

EXAMPLE 2: Albert Haynesworth

Not really possible currently in FOF to be replicated either.

ATHLETIC (static):

Speed 3
Strength 5
Agility 4

MENTAL (static):

Learning 2
Intelligence 2
Leadership 2
Determination 2,5
Confidence 4
Endurance 2

Im really keeping this short, without even going to the dynamic skills: He's too old and not determined enough to learn a new system. He'll get hurt sometimes, which will hinder his easing in to the new system. He'll be a powerful inside run-plugger, but not the 100 million mad the Redskins expected.

So here's the basic idea. The least amount of attributes to simulate all possible pro football player and career types. Coaching will probably add another layer of effects to this, but lets omit that for now.

A couple of notes:

Age progression. This should be a position based curve, modified by some attributes, both static and dynamic.

System. Maybe there should be a position experience and system exprerience rating. Maybe only the system rating is enough - since if a guy has good athletic stats, he'll be OK in a position.

Special teams. A friend said that this system would need a different ST rating. I think not. Keeping with the idea of simulating real life, most of ST play should be determined by athletic skills, with motivation and determination playing a big role.

There's a lot of open holes in this thing, but i'd love to brainstorm with you guys, and see if it's feasible to build a better system for player rating.

[Young Drachma]

I think the thing to keep in mind with a rating system is, if you make it too complicate, it becomes too encumbered by the sheer weight of it. It's too much and if you don't simplify it, you lose the casual players at the behest of the few immersion friendly folks willing to play with that level of detail.

And I think there are other threads on this in the FOF forum somewhere for sure or via search that might yield you lots of other insights on this.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Epi_862

but for the sake of discussion, i'll use 1-5 with .5 steps.

I know this has nothing to do with your overall point, but why wouldn't you just use a 1-10 scale?

[Jughead Spock]

but... this one goes to 11....

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

but... this one goes to 11....

Actually, it's a 2-10 scale this way.

[QuikSand]

SP AC AG ST HA EN IN DI

[CU Tiger]

vince young - intelligence - 2 *snicker*

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

SP AC AG ST HA EN IN DI

Now I have to go find an external floppy drive, damn you.

[tarcone]

If his confidence is listed under a static category, how does it go up?

[cartman]

I think FM has all of this modeled incredibly well.

[Pyser]

been a long time since ive seen a fof post on the fofc board. course, i dont go hardly anywhere but off topic, anyway...

[Epi_862]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If his confidence is listed under a static category, how does it go up?

The idea is that confidence is a personal attribute.

What amounts to gaining/losing confidence, as we understand it in a real world, would in this system be a change in motivation, which would be highly dependant on the confidence stat.

[Epi_862]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think the thing to keep in mind with a rating system is, if you make it too complicate, it becomes too encumbered by the sheer weight of it. It's too much and if you don't simplify it, you lose the casual players at the behest of the few immersion friendly folks willing to play with that level of detail.

The whole point for this exercise was exactly what you describe.

I'm a football guy, i play and i coach, i'm pretty well versed in my opinion. Now, when i play a game like FOF with a "simple" system, i sometimes have no idea what the ratings attribute to.

When evaluating a real player, like in my real life team, i can say, you know - he's fast, agile, but not very strong. He has a great understanding of the playbook, but is not very confident.

This instantly gives me a vision of the player and how to use him.

A 48 3rd down catching and a 32 getting downfield, while they work in FOF, are not in any way representative of a real coaching/managing of players, and i would argue that it is extremely counterintuitive.

[Epi_862]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think FM has all of this modeled incredibly well.

Im with you a 100%. FM really is, by and far, the gold standrard with which all text-sims will be judged. That said, i think the challenges and dynamics of football vs soccer are very different. Soccer, i feel, is based on technical skills, with a layer of team cohesion on top of it.

I would argue that football is a cohesion/system/mental game first, and technical skills are secondary.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'd recommend that you start SIMPLE and then add enhancements into the system - its much easier to tune and understand the underlying effect of how things slot together if you take that approach.

For instance if I was to build a sports sim from scratch again I'd start with far fewer attributes than there are in FM presently and concentrate on getting them working right and building the mental and social side of things before expanding the attributes out further (which is fairly similar to the evolution which actually occurred with early CM/FM games acutally).

I think the mental and social sides of a sports sim are VITAL to making the world seem real and believable imho, otherwise you're simply picking players because of their attributes and not thinking of them as people.

The aim for me is always to immerse people into a world which seems real to them, where they swear about players being disloyal to them after they gave them their big break or where they hang onto that loyal striker even when they know he's past his prime because it wouldn't be 'right' to let him go ...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The aim for me is always to immerse people into a world which seems real to them, where they swear about players being disloyal to them after they gave them their big break or where they hang onto that loyal striker even when they know he's past his prime because it wouldn't be 'right' to let him go ...

I really should try FM because I've heard this sort of thing so many times. And I really like it as it has more "real world" problems than just the cut-and-dry "either you're in full rebuilding mode or you're challenging for a title" mode. You just see that a lot in doing a text sim world because, well, if your team isn't doing well and you're building to the future, you can just put it on the back burner for a couple of seasons while you rebuild and you have other things in life you can worry about. Whereas in real life, you can't go to that well every couple of years when something doesn't work out- you have to worry about your real life fan base, the media, etc.

Heck, I've even seen fans start to get into this mentality with real sports: "we should just give away all of our remotely good players for young guys/prospects because we aren't going to challenge this year" and it's just odd to me.

SI