Pocket Scout College Football Statistical Analysis of Patch & LTP3

[PocketScout]

Quote: Originally Posted by deadlyCane

I agree with this philosophy. I would hate for them to make the SPD and ACC for everyone within 5 points like in the past. That was pointless. What I do want them to do is use both SPD and ACC ratings to calculate and display the 40-times we see in recruiting. So for example, a guy with a 95 SPD and a 80 ACC may have similar 40-time to a guy with 83 SPD and 97 ACC. Something along those lines. I'm not sure of the weighting but you get the picture. It just doesn't make sense for a guy with 95 SPD and 98 ACC to have the same 40-time as another player with 95 SPD and 75 ACC.

This is one of those small tweaks that I hope they do for 2012. I know its not gonna happen for this year. Minus a major glitch I don't see any more patches coming down the pipeline. And the game is not as screwed as last years post patch, so right now I am happy to chug along till next summer with the product we have. There are a lot of little things that could be tweaked and the 40 times is one of these.

Again it makes no sense for a player with 96 SPD and 68 ACC to have a faster 40 time than a guy with 94 SPD and 96 ACC. Hopefully this is something that might get addressed.

[l3ulvl]

If they're going to make a major difference between the speed and acceleration for incoming recruits then they should do the same for the default rosters. Whats so bad about a guy with 85 speed and 95 acceleration? I didn't say 5 points should be the maximum difference, I said 10-12. Nobody else thinks a 20 point difference between the 2 is screwy?

[Mtneer08]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

If they're going to make a major difference between the speed and acceleration for incoming recruits then they should do the same for the default rosters. Whats so bad about a guy with 85 speed and 95 acceleration? I didn't say 5 points should be the maximum difference, I said 10-12. Nobody else thinks a 20 point difference between the 2 is screwy?

I think you are too worried about things staying the same with default rosters when those roster ratings aren't very realistic. Most of my WR's and RB's dont have a 20 point difference anyway...more like 10 at the most

[swhyte21]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

If they're going to make a major difference between the speed and acceleration for incoming recruits then they should do the same for the default rosters. Whats so bad about a guy with 85 speed and 95 acceleration? I didn't say 5 points should be the maximum difference, I said 10-12. Nobody else thinks a 20 point difference between the 2 is screwy?

I really wish they did away with the numbered attributes... Block-O said in one thread and I agree, that we should get stats on bench, 40, cone drill, yadda yadda yadda, and set our starters from that. There can be a coach assistant, such as WR coach, QB coach, etc telling you who should start, and also, if there is a position battle, practice the players and see who comes out with the starting job. And then let stats decide who is the best player, and not OVR rating.

Recruits can have grades and stars just like they do in real life though. the A+ through F is fine in my book. But I also want to see high school stats.

[PocketScout]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

If they're going to make a major difference between the speed and acceleration for incoming recruits then they should do the same for the default rosters. Whats so bad about a guy with 85 speed and 95 acceleration? I didn't say 5 points should be the maximum difference, I said 10-12. Nobody else thinks a 20 point difference between the 2 is screwy?

Think of it as in track speed with runners going 60m, 100m and 200m. Speed is how fast (km/h) the runner can max out at while Acceleration is how long it takes him to get there. Some guys are extremely quick out of the blocks (Maurice Greene, a great 60m and 100m) but don't have the top end, while others are slower but have the kick to win, then there is the Tyson Gay's and Usain Bolt's who have SPD and ACC.

All players don't have to have SPD and ACC that is extremely close to each other.

You are correct that they are not in line with the default rosters. The defaults have a lot more players who wind up in the mid to high 90s in both categories which probably is not the best way to setup the default rosters but again thats just how things are.

[youALREADYknow]

Quote: Originally Posted by swhyte21

I really wish they did away with the numbered attributes... Block-O said in one thread and I agree, that we should get stats on bench, 40, cone drill, yadda yadda yadda, and set our starters from that. There can be a coach assistant, such as WR coach, QB coach, etc telling you who should start, and also, if there is a position battle, practice the players and see who comes out with the starting job. And then let stats decide who is the best player, and not OVR rating. Recruits can have grades and stars just like they do in real life though. the A+ through F is fine in my book. But I also want to see high school stats.

Regardless of the nonsense that they show you in the game menus, you're going to have numbered attributes on the back-end that are based on the decimal system.

This is a necessity in mathematics, statistics, probability, etc. No game developer is going to limit their possibilities to a range of 10-15 values when they can use the full range of 100 values to create different scenarios and probabilities.

They don't need to dumb the game down just because they haven't perfected it yet.

[swhyte21]

Quote: Originally Posted by youALREADYknow

Regardless of the nonsense that they show you in the game menus, you're going to have numbered attributes on the back-end that are based on the decimal system. This is a necessity in mathematics, statistics, probability, etc. No game developer is going to limit their possibilities to a range of 10-15 values when they can use the full range of 100 values to create different scenarios and probabilities. They don't need to dumb the game down just because they haven't perfected it yet.

Oh I'm not saying they don't use the mathmatics and the 1-99 ratings, I just feel like it should be behind the scenes, so you couldn't look at a number and say Rob Bolden is better than Kevin Newsome, you have to go through a 5 week training camp while you do your off season recruiting, play them both and take who you are comfortable with, and not what a number tells you. I feel like the numbers dictating how we play the game takes a good amount of the emotion out of running a team. It may sound silly, but I'd like to feel an attachment to the little pixels running around my screen.

[PocketScout]

Quote: Originally Posted by swhyte21

I really wish they did away with the numbered attributes... Block-O said in one thread and I agree, that we should get stats on bench, 40, cone drill, yadda yadda yadda, and set our starters from that. There can be a coach assistant, such as WR coach, QB coach, etc telling you who should start, and also, if there is a position battle, practice the players and see who comes out with the starting job. And then let stats decide who is the best player, and not OVR rating. Recruits can have grades and stars just like they do in real life though. the A+ through F is fine in my book. But I also want to see high school stats.

In theory thats a great way to do it, but for a computational model to work you have to be able to quantize the possible interactions in your model. There is a reason they have a CIT rating. In trying to model a simulation of the great game we Americans call football, players catch a ball in traffic, the same goes for some guys can make amazing one handed grabs that others can not, so we need to quantize that and its done with a SPC rating.

Again in theory hiding all of that is good, but if you do how do you know a guy is good at catching in traffic? Then if you just have a drill grade for all of these quantizations what is any different from what we have now?

Grey Dog Softwares Bowl Bound College Football had a little different approach to the problem. No matter what, to model something as complex as football you have to have the attributes/interaction ratings, but instead of giving you what your players were rated your coaching staff did it.

If the coach had an eye for talent he was more accurate, but you had some coaches who were better at developing talent, but not scouting it, while others were great on the field. You had to balance all of this when selecting a your coaching staff. I think this is a better way of handling this and just hiding these interactions that are quantized pieces of a greater model.