 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Linebacker and other adjustments in
Admin
For the existing pay leagues I'm going to put the actual player skill adjustments in only on the college players (so the future isn't tarnished), and for all the existing single season leagues I'll just let them cycle.
--Chris
Linebacker and other adjustments in
September 08, 2011 at 05:01AM View BBCode
Adjustments to linebacker skills to match the new formula and adjustments to LB, CB, and S (FS/SS) ratings have been put into place. In general LB's shouldn't fit in at CB and S as easily, although the stronger ones can still do well at DE.For the existing pay leagues I'm going to put the actual player skill adjustments in only on the college players (so the future isn't tarnished), and for all the existing single season leagues I'll just let them cycle.
--Chris
lancereisen
Chris, why are you destroying our baby. I know you have a HUGE amount of time, effort and thought involved in this game. You did a great job with many options on the game. I got a lot of time working within the framework. Everybody had the same options I did.
My LBs lost all sorts of skill pts, even in their native positions.
You just stuck a knife in the heart of the Arachnids. This is Sim DYNASTY, not sim let's handicap the winner football.
Put it back before we play much. Grandfather us in . If you gotta change it . do it through the draft. This team will be gone in 4 seasons, anyway.
I can't believe it, I'm in shock.
September 08, 2011 at 03:07PM View BBCode
What's this in my Wheaties? Some carnivorous creature has crept into my crypt and crapt!Chris, why are you destroying our baby. I know you have a HUGE amount of time, effort and thought involved in this game. You did a great job with many options on the game. I got a lot of time working within the framework. Everybody had the same options I did.
My LBs lost all sorts of skill pts, even in their native positions.
You just stuck a knife in the heart of the Arachnids. This is Sim DYNASTY, not sim let's handicap the winner football.
Put it back before we play much. Grandfather us in . If you gotta change it . do it through the draft. This team will be gone in 4 seasons, anyway.
I can't believe it, I'm in shock.
tworoosters
Beta/Gamma leagues are there to test and tinker, why else would you be given a free multi-season team ?
September 08, 2011 at 03:13PM View BBCode
Grandfathering in beta/gamma is counter productive to the purpose of the league.Beta/Gamma leagues are there to test and tinker, why else would you be given a free multi-season team ?
Admin
--Chris
September 08, 2011 at 03:22PM View BBCode
Lance, this change was not made to punish you for winning the Sim Bowl; I'm purely looking at the mechanics of the game.--Chris
lancereisen
On the size thing, the Colts and Warners Rams both had small defenses.
On the player creation thing. I like it. It's an oddity that is available to all in the draft. DT Fridge Perry ran the football on goalline situations. OT Munoz had 7 catches [4 for TDs] on tackle elegible plays and at 6'8", 278# played ShortStop on his college Bball team. Freaks, I love them.
Native positions. Beginning college the players are rated and given a native position. It is stamped on their permanent record, but not on their foreheads. They improve in various skills and the coach uses him to the teams best advantage- best role. Through the combine, draft and team administation the native position is used because paper pushers don't know better and everyone has to be pidgeon-holed. The player is then given to the coach who plays the player where he is most needed. The coach isn't looking at that permanent record and doesn't care where some bureaucrat thinks he needs to play.
Size. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=493
This list only goes back to 1970. If we subtract 1970 from the 1980 average weight, take the difference and subtract that from the 1970 average, I believe we'll get a usable average weight for 1960 players.
LBs are generally the all-round best atheletes on the team. An average wt. means some are bigger and some are smaller. The big ones can play the D line, the smaller ones can be FS.
A SS is a MLB with speed and some pass cover skill.
The DT generation code has been changed. Chane the SS G code to make more agility. I don't want to play anybody with less than B+ agility because of 'he dodges a tackle' for a huge gain factor.
Chris, you had it right the 1st time, please put it back.
September 08, 2011 at 03:48PM View BBCode
This is 1960 football, not todays Fball.On the size thing, the Colts and Warners Rams both had small defenses.
On the player creation thing. I like it. It's an oddity that is available to all in the draft. DT Fridge Perry ran the football on goalline situations. OT Munoz had 7 catches [4 for TDs] on tackle elegible plays and at 6'8", 278# played ShortStop on his college Bball team. Freaks, I love them.
Native positions. Beginning college the players are rated and given a native position. It is stamped on their permanent record, but not on their foreheads. They improve in various skills and the coach uses him to the teams best advantage- best role. Through the combine, draft and team administation the native position is used because paper pushers don't know better and everyone has to be pidgeon-holed. The player is then given to the coach who plays the player where he is most needed. The coach isn't looking at that permanent record and doesn't care where some bureaucrat thinks he needs to play.
Size. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=493
This list only goes back to 1970. If we subtract 1970 from the 1980 average weight, take the difference and subtract that from the 1970 average, I believe we'll get a usable average weight for 1960 players.
LBs are generally the all-round best atheletes on the team. An average wt. means some are bigger and some are smaller. The big ones can play the D line, the smaller ones can be FS.
A SS is a MLB with speed and some pass cover skill.
The DT generation code has been changed. Chane the SS G code to make more agility. I don't want to play anybody with less than B+ agility because of 'he dodges a tackle' for a huge gain factor.
Chris, you had it right the 1st time, please put it back.
lancereisen
For gamma purposes, I did my job very well.
I think the whole arguement is about the native position of players. Let's do it like baseball. If a player plays 2 years at a particular position, then his native pos would change to the position being played. Best role to be determined by whatever role is highest.
Or, we use a 'logical, not so logical' format. This will take some discussion since I only agree with 2/3 of the Bball method.
Right now, I'm using T for training on my gaurds. Why? I seems to me that T gives more agl chances and agl is always good. Guard/tackle role scores seem to piggyback.
On defense. D already lags O. This move weakens D even more [I assume all other LBs took hits like mine did]. For me, this move wiped out a year or 2 of improvements, and my guys are past the age of getting better. Good news for my O, but the spiders may not be able to hold anybody.
The new draft parameters leave a bleak outlook for the spiders future. I kept my 1st pick this draft. I assume other teams feel the same way.
Should these changes stand, may I suggest we scrap this current session at the end of the season and re-draft using the new parameters. I'm sure the new player would love it.
September 08, 2011 at 04:57PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Folks, I understand that this is gamma and a 'greater good' is involved. That doesn't keep me from being a competetive and selfish SOB.
For gamma purposes, I did my job very well.
I think the whole arguement is about the native position of players. Let's do it like baseball. If a player plays 2 years at a particular position, then his native pos would change to the position being played. Best role to be determined by whatever role is highest.
Or, we use a 'logical, not so logical' format. This will take some discussion since I only agree with 2/3 of the Bball method.
Right now, I'm using T for training on my gaurds. Why? I seems to me that T gives more agl chances and agl is always good. Guard/tackle role scores seem to piggyback.
On defense. D already lags O. This move weakens D even more [I assume all other LBs took hits like mine did]. For me, this move wiped out a year or 2 of improvements, and my guys are past the age of getting better. Good news for my O, but the spiders may not be able to hold anybody.
The new draft parameters leave a bleak outlook for the spiders future. I kept my 1st pick this draft. I assume other teams feel the same way.
Should these changes stand, may I suggest we scrap this current session at the end of the season and re-draft using the new parameters. I'm sure the new player would love it.
Hamilton2
1) Realism. The year is 1960, but it is not "1960's football." It is "modern professional football" and is designed to emulate the current NFL more closely than any other league or era. The year of 1960 is used as a convenient starting point for league creation, but it could just as easily to 2010. The year is just a year, it has no bearing on the sim whatsoever.
2) Realism part B. In the current NFL there are about a half dozen instances of OLB/DE changes that are effective. (From college to pros.) Most of these changes are necessitated by a different scheme (3-4 vs. 4-3) NOT by the player's "natural ability." There is one example in recent memory of a LB moving to Safety. There is a reason that Roy Williams no longer plays in Dallas. He got burned deep too many times. The skills needed for deep ball cover can't just be "picked up" by a natural athlete. For a player to be a competent solution long-term in the defensive backfield he needs to be a DB prior to entering the pros.
3) Salary Cap. The salary cap here is designed and intended to force teams to make economic value decisions based on positional scarcity and relative salary impact by position. The LB position has a wide distribution of similarly talented low A- players. The DE and DB positions have fewer low A- guys. Consequently, a 77 overall DE has a higher salary than a 77 overall LB (usually). It is a loophole in the salary system to be able to sign a bunch of inexpensive LB's and play them at DE and DB without penalty. That is a design flaw and Chris found it and has worked to fix it.
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by Hamilton2]
September 08, 2011 at 04:59PM View BBCode
Lance, it wasn't right the first time, because of multiple factors which have been listed in many places.1) Realism. The year is 1960, but it is not "1960's football." It is "modern professional football" and is designed to emulate the current NFL more closely than any other league or era. The year of 1960 is used as a convenient starting point for league creation, but it could just as easily to 2010. The year is just a year, it has no bearing on the sim whatsoever.
2) Realism part B. In the current NFL there are about a half dozen instances of OLB/DE changes that are effective. (From college to pros.) Most of these changes are necessitated by a different scheme (3-4 vs. 4-3) NOT by the player's "natural ability." There is one example in recent memory of a LB moving to Safety. There is a reason that Roy Williams no longer plays in Dallas. He got burned deep too many times. The skills needed for deep ball cover can't just be "picked up" by a natural athlete. For a player to be a competent solution long-term in the defensive backfield he needs to be a DB prior to entering the pros.
3) Salary Cap. The salary cap here is designed and intended to force teams to make economic value decisions based on positional scarcity and relative salary impact by position. The LB position has a wide distribution of similarly talented low A- players. The DE and DB positions have fewer low A- guys. Consequently, a 77 overall DE has a higher salary than a 77 overall LB (usually). It is a loophole in the salary system to be able to sign a bunch of inexpensive LB's and play them at DE and DB without penalty. That is a design flaw and Chris found it and has worked to fix it.
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by Hamilton2]
Hamilton2
September 08, 2011 at 05:02PM View BBCode
The move doesn't weaken defense more. The average grade for DE's is slightly higher now, so is the average grade of S's. The LB's took a little bit of a hit, but most of that was in relation to their secondary positions, not their primary role as LB's.
lancereisen
And if we aren't playing 1960s Fball, whay do we call it that? Let's call a spade a spade. Let's cal it Simdynasty modern simulated football.
we're upset about LBs not being called by their playing position, I'm upset about playing a game that says 1960 but isn't. So who's playing out of position here?
My for real LB stats should not be denigrated.
I need 1 more poke at the prostrate pony. Plz don't wratchet the game down. Right now it is wide open and fun. You torque it down and you get chess, a vaunted game, that requires certain pieces move to certain places and if you memorize the book of old plays, you can counteract any move. It is a finite game. This game is wide open and invites innovation. You're going to shut it down and make rote come into play. I shudder at the thought. Plz don't make it Simdynasty for dummys.
Real football is straped by, 'his hands are to small. he's not tall enough to play QB, his arms arn't long enough to play DE
there are a million of 'em, but we as coaches should be able to exploit the short-sightness of other 'by the book' owners.
Yeah, I'm going crazy, Chris, but should be done now. :D
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by lancereisen]
September 08, 2011 at 07:17PM View BBCode
My LBs playing DE were 81/81, they are now 77/76DE. Thats a season.And if we aren't playing 1960s Fball, whay do we call it that? Let's call a spade a spade. Let's cal it Simdynasty modern simulated football.
we're upset about LBs not being called by their playing position, I'm upset about playing a game that says 1960 but isn't. So who's playing out of position here?
My for real LB stats should not be denigrated.
I need 1 more poke at the prostrate pony. Plz don't wratchet the game down. Right now it is wide open and fun. You torque it down and you get chess, a vaunted game, that requires certain pieces move to certain places and if you memorize the book of old plays, you can counteract any move. It is a finite game. This game is wide open and invites innovation. You're going to shut it down and make rote come into play. I shudder at the thought. Plz don't make it Simdynasty for dummys.
Real football is straped by, 'his hands are to small. he's not tall enough to play QB, his arms arn't long enough to play DE
there are a million of 'em, but we as coaches should be able to exploit the short-sightness of other 'by the book' owners.
Yeah, I'm going crazy, Chris, but should be done now. :D
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by lancereisen]
casperthegm
September 08, 2011 at 07:34PM View BBCode
I'm the new guy, so what I say probably shouldn't carry much weight but there's a fine line here when it comes to playing guys at different positions. It really comes down to allowing us enough freedom to be creative with players and schemes to keep our interest but at the same time have enough of a restiction to keep these position changes reasonable/realistic. I guess "reasonable" is where the line starts to blur.
RichNYC1
I actually agree with a lot of what Lance is saying (altough I understand that like Rollerball the rules here can change at any time)
I do not however agree that its innovative right now. As it stands the game has become a track meet. I think there are a a number of reasons for this including, a dearth of defensive talent (and speed), a lack defensive sets and schemes and way too much tackle breaking.
It seems the only DB skill that matters right now is speed. Anyone who cant run at 80+ cant pass defend, no matter the other skills they have. Look around, 5 yard pass, 7 yard pass, on and on. You cant stop it (we were at 65% completions last year and that included some bad teams) and teams dont even need to try to stretch defenses to make it effective.
It way too easy to pass again (where did the picks go?) and I really feel that if we are going to be able to be innovative we have make Zone defense more effective and require offenses to be more diverse to succeed.
Dont get me wrong, if you have a big OL and can run a smaller team over you should be able to do that, generally speaking. But there should be ways to scheme against anything (especially consdiering these offenses are not exactly Kurt Warners Rams). What´s going to happen when offensive playbooks expand?
September 08, 2011 at 08:10PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lancereisen
My LBs playing DE were 81/81, they are now 77/76DE. Thats a season.
I need 1 more poke at the prostrate pony. Plz don't wratchet the game down. Right now it is wide open and fun. You torque it down and you get chess, a vaunted game, that requires certain pieces move to certain places and if you memorize the book of old plays, you can counteract any move. It is a finite game. This game is wide open and invites innovation. You're going to shut it down and make rote come into play. I shudder at the thought. Plz don't make it Simdynasty for dummys.
Real football is straped by, 'his hands are to small. he's not tall enough to play QB, his arms arn't long enough to play DE
there are a million of 'em, but we as coaches should be able to exploit the short-sightness of other 'by the book' owners.
Yeah, I'm going crazy, Chris, but should be done now. :D
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by lancereisen]
I actually agree with a lot of what Lance is saying (altough I understand that like Rollerball the rules here can change at any time)
I do not however agree that its innovative right now. As it stands the game has become a track meet. I think there are a a number of reasons for this including, a dearth of defensive talent (and speed), a lack defensive sets and schemes and way too much tackle breaking.
It seems the only DB skill that matters right now is speed. Anyone who cant run at 80+ cant pass defend, no matter the other skills they have. Look around, 5 yard pass, 7 yard pass, on and on. You cant stop it (we were at 65% completions last year and that included some bad teams) and teams dont even need to try to stretch defenses to make it effective.
It way too easy to pass again (where did the picks go?) and I really feel that if we are going to be able to be innovative we have make Zone defense more effective and require offenses to be more diverse to succeed.
Dont get me wrong, if you have a big OL and can run a smaller team over you should be able to do that, generally speaking. But there should be ways to scheme against anything (especially consdiering these offenses are not exactly Kurt Warners Rams). What´s going to happen when offensive playbooks expand?
Admin
There will still be LB's that overlap other positions; a good LB is still a good all-around athlete. But the way they were being created, you could pretty much drop any LB into just about any defensive slot.
Yes, you can train a G as a T and vice-versa; the G will not improve in Execution (and thus you will convert fewer IC's) but if I did not want you to be able to cross-train players I wouldn't have put this feature in. But I also don't want the natural position to be meaningless; there has to be a balance.
Allowing permanent position changes may be a solution to the salary issue, by changing an LB to a DE he would start getting paid as a DE. I'll think about a way to do this.
I do appreciate your desire to win, Lance. But this is not a rule change, it's a bug fix. I've checked some LB's and there are many that could still do well at other positions, just not all of them.
--Chris
September 08, 2011 at 08:33PM View BBCode
The root of the issue here is that LB's weren't working as designed. They were simply being created incorrectly, and improved incorrectly. In addition, there were problems preventing DE's from developing properly, and issues in the way overall grades are calculated at many defensive positions that needed correction.There will still be LB's that overlap other positions; a good LB is still a good all-around athlete. But the way they were being created, you could pretty much drop any LB into just about any defensive slot.
Yes, you can train a G as a T and vice-versa; the G will not improve in Execution (and thus you will convert fewer IC's) but if I did not want you to be able to cross-train players I wouldn't have put this feature in. But I also don't want the natural position to be meaningless; there has to be a balance.
Allowing permanent position changes may be a solution to the salary issue, by changing an LB to a DE he would start getting paid as a DE. I'll think about a way to do this.
I do appreciate your desire to win, Lance. But this is not a rule change, it's a bug fix. I've checked some LB's and there are many that could still do well at other positions, just not all of them.
--Chris
lancereisen
September 08, 2011 at 09:15PM View BBCode
Thanks, Chris. I hope your earpans aren't still ringing.:lol:Pages: 1