Warrior General Games

I still don't agree. An attribute at any given value should be the same at all weights. If a 270-lb player runs a 4.4 40 yard dash, he runs it in the same 4.4 seconds any other player would run it. 27 reps of 225 lbs is 27 reps of 225 lbs regardless of whether a 190-lb HB or a 320-lb DT does it.

Weight should factor into the soft caps for that attribute, making it more difficult to attain that same value (i.e., working much harder at it) instead of altering the value itself. My general response to scaling anything by heights and weights is to use normal distribution and change it by a particular amount for the distance from the mean.

Assume that for the set of all weights in GLB, mean ( μ ) is 250 and standard deviation ( σ ) is 30. That would mean that 68% of all players had weight between 220 and 280 ( μ±σ ) and 95% of all players would have weight between 190 and 310 ( μ±2σ ). For each σ/2 away from the mean, assess a ±2 penalty/bonus to soft caps dependent on position, e.g. heavy players would get bonuses to strength and penalties to speed.

Yes, the result is the same, but what does it take to GET there is what I'm suggesting be changed. It should take more speed for a 300lb guy to run a 4.5 than it should for a 180lb guy to get a 4.5


You lost me on all the math lol

Originally posted by Staz
Yes, the result is the same, but what does it take to GET there is what I'm suggesting be changed. It should take more speed for a 300lb guy to run a 4.5 than it should for a 180lb guy to get a 4.5

Exactly what I'm saying

Originally posted by dmfa41
Originally posted by Staz

Yes, the result is the same, but what does it take to GET there is what I'm suggesting be changed. It should take more speed for a 300lb guy to run a 4.5 than it should for a 180lb guy to get a 4.5

Exactly what I'm saying

But you're saying it in a different way. The results would more or less be the same, but the way to get there would be different.

You're proposing caps based on weight, meaning more SP to get to a certain number
I'm proposing that weight be in the SIM code, which means higher skills to get the same physical performance result.

Originally posted by Staz


You're proposing caps based on weight, meaning more SP to get to a certain number
I'm proposing that weight be in the SIM code, which means higher skills to get the same physical performance result.


Actually I prefer dmfa's method. IMO it is better for the game that 80 strength is 80 strength, the problem is that applying scaling caps into the game at this point would be difficult.

I'll also throw out an idea I haven't seen yet: energy consumption. Instead of modifying stats or the difficulty in getting them, change how much it takes out of a player. That is that DE@270 would burn through their energy as they use their 80+ speed, and that CB@170 would burn energy using their 60 strength.

Originally posted by dkmfan
Originally posted by Staz



You're proposing caps based on weight, meaning more SP to get to a certain number
I'm proposing that weight be in the SIM code, which means higher skills to get the same physical performance result.


Actually I prefer dmfa's method. IMO it is better for the game that 80 strength is 80 strength, the problem is that applying scaling caps into the game at this point would be difficult.
.

That is the key point. If this were Day 1, then I would be open to caps based on weight. The thing is, there are plenty of established players, and things could be extremely swayed if we add caps now.

As for the energy usage, how would that work?

Unless there was some way to change its display, e.g. "theoretical" and "actual" speed, I'm not satisfied. When I want to know whom to put at what position, and I've got my 213-lb, 97-speed HB and my 190-lb, 92-speed HB, I've got to know which is faster.

If next to their base attribute was posted their weight-adjusted attribute, then I would know and not have to refer to glbwiki.com for the formula and input the attribute and weight to see its value.

I don't believe it's acceptable for only the simulation knowing the final attribute used.

Also, would equipment's function be subject to regulation as well, or only the natural attribute?

Originally posted by dmfa41
Unless there was some way to change its display, e.g. "theoretical" and "actual" speed, I'm not satisfied. When I want to know whom to put at what position, and I've got my 213-lb, 97-speed HB and my 190-lb, 92-speed HB, I've got to know which is faster.

If next to their base attribute was posted their weight-adjusted attribute, then I would know and not have to refer to glbwiki.com for the formula and input the attribute and weight to see its value.

I don't believe it's acceptable for only the simulation knowing the final attribute used.

Also, would equipment's function be subject to regulation as well, or only the natural attribute?

1. Completely logical and exceptionally sensible idea. Perhaps putting physical skills in their own section, above the football skills and mental skills, and putting true speed/strength whatever in parentheses.

Speed 100 (92.4) or whatever.

2. I think the TOTAL value, EQ included, would have to come into play. Or should EQ be absolute. +1 = +1, no matter what from EQ? The "trigger" for the formula would have to be changed, since that would skew things greatly.

How exactly would energy usage work? Still just a rough concept, so forgive the horrible attempt at making an equation that follows.

First we establish proper energy use based on the mean. That is we establish an energy usage curve for 250lbs. The energy use would be tied to the stat and the weight, that is 40 speed would use less energy than 60 which is less than used at 100. I'm thinking of using: Ln(speed)*(player weight/250)=x (x*play distance)/ (some as yet undetermined fudge factor)= energy used on the play.

The natural log gives a range of 2.3@10 to 4.6@100. Play distance would be the distance the player covers each play. So you ran 30 yards on a play, weigh 300 lbs and have 80 speed- you used ~ 158.4 energy (Like I said no factor established yet). If you were 170 it would be ~89.8. The unknown modifier depends on how stam impacts energy. I'm sure I could build a similar setup for strength, simply by targeting time blocked/blocking and tackling/fighting tackles and inverting how x is produced with (250/player weight).

The idea is that yes you can be that fast or strong, but if it isn't in your body size it'll wear you out fast.

I like the energy usage idea, i'll try to wrap my brain around it. give me a day to figure out the sweet spot.

I agree with staz, we're past the point of changing caps for every position/size. A solution needs to be easily implemented, i believe a score in parentheses would work.

Equipment's a bit of a confounding variable. I think it should remain unaffected.

Agreed. So, should the curve apply immediately, or should there be a "spot" where it turns on? Also, if we keep EQ separate, then we'd have to remove the 60 "trigger" and then redo the formulas.

Nah, I was reacting from the POV of the existing player argument based on the re-roll concept... but yes I did drop in here b/c I was thinking of suggesting that a player be able to build weight through weight training, which is a very oft-mentioned strategy in real football. However, it's mentioned in regards to running backs, receivers, linebackers, safeties, etc., not O-linemen... so anyway, I saw "dynamic weight" and I thought, "all right!!! they're already on it!"

In terms of realism and the original post, I have no problem with the idea of a 330 pound tackle wearing down before a 185 pound receiver. He's moving around an extra 145 pounds. Energy or stamina expended should be 330/185x, from that point of view. Foot pounds and all that.

Belly

Originally posted by BellyCheck
Nah, I was reacting from the POV of the existing player argument based on the re-roll concept... but yes I did drop in here b/c I was thinking of suggesting that a player be able to build weight through weight training, which is a very oft-mentioned strategy in real football. However, it's mentioned in regards to running backs, receivers, linebackers, safeties, etc., not O-linemen... so anyway, I saw "dynamic weight" and I thought, "all right!!! they're already on it!"

In terms of realism and the original post, I have no problem with the idea of a 330 pound tackle wearing down before a 185 pound receiver. He's moving around an extra 145 pounds. Energy or stamina expended should be 330/185x, from that point of view. Foot pounds and all that.

Belly

That's something that I completely forgot when doing my orginal post. The offensive linemen generally don't cover great distances, mainly 5yds or so, but when they DO, such as screens, pulling guards, special teams, etc., they should have increased "energy usage" since they are quite a bit heavier.

That would have to be another formula that would have to be added onto the current energy usage. Bort would need to probably help out with that one lol