Warrior General Games

Originally posted by tautology
The one season where morale had devastating effects was really bad...almost unplayable. The reason for that was that morale effects amplified the randomness inherent to the game. Some freak bad luck early in the game decided the whole contest
That's exactly what is happening with the mass-turnover games, whether that's due to morale or something else (as noted, the in-game replays don't show decreased morale during or after these events).

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by kurieg

I ran into others I knew had high Carrying and still had success. While I didn't have Morale bars, what I could tell pointed to morale busting really helping, and it didn't work vs. you.

But I have to admit I don't have good statistics or anything to back that up.



I think it's really a cumulative effect. One thing that i always notice about GLB is that there are pretty steep "tipping points."

Ya, that's what I was talking about with the only feedback on an individual dot level really being positive feedback via the morale hit. Positive feedback is notorious for chain reactions.

I'm not sure if Bort grocked that when he designed the game. I don't know much about him tbh.

Originally posted by

The interaction between dot-attributes often seems to be such that you go from zero effect, to pretty good effect, to overwhelming effect across a relatively tight scale of values.

You can really see this with slow starter, and with morale+energy levels. You take a dot that has a 2% shot at causing a fumble, give him a boost from slow starter+streaky (old school version)+morale differential+ energy differential (Bonn had high stamina too as I recall?) and you may really push that 2% to a much, much higher value because you cross the threshold of knee-point values.

I'm not sure what you mean by knee-point. My clarification would be that increasing the % while still sampling with relatively low sample ensembles like a dotball game will keep jacking up the odds of freaky games. Take that with a sample size of say, a season of 20 ensembles (games), one might think there's knee-points depending on where you look, but I'd be willing to be that there isn't. There's just a normal looking histogram unevenly (randomly!) spread amongst all the teams.

Ok, not randomly. Tilted by builds and gameplans and what not.

Turnovers are such a low occurrence event, they're going to be one of the first to stick out.

Originally posted by jdbolick
As you've already been told, random events by definition cannot be "streaky." They may have the appearance of "streakiness," but that is entirely coincidental.

Really, semantics? Ok, appears streaky, if that gets us over this cognitive dissonance.

Now that we agree that randomness appears streaky, you're now going to have to really show how YOUR case of streakiness is different than random streakiness.

That's the only way you make a convincing argument short of Bort saying it's in the code. There's a lot of good statistical tools available. I would be interested in the result.

Originally posted by kurieg
Now that we agree that randomness appears streaky, you're now going to have to really show how YOUR case of streakiness is different than random streakiness.
You're the one who brought up streakiness, not me. I'm talking about discrete events where one is an outlier to an absolutely absurd degree, not cases where there are a few games in a row of high turnovers.

5 interceptions over fifteen games combined, then 12 interceptions in one game. Feel free to explain that as an event without the notion that turnovers increase the chance of additional turnovers.

Originally posted by jdbolick
5 interceptions over fifteen games combined, then 12 interceptions in one game. Feel free to explain that as an event without the notion that turnovers increase the chance of additional turnovers.

How have you ruled out every other thing in GLB that causes turnover differences between games? This hidden variable is your thesis. You do the legwork

Originally posted by jdbolick (all just from this thread alone)
--I hate these discussions because slow-bussers always use the same rationalizations I proved wrong four years ago.

--I'm not really looking for a debate or even comment here. None of you have any ideas that I haven't already considered, and I've already explained what is happening.

--The fact that we disagree has more to do with be being smart and you not.

--Remember the discussion of reputations a while ago. Yours versus mine is why you shouldn't waste time with this kind of bluster.

--That's what makes you so obnoxious. You're an authority on absolutely nothing. Please act accordingly.

--What have you ever contributed to any discussion? You don't actually make insightful points or provide any sort of evidence to enrich the conversation. All you do is to argue with your betters.

--The only thing you do is to seek conflict with people like me. You're a troll.

-- Trying to get you to understand anything is like teaching a sheep to walk on its hind legs.

--You offer nothing worthwhile. Literally nothing. Your entire existence is nothing but a constant negative where you annoy or disrupt or detract.

--Sometime after you've practiced your understanding of the English language...

--I can never tell how much you're pretending not to understand and how much your brain really can't handle.

--Like I said, this is a case of you not knowing what you're talking about...

--I wish you possessed the reasoning ability to realize how utterly absurd you're being by arguing over this.

--How many times must I repeat myself before your feeble intellect begins to grasp the concept?

--It's your hypocrisy that annoys me even more than your obvious stupidity.

--Because you're blind.

And you're mad because I called you Comic Book Guy.

Originally posted by jdbolick
5 interceptions over fifteen games combined, then 12 interceptions in one game. Feel free to explain that as an event without the notion that turnovers increase the chance of additional turnovers.

And this team didn't have any big interception games in any scrimmages, wasn't hurting from any chemistry woes throughout the season, and wasn't built to INT the ball?

Can we get a link to said team?

Originally posted by bhall43
And this team didn't have any big interception games in any scrimmages, wasn't hurting from any chemistry woes throughout the season, and wasn't built to INT the ball?
The 12 interception game was against a defense built to intercept passes, yeah. The 12 interception game was the last game of the regular season, so chemistry wouldn't have been an issue. Here's the full sequence including scrims: 0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 12, 0, 0, 1, 1. Granted, the 12 also had the highest number of pass attempts while a lot of the zeroes had much fewer pass attempts. So the opponent made turnovers more likely as did more pass attempts, but 12 still sticks out as one hell of an outlier.

Originally posted by jdbolick

The 12 interception game was against a defense built to intercept passes, yeah. The 12 interception game was the last game of the regular season, so chemistry wouldn't have been an issue. Here's the full sequence including scrims: 0, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 12, 0, 0, 1, 1. Granted, the 12 also had the highest number of pass attempts while a lot of the zeroes had much fewer pass attempts. So the opponent made turnovers more likely as did more pass attempts, but 12 still sticks out as one hell of an outlier.

I meant chemistry for them. So not having a bunch of INT's all season might be in large due to that. That was what happened with Godstoria our last WL season. Went in with a ton of INT builds and chemistry in the complete shitter. Couldn't intercept much for anything in the regular season...in our scrims we were getting like 6 a game.

Jd is kinda like Nick Naylor from the movie Thank You for Smoking.....presents a good argument and isn't always right but he will be damned to let you make him look wrong lol

Originally posted by jdbolick

That's exactly what is happening with the mass-turnover games, whether that's due to morale or something else (as noted, the in-game replays don't show decreased morale during or after these events).
Our returner (with +16% avoid fumble EQ) fumbled on back to back returns today, and his morale at the start of the second was still 91. Whatever the mechanic is that makes turnovers increase the chance of more turnovers appears to be independent of morale.

hey jd, necro bump to push ur stupid agenda more imo.

Hey WiSeIVIaN, PM me insults and then block responses more imo.