Warrior General Games

Originally posted by DL24
Originally posted by jdbolick

Originally posted by DL24


Ah, it was in Season 9. First off, your player's team was HOPELESSLY outmatched, losing by nearly 100 points.
Losing by a huge margin is generally what happens when the sim causes you to have 12 turnovers in one game. And please check your facts before posting. That "hopelessly outmatched" team made the playoffs by winning 10 of their next 15 games in that Pro League. And as noted earlier, the WR in question had zero fumbles the rest of that season. 6 in one game, then 0 in the next fifteen.

Please check this post for my complete thoughts, and facts gathered from a tiny bit of digging, which is apparently too difficult for some people:
Originally posted by DL24


Ah, it was in Season 9. First off, your player's team was HOPELESSLY outmatched, losing by nearly 100 points.

Take, for example, the first fumble. Nearly every one of your blockers was reverse pancaked. You had 8 unblocked defenders running at you, with all your blockers on the ground: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=477042&pbp_id=3960651

This time, your blockers didn't get put on the ground, they just couldn't hold a block: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=477042&pbp_id=3960651

At least nine blockers on the ground at the same time, plus a monster hit on your guy: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=477042&pbp_id=3964519

Seven blockers reverse-pancaked at the same time, plus a monster hit: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=477042&pbp_id=3962911

5 guys reverse-pancaked: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=477042&pbp_id=3963360

Actually decent blocking on the first one, but a monster hit tackle: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=477042&pbp_id=3959650

Dexter Ferocious forced one of your fumbles. He probably had invested pretty heavily in monster hit and went on to force 4 other fumbles in non-gutted games that season.

Sloth Fratelli forced 2 of them. He had invested in monster hit and had a pretty clear path straight to your guy.

Jacke Dupp also forced a couple. He forced 9 other fumbles in all contests that season, excluding gut jobs.

South Side Midget Tosser also had four other forced fumbles that season, besides the one he forced on you.

It appears that your case of fumble-itis was due almost totally to terrible blocking and bad strength from STs blockers, bad stamina on your part and your whole team's part, lowish carrying for a returner(and probably low strength), and a very strong LBs, who forced many fumbles that season, and throughout their careers. All these things combined formed somewhat of a STs beast, which your particular WR became the victim of. You can't possibly point solely to a previous turnover increased percentage as the only factor, or the deciding factor.
Not to mention the fact that this team was an absolute fumble-forcing machine, and overall juggernaut, and that they won the Pro League championship that season.

Originally posted by driftinggrifter
BLPP same season
http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476859 FF 4x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476868 FF 7x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476867 FF 5x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476870 FF 4x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476872 FF 3x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476874 FF 3x

Playoffs
http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=578595 FF3x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=583709 FF 2x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=585738 FF 3x


Not exactly a freak occurrence stemming from a problem with repeat-penalties, huh? And it is quite startling that your ONE piece of evidence is this flimsy.

Originally posted by jdbolick

I looked through the VA list and didn't see any which boosted morale aside from Motivational Speaker, which the players in question already benefited from. A few others add confidence, but as already shown, there is no evidence to support the notion that high confidence has any significant effect on preventing this phenomenon.

yeap,
MS + general SA should help.
Originally posted by jdbolick

And I'm not saying that confidence has no effect, I'm saying that the effect is insignificant. Because it's an additive factor, it's like trying to bail the Titanic with a bucket. I've shown the rudiments of this earlier in the thread. If confidence gives you a fixed reduction to the morale penalty, but the morale penalty is multiplicative, then the fixed reduction is going to be overwhelmed in short order. Even if confidence is applied by percentages (i.e. 68 confidence reduces morale effects by 5%), the overall consequence is nonexistent. You're then looking at a sequence of ((2*0.95)X - 6.8 - 5)%, then ((4*0.95)X - 6.8 - 5)%, and then ((8*0.95)X - 6.8 - 5)% instead of (2X - 6.8 - 5)%, then (4X - 6.8 - 5)%, and then (8X - 6.8 - 5)%. The effect of that is minimal at best.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Because the effect is multiplicative, it's not so much the second turnover that's the problem. As in the original example, if your turnover chance merely doubles from 3% to 6% then it's still not terribly likely. The problem is what happens if you get several "unlucky" rolls in the same game. At that point the percentages quickly accelerate out of control.


Or confidence at 68 reduced by 95% then the fumble % will still get larger quickly, but 3 fumbles will not make it too large.

Actually this model does not include morale which is supposed to be the key (maybe I am too lazy reading the OP). The "death spiral" is supposed to be about moral. After a TO you lose morale which increases the probability of the next TO, this will (likely) act multiplicativy those generating a exponential growth.
Every exponential growth has a "life time" parameter, basically stating after how many TO you enter the "death spiral". That lifetime is controlled by specific unknown numbers plugged in the sim. Confidence is described to lower morale hit, those will make that "life time" longer. (field general and motivational speaker will help too).
The fact that there is a exponential growth doesn't mean it is out of control. For instance let assume that the initial TO% is 'P' and it get increased by 'q' after each fumble (this is basically your model) :
After n fumbles you have TO % = P q^m
Now if P=2%, m=4, q=2 : you get 32% (this is your model)
Now if P=2%, m=4, q=1.05 : you get 2.5%
It is all about the numbers, which none of us knows.

Originally posted by jdbolick

The QB in question had 6 INTs in one game despite 68 confidence. He's had 44 in his other 127 regular season games combined. And for the record, that defense was not one designed for turnovers. That one game accounted for half their non-gut interceptions on the whole season.

A single game can be controlled by many things some of them are pure luck, Bort already admitted that all players have good and bad days (regardless to streaky). Anyhow I cannot prove if a "death spiral" was involved., All I can say that a clear evidence for a "death spiral" is a decreasing numbers of plays between TO. The example doesn't have it.

Originally posted by DL24
Please check this post for my complete thoughts, and facts gathered from a tiny bit of digging, which is apparently too difficult for some people. Not to mention the fact that this team was an absolute fumble-forcing machine, and overall juggernaut, and that they won the Pro League championship that season.
Heh. No, I read your "explanation," I just recognized what those results actually signified. Remember earlier in the thread where I said this:

Originally posted by jdbolick
It's not a common phenomenon because the turnover chance in general is fairly small, so the odds of being "unlucky" and hitting that several times in short order to produce a turnover cascade are pretty long ones. If the base turnover chance was higher, then you'd not only see these more often, but also see 10+ turnover games from individual players. Actually that ties into your second comment, as teams which force a higher base chance of turnovers are more likely to see these turnover cascades.

Bandar was designed to cause fumbles, which is why the base chance of experiencing a turnover was higher. But obviously the Pirates weren't so ferociously built that they would naturally force 6 fumbles out of 7 kickoff returns. Don't pretend that it happened simply because of the builds involved. What happened is that the builds involved made the chance of the first turnover more likely. And once the ball got rolling, then the penalties from experiencing a turnover made McStickum fumble six kickoffs in a row.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by DL24

Please check this post for my complete thoughts, and facts gathered from a tiny bit of digging, which is apparently too difficult for some people. Not to mention the fact that this team was an absolute fumble-forcing machine, and overall juggernaut, and that they won the Pro League championship that season.
Heh. No, I read your "explanation," I just recognized what those results actually signified. Remember earlier in the thread where I said this:

Originally posted by jdbolick

It's not a common phenomenon because the turnover chance in general is fairly small, so the odds of being "unlucky" and hitting that several times in short order to produce a turnover cascade are pretty long ones. If the base turnover chance was higher, then you'd not only see these more often, but also see 10+ turnover games from individual players. Actually that ties into your second comment, as teams which force a higher base chance of turnovers are more likely to see these turnover cascades.

Bandar was designed to cause fumbles, which is why the base chance of experiencing a turnover was higher. But obviously the Pirates weren't so ferociously built that they would naturally force 6 fumbles out of 7 kickoff returns. Don't pretend that it happened simply because of the builds involved. What happened is that the builds involved made the chance of the first turnover more likely. And once the ball got rolling, then the penalties from experiencing a turnover made McStickum fumble six kickoffs in a row.

Don't even try to pretend that you read my post. If you did, you'd have recognized by now that it's time to quit hitting that post button, because the battle you are now waging is one you can not possibly hope to win.

Since it was lost on the last page:

Originally posted by driftinggrifter
BLPP same season
http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476859 FF 4x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476868 FF 7x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476867 FF 5x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476870 FF 4x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476872 FF 3x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=476874 FF 3x

Playoffs
http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=578595 FF3x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=583709 FF 2x

http://goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=585738 FF 3x



Originally posted by Jed
I clicked the first 4 games and only 1 was true for amount of fumbles listed and the HB's build isn't open.

I checked the first 4 and they were all right... he's talking about how many they force, not how many the have

Originally posted by Chysil
I checked the first 4 and they were all right... he's talking about how many they force, not how many the have

Ooooohhhh, but that doesn't really address what is being talked about here, does it? This is more of a matter of the same player fumbling multiple times.

Originally posted by Jed
You're the one challenging the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.
Which is why I produced evidence and a sound mathematical model demonstrating what I believe is going on. Meanwhile you haven't done any of that. In fact, you never do any of that. You don't contribute to the forums by ever researching anything or producing any kind of model to explain a phenomenon. You come into a thread and you make declarative statements, then try to bully people into submission. You do that because you are completely uninterested in knowledge. You don't care what the truth is, you just want the peasants like me to shut up, stay quiet, and not bitch or complain about any flaws in this game.

Originally posted by
Wow you have an amazing ability there. Is it delusion or lies? I honestly can't tell if you actually believe the crap you spew out as "fact" or not.
Sure, it's not like numerous people have posted about what a jerk you were to PierreThomas. It's not like you actually locked that thread. It's not like you did make statements in that thread insisting that there was no X-factor, and that people needed to start putting more points in confidence or otherwise "fixing their builds." You're the one that's delusional, Jed. People don't just dislike you because you "enforce the rules," as there are plenty of moderators that people like just fine. People dislike you because you're a bully who tries to stifle any discussion you don't agree with.

Originally posted by
So I take that as "I have no real proof, so I'm going to take the offensive"
I can't provide the source code since I don't have access to it. My point is that you insist that I've provided "no proof" precisely because your education was either so limited or so bad that you don't understand the nature of mathematical modeling. Someone who had that education wouldn't make comments like that. In fact I did provide evidence that players with high confidence still had these turnover cascades occur. I also pointed out that these ridiculously high turnover events wouldn't happen if one turnover didn't dramatically increase the chance of another. You haven't even tried to make an argument to the contrary, both because you don't make that kind of effort and because you know that you can't. The only thing you can do is repeat one simple statement over and over again, just like you did in the X-factor thread where you embarrassed yourself.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by

Wow you have an amazing ability there. Is it delusion or lies? I honestly can't tell if you actually believe the crap you spew out as "fact" or not.
Sure, it's not like numerous people have posted about what a jerk you were to PierreThomas. It's not like you actually locked that thread. It's not like you did make statements in that thread insisting that there was no X-factor, and that people needed to start putting more points in confidence or otherwise "fixing their builds." You're the one that's delusional, Jed. People don't just dislike you because you "enforce the rules," as there are plenty of moderators that people like just fine. People dislike you because you're a bully who tries to stifle any discussion you don't agree with.

Oh, please. A select few dislike him solely because he has the moderator tag. If he didn't you, and a host of others, wouldn't have made a fuss about anything.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by DL24

Please check this post for my complete thoughts, and facts gathered from a tiny bit of digging, which is apparently too difficult for some people. Not to mention the fact that this team was an absolute fumble-forcing machine, and overall juggernaut, and that they won the Pro League championship that season.
Heh. No, I read your "explanation," I just recognized what those results actually signified. Remember earlier in the thread where I said this:

Originally posted by jdbolick

It's not a common phenomenon because the turnover chance in general is fairly small, so the odds of being "unlucky" and hitting that several times in short order to produce a turnover cascade are pretty long ones. If the base turnover chance was higher, then you'd not only see these more often, but also see 10+ turnover games from individual players. Actually that ties into your second comment, as teams which force a higher base chance of turnovers are more likely to see these turnover cascades.

Bandar was designed to cause fumbles, which is why the base chance of experiencing a turnover was higher. But obviously the Pirates weren't so ferociously built that they would naturally force 6 fumbles out of 7 kickoff returns. Don't pretend that it happened simply because of the builds involved. What happened is that the builds involved made the chance of the first turnover more likely. And once the ball got rolling, then the penalties from experiencing a turnover made McStickum fumble six kickoffs in a row.

Low carrying and confidence and possible strength.....I can't remember taht part, but yea, he was a fumble maching waiting to happen. Add on that we also had a ST unit

Originally posted by DL24
Don't even try to pretend that you read my post. If you did, you'd have recognized by now that it's time to quit hitting that post button, because the battle you are now waging is one you can not possibly hope to win.
The sad thing is that you actually believe that. What's amusing is that you may eventually realize that you're not only wrong, but comically wrong. Dude, your analysis of those fumbles didn't remotely prove what you think it did.

#1) No builds are good enough to force fumbles on 6 consecutive kickoffs from a guy who doesn't otherwise have fumbling problems. Obviously Bandar was good at forcing fumbles, but they didn't force them 86% of the time that season. It happened so often in that game because of the cascade effect.

#2) The people who actually know how this game works don't even deny that turnovers increase the chance of additional turnovers. In fact, that's pretty much been acknowledged. The only "debate" is about how that happens, and if the effect is too large. You pretending like you just proved that turnovers don't increase the chance of more turnovers is particularly comical in light of that.

#3) I already explained to you the mechanics of what happened. If the basic fumble chance of Player X is 3%, being unlucky enough to fumble doubles the chances of experiencing another, then the chances would go from 3% to 6% to 12%, and so forth. Bandar being built to cause fumbles raised the base fumble chance of Player X to something like 10%. Can you understand that having a higher base chance then produces a more dramatic effect from the doubling penalty? Instead of 3% to 6% to 12%, you're seeing 10% to 20% to 40%.

That's why he fumbled on six consecutive kickoffs. It wasn't because Bandar was just so good at forcing fumbles that it would happen 86% of the time regardless. It happened because Bandar forced an early fumble, and the multiplicative penalty of the already high base chance quickly pushed the odds to a near certainty.

Seriously, you don't understand what happened. I know that you think you "proved me wrong" about something, but the opposite is true, and you should stop to comprehend the implications of that data before you cause yourself any embarrassment.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Which is why I produced evidence

Do....you understand what evidence means? Evidence isn't you making up numbers and saying, "I think this is happening." That's a theory. Evidence would be posting examples of where your theory is true. In the OP. So people don't have to read 13+ pages to find it.


Originally posted by jdbolick
Sure, it's not like numerous people have posted about what a jerk you were to PierreThomas.

Only people who believe the trolling crap you try to spew about me.

Originally posted by jdbolick
It's not like you actually locked that thread.

I locked it for being a dupe thread and the OP at the time was just mindless bitching, not proof. After being PM'd that I had locked the more legit one, I opened it back up and locked the other one instead and opened his back up.

But saying that wouldn't serve your trolling purpose, so you shouldn't say that.

Originally posted by jdbolick
It's not like you did make statements in that thread insisting that there was no X-factor, and that people needed to start putting more points in confidence or otherwise "fixing their builds."

And I'm damn proud of that. Despite what you seem to think, not believing a theory till there's solid evidence isn't a bad trait in a person.

Originally posted by jdbolick
People don't just dislike you because you "enforce the rules," as there are plenty of moderators that people like just fine. People dislike you because you're a bully who tries to stifle any discussion you don't agree with.

This coming from the lying troll. Gotcha.

Originally posted by jdbolick
I can't provide the source code since I don't have access to it. My point is that you insist that I've provided "no proof" precisely because your education was either so limited or so bad that you don't understand the nature of mathematical modeling.

Wow, you should really stop, you're really making yourself look dumb. Maybe I need to say it "louder":

YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT FACT

Post an actual fucking example of what you're talking about as I described earlier or go away.

Originally posted by DL24
Oh, please. A select few dislike him solely because he has the moderator tag. If he didn't you, and a host of others, wouldn't have made a fuss about anything.
"A select few"? Jed gets far more threads made complaining about him than anyone else in the game, including luminaries like SI & Boltz. If it was just a result of him doing his job, then people would react the same to other moderators, but they don't. Some moderators people have a problem with and some they don't, and that's generally related to how those moderators handle their position. Jed chooses to be an abusive bully who locks threads and bans users that he just doesn't like.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by DL24

Don't even try to pretend that you read my post. If you did, you'd have recognized by now that it's time to quit hitting that post button, because the battle you are now waging is one you can not possibly hope to win.
The sad thing is that you actually believe that. What's amusing is that you may eventually realize that you're not only wrong, but comically wrong. Dude, your analysis of those fumbles didn't remotely prove what you think it did.

#1) No builds are good enough to force fumbles on 6 consecutive kickoffs from a guy who doesn't otherwise have fumbling problems. Obviously Bandar was good at forcing fumbles, but they didn't force them 86% of the time that season. It happened so often in that game because of the cascade effect.

#2) The people who actually know how this game works don't even deny that turnovers increase the chance of additional turnovers. In fact, that's pretty much been acknowledged. The only "debate" is about how that happens, and if the effect is too large. You pretending like you just proved that turnovers don't increase the chance of more turnovers is particularly comical in light of that.

#3) I already explained to you the mechanics of what happened. If the basic fumble chance of Player X is 3%, being unlucky enough to fumble doubles the chances of experiencing another, then the chances would go from 3% to 6% to 12%, and so forth. Bandar being built to cause fumbles raised the base fumble chance of Player X to something like 10%. Can you understand that having a higher base chance then produces a more dramatic effect from the doubling penalty? Instead of 3% to 6% to 12%, you're seeing 10% to 20% to 40%.

That's why he fumbled on six consecutive kickoffs. It wasn't because Bandar was just so good at forcing fumbles that it would happen 86% of the time regardless. It happened because Bandar forced an early fumble, and the multiplicative penalty of the already high base chance quickly pushed the odds to a near certainty.

Seriously, you don't understand what happened. I know that you think you "proved me wrong" about something, but the opposite is true, and you should stop to comprehend the implications of that data before you cause yourself any embarrassment.

I thought you had just insisted that all percentages provided were merely guesses, and that since you have no access to the code, you can not offer up any actual proof. Well, any proof beyond your insisting that no team could possibly force 6 fumbles when they are completely unblocked, incredibly strong, and facing a returner with barely capped carrying and extremely low strength for a Pro League ball carrier. You are viewing this too much as an NFL-type game. "No builds are good enough to force fumbles on 6 consecutive kickoffs from a guy who doesn't otherwise have fumbling problems." Of course you have no way of knowing the other team's builds, and all we know is that they vastly outmatched their opposition in the Special-Teams department.

he also ignored the fact that I actually posted a legitimate way of testing for this.

He also admitted that he COULDN'T test it... so it's kind of odd that he later claims that he provided evidence...