Warrior General Games

Granted, I don't know much about programming, but is it really that difficult to make it non-linear?

Looking at your above example, and I know it's simplified, it doesn't seem like it is very difficult. I mean, there HAS to be a penalty for a ball thrown too far away from the WR, correct? Some of the Possession Tree SAs certainly indicate that there is.

There's really no way to verify it, but I have to believe that there are levels, because that would be much closer to realistic.

Well guys I am working on soft capping agility next, so I'll see if that helps.

It might give you better seperation but I would still put my money on vision to fix this problem though .

Originally posted by j10er
Originally posted by johndoe1986

Originally posted by j10er



Raising the catching attribute increases the catching circle around the WR. Imagine a bullseye type circle around the WR. The closer the ball is to the middle, the easier it is to catch.

What happens is that the WR has the opportunity to catch poorly thrown balls that would be incompletes for other WRs. The chance of catching it is low, however, which results in more drops. However, at least he even has the chance to catch it.

This would be even more pronounced at lower levels due to a poor QB and low confidence on both ends.


This is interesting. So, are you saying that increasing catching only increases the radius of the circle where the wr will attempt to catch a ball and not the chance of catching a ball at a given distance?

I would think that what realy happens is: when catching increases, the chance of catching the ball at a given distance also increases. If that were true, then it shouldnt matter that the wr is trying to catch a ball a little bit farther out, because the chance of catching should be the same as it was before.

Maybe the farther away from the wr the ball is, the poorer the 'throw quality' is. So even though the chance of catching the ball would be the same, the ball is harder to catch.

Heh - you noticed the one flaw I've been able to find in this logic

But no to the first part of your question. If you imagine 3 rings for simplicity's sake, each one expands as catching is raised. So your "bullseye" ring also gets bigger, meaning there are more high-probability catches too.

Now, the question I've been mulling over is catching radius depth. Does it expand outward and upward/downward? That would be interesting...

But I think your last statement might be the answer. They have a better chance at low quality throws, which are tougher to catch, hence more drops.

Also, it's been a long time since I've had geometry, but if you increase the area of the a bullseye type circle, won't the outer ring's area be larger, meaning you have more of a chance at poorly thrown balls?

If this theory is correct, I would have to assume that the rings would all grow in size, making them cover a larger area. Obviously the catches would be a lot more difficult to make in the outer rings, so I would assume that the statement about the drops being more frequent due to that is true. The the other thing is that I would think the rings would primarily grow outwards, and maybe partially upwards. The upwards though may be a combination of both catching and jumping. So I guess to make picture it, you could look at an umbrella from the top, and slowly open it out to represent the growth of the rings, both outward and upward. Something like that anyways.

Good visual with the umbrella

Could be nice if Bort could confirm this or not ?

Originally posted by j10er
Granted, I don't know much about programming, but is it really that difficult to make it non-linear?

Looking at your above example, and I know it's simplified, it doesn't seem like it is very difficult. I mean, there HAS to be a penalty for a ball thrown too far away from the WR, correct? Some of the Possession Tree SAs certainly indicate that there is.

There's really no way to verify it, but I have to believe that there are levels, because that would be much closer to realistic.


I mean the only difference between a linear model and what your describing is that a linear will have a gradual change in dificulty, and your rings has sudden drops. Linear doesnt say theres no penalties, it just says it gets progressively harder in a very static fashion, rather than straight lines with severe dips in difficulty.

I would say that that the rings could equal the linear model. To avoid sudden drops, just add more rings to give you a gradual decrease in possibly completing the reception in accordance with whatever skills your player may have.

Originally posted by knudlen
Originally posted by j10er

Granted, I don't know much about programming, but is it really that difficult to make it non-linear?

Looking at your above example, and I know it's simplified, it doesn't seem like it is very difficult. I mean, there HAS to be a penalty for a ball thrown too far away from the WR, correct? Some of the Possession Tree SAs certainly indicate that there is.

There's really no way to verify it, but I have to believe that there are levels, because that would be much closer to realistic.


I mean the only difference between a linear model and what your describing is that a linear will have a gradual change in dificulty, and your rings has sudden drops. Linear doesnt say theres no penalties, it just says it gets progressively harder in a very static fashion, rather than straight lines with severe dips in difficulty.


Ahh - well that makes total sense then.

Same concept, different implementation. I could see arguments for both sides, but linear does make more sense.

I almost feel like we cracked the case.

Catching helps you catch.

I raised my catching, I caught more balls.
I've dropped more too, but that's only because I got more thrown to me, and depending on competition in any given scenario you will drop balls regardless of your catching stat.

Vision also helps you catch, among other things.

Catching helps you catch (odivously, lol). A big factor is your ability to get open as well. If your well covered its alot harder to make a catch than if your wide open.

My WR has 68 catches and 8 drops so far this year. He has awful vision. Take it as you will .

Originally posted by j10er

Ahh - well that makes total sense then.

Same concept, different implementation. I could see arguments for both sides, but linear does make more sense.

I almost feel like we cracked the case.

It seems that the effect of catching, in terms of stat line results, has a lot to do with the quality of your QB. Let's operate under the assumption that the catching skill, in a very simplified manner, does two things:

1) increases the "bubble" around the WR, letting him *attempt* to catch balls that were previously out of range. These throws will still be difficult ones to catch succesfully.

2) gives a bonus to *successfully* catching balls, eg reduces drops.

Again, as a way to simplify the situation and make it easier to discuss, lets assign a 'catch difficulty' number to passes, from 0-10, with 0 rating impossible to catch (think 10 yards off), 1-3 being passes you rarely even get an attempt on, 4-6 being balls you get to but drop or juggle or sometimes miss completely, 7-9 very easy and makable, and 10s an automatic catch (or at least statistically extremely likely).

So tying that together, lets say with a 20 catching, you get a bonus of like, .75 to all throw difficulties. So an 8 pass becomes an 8.75 pass, a 2 becomes a 2.75 etc. (it could be a multiplier instead of a straight bonus but its easier to assume a bonus for the sake of this discussion). So with say, a 40 catch, lets arbitraily add a bonus of 2. So now, balls that were just somewhat catchable are easier grabs.

But, couple that with the increased bubble, and youre getting catch checks on more difficult passes, throws with a lower number. So, with a good QB whos getting the ball to you frequently, catching is making those attempts a lot easier to make. But if your QB is crappy, catching is actually just giving you a lot more attempts on poor passes. Just because the game is, due to your higher catch, giving you 'check' on those passes, a random number roll with all the attributes factored in, doesn't mean these are easy catches to make even with your high catching.

So maybe to sum up, easy catches with a low or high catching are still going to be easy. A high catching gives you more chances to catch balls, but *ALL* of those new chances, the checks you wouldn't get with a low catching skill, are on *VERY* difficult throws to catch. So a high catching makes easy catches easier, but the slightly reduced drops on the 'easy' end doesn't always compensate for the increased drops because of the attempts on 'hard' passes you never before would have even been able to try on.

^ I've also noticed (and Bort has said) that long passes are harder to catch that short ones. If you play WR3 or lower, you will be in on more long routes and have a tougher time catching the ball due to tougher passes to catch.

It could very well be a guy playing WR4 is only catching 40% of his passes is a better "catcher" than WR1 who is snagging 60%...or at least somewhat comparable.

There are so many factors in play that it's difficult to determine the problem for an individual player.

Good post Knudlen - too long to quote though

The catching bonus makes a lot of sense, especially considering how Sticky Hands reads. So there is a base slide rule, and as you raise catching, you move up the slide rule. Makes sense to me.

It really doesn't matter what the true scenario is though. Catching is vitally important for any receiver type. Fun discussion though.

Ya, I guess the question is...

If I get thrown at 100 times this season, would I rather....?

a) have 40 catches, 10 drops and 50 incompletes

or

b) have 50 catches, 15 drops and 35 incompletes

well, I'm not a smart man, but b might be better

Originally posted by PackMan97
Ya, I guess the question is...

If I get thrown at 100 times this season, would I rather....?

a) have 40 catches, 10 drops and 50 incompletes

or

b) have 50 catches, 15 drops and 35 incompletes

well, I'm not a smart man, but b might be better

I agree, B is the better choice, even with more drops, you helped the team move the ball more, which is a lot more important than personal stats.