Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick

I like that the game has interceptions again. The problem is what I told Bort four fucking years ago about how morale spirals lead to these turnover cascades. 1, 2, and 3 turnover games should be common. 6, 7, and 8 turnover game shouldn't be, but that problem pops up every few seasons because Bort always applies band-aids instead of actually fixing the root of the issue.

Most Interceptions Thrown, Game: 8: Jim Hardy (Chicago Cardinals vs. Philadelphia '50)
Most Interceptions Thrown, Single Super Bowl: 5: Rich Gannon (Oakland vs. Tampa Bay XXXVII)


Source: http://walterfootball.com/history.php

ints were up last season .... my reg pro cpu team had over 100

and as stated , builds designed to pick , should ..... suck ass QB's should be picked ..... .... at least that part of GLB is logical ....

I've not seen any raise in interceptions. I run an all passing team and usually have fewer interceptions than other teams that throw far less than we do. There are a lot of factors in play that can lower the chance for interceptions, no need for any changes.

Originally posted by jwoods75665
No, clearly lesser competition.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2354030&pbp_id=1847003



That is a dime a dozen play brother

I hate these discussions because slow-bussers always use the same rationalizations I proved wrong four years ago.


Originally posted by jdbolick
I don't mind INT builds getting INTs. In fact, I love that. The problem is with how Bort's code makes experiencing a turnover cause more turnovers.

Originally posted by jdbolick
I hate these discussions because slow-bussers always use the same rationalizations I proved wrong four years ago.


Originally posted by jdbolick

I don't mind INT builds getting INTs. In fact, I love that. The problem is with how Bort's code makes experiencing a turnover cause more turnovers.

A rash of turnovers usually happens in many RL football games from pop warner, HS, College and Pros. The coding in your head might need a slight adjustment though.

Originally posted by jdbolick
I hate these discussions because slow-bussers always use the same rationalizations I proved wrong four years ago.


Originally posted by jdbolick

I don't mind INT builds getting INTs. In fact, I love that. The problem is with how Bort's code makes experiencing a turnover cause more turnovers.

A player with poor confidence who makes a mistake in RL gets shaken up. They start second guessing themselves, over thinking things and make more mistakes. At the HS level that's fairly common. Multiple int/fumble games, lots of mistakes. As you climb in levels those big TO games reduce, but that seems due more to the fact that the players have more experience and more confidence in their ability and the situations.

40/50 confidence, IMO, seems horribly low

Originally posted by Phantom Of The Opera
A rash of turnovers usually happens in many RL football games from pop warner, HS, College and Pros. The coding in your head might need a slight adjustment though.

that's right .....

ride the rocket and pit the sim against itself .... expect the unexpected and get into the spiridigital world of GLB

Originally posted by CowboysAmerica
that's right .....

ride the rocket and pit the sim against itself .... expect the unexpected and get into the spiridigital world of GLB



and don't forget the oddly shaped ball and the pressure to achieve.

Originally posted by Staz
A player with poor confidence who makes a mistake in RL gets shaken up. They start second guessing themselves, over thinking things and make more mistakes. At the HS level that's fairly common. Multiple int/fumble games, lots of mistakes. As you climb in levels those big TO games reduce, but that seems due more to the fact that the players have more experience and more confidence in their ability and the situations. 40/50 confidence, IMO, seems horribly low
#1) No, they don't. In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more.

#2) The QB in question had 88.52 confidence.

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.

Originally posted by jdbolick
#1) No, they don't. In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more.

ALL players? Painting a little broadly there. I've seen some players who have a turnover who respond by re-focusing and play much better the rest of the game. And I've seen other players who have a turnover who let it get in their head and end up having more turnovers as a result. Brady Quinn against Michigan in 2006 comes to mind.

However...

Originally posted by jdbolick
#2) The QB in question had 88.52 confidence.

...and THAT is what makes me agree with you that there's a problem here. The "fix ur builds" brigade ignores the fact that this used to happen to all players, regardless of how much Confidence they had. And the problem is still there, just on a smaller scale since Bort just decided to make fumbles and interceptions less likely overall rather than fixing turnover-morale spirals themselves.

I don't think anything's changed in the sim to make INTs more likely, but I've heard a lot of chatter the past few seasons about new styles of building CBs, something which a few other people have already alluded to in this thread. If people have figured out how to make CBs that are better at getting INTs, that would explain an increase in INTs right there. And as INTs happen more, the old turnover-morale spirals are going to start rearing their ugly head once again.

Question is... what should be done about it?

While I agree with you on the problem, I don't agree with you on the solution. Committing a turnover should make it more likely to commit another one. However, that likelihood needs to be quite a bit lower than it is now, because it's clearly WAY too high now. And in addition, raising Confidence up to, say, 88.52 should DEFINITELY eliminate that as a possibility.

Heck, maybe make it so that when a player commits a turnover, there's a roll that takes place, modified by the player's Confidence, which gives the player a chance to "shake it off." I mentioned Brady Quinn earlier, and while he had a turnover-meltdown against Michigan in 2006, I saw other games while he was at Notre Dame where he threw a pick early but shrugged it off and went on to throw a great game.

......

Odds of Bort actually changing anything about this, though? Zero. Not even taking Confidence up to 150 will change that.

Originally posted by Novus
#2) The QB in question had 88.52 confidence.





Got to wonder one thing, is 88.52 confidence high. When Bort was conjuring up the math for morale, did he consider that high?

Originally posted by Novus
I don't think anything's changed in the sim to make INTs more likely
They did. INT builds have always been around, they just weren't always effective. And as noted, I love that they work now. The problem is that I explained four years ago what fix Bort needed to make to prevent turnover cascades.

Originally posted by
While I agree with you on the problem, I don't agree with you on the solution. Committing a turnover should make it more likely to commit another one.
No, committing a turnover absolutely shouldn't make you more likely to have another. That's not only completely unrealistic, but it's exactly what is causing the problem. The only thing that will ever fix turnover cascades definitively is to make all turnovers always dependent just on the builds involved.

Again:
Originally posted by jdbolick
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.

Originally posted by jdbolick

#1) No, they don't. In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more.

#2) The QB in question had 88.52 confidence.

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.

A player with experience and great confidence is less likely to make another mistake. A player with poor confidence gets shaken. Shaken players make more mistakes. Why do you think teams try to get pressure on QBs, to hit them when they can, and try to get inside some QBs heads? Because that rattles them, and they make poor decisions.

I know you're a smart man, but I don't understand how you think a player who gets rattled, shaken, and just doesn't have his head in the game isn't more likely to make a mistake. High confidence players get rattled less. Some players take mistakes personally and "step up to the plate". Some shrug it off. Low confidence guys get frustrated. They try to "make up for it". They hear footsteps. They force things and often lead to more mistakes.

With that being said, causing a spiral just to cause a spiral is a bad idea. Low confidence should have a penalty, but there should be a floor. 88.xx is pretty good. What I'd imagine is "average/little above average" in a real life comparison

jd, if you're not looking for debate or even comment, quit debating and commenting.

Originally posted by jdbolick
No, committing a turnover absolutely shouldn't make you more likely to have another. That's not only completely unrealistic...

You're really telling me you've never once seen a player in real-life get fumble-itis, or seen a QB get so rattled by an early pick that he starts throwing more picks? Never? Not once?

...

Having said that, we really aren't that far apart on this issue, jd. Instead of indulging in your pathological need to disagree with me about something, anything, we should instead focus on the fact that A.) we agree there's a big potential problem here, and B.) Bort needs to act on it before that word "potential" disappears. Whether Bort ends up going with your solution or with mine, either one would be an improvement over the current situation. Let's focus on that, not on squabbling with each other over details. Otherwise, it will be easier for Bort to ignore both of us and do nothing at all.