+1
Forum > Suggestions > Customizable Adjustment Thresholds for Auto Adjust
Antonine
offline
offline
Nope, this is an excellent idea. I'd want customised adjust in both inputs and packages, as you suggest.
I'd also like something like this: a checkbox inside packages which you can use to turn on this option:
"Remove play from playcalling if it gains less than X yards on Y consecutive plays". Where X and Y are user defined. That means, if I want a play removed totally if it fails to gain any yards (say) 3 calls in a row, I can guarantee it won't be seen again. That means I have more control over playcalling, which is what AA is meant to give us. I don't have to worry about probability and chance - I can just get rid of something that is repeatedly failing, 100%.
If all the plays in a package get to the point of meeting this criteria, then the package is no longer called upon by an input, unless there are no other outputs (or all the other output/packages are in the same state - bad day!) in which case everything would be reset to scratch again.
Same thing possible for D playcalling, I suppose:
"Remove play from playcalling if it concedes more than X yards on Y consecutive plays".
I'd also like something like this: a checkbox inside packages which you can use to turn on this option:
"Remove play from playcalling if it gains less than X yards on Y consecutive plays". Where X and Y are user defined. That means, if I want a play removed totally if it fails to gain any yards (say) 3 calls in a row, I can guarantee it won't be seen again. That means I have more control over playcalling, which is what AA is meant to give us. I don't have to worry about probability and chance - I can just get rid of something that is repeatedly failing, 100%.
If all the plays in a package get to the point of meeting this criteria, then the package is no longer called upon by an input, unless there are no other outputs (or all the other output/packages are in the same state - bad day!) in which case everything would be reset to scratch again.
Same thing possible for D playcalling, I suppose:
"Remove play from playcalling if it concedes more than X yards on Y consecutive plays".
Edited by Antonine on May 15, 2012 15:05:00
Edited by Antonine on May 15, 2012 15:04:41
Dyna5ty
offline
offline
Originally posted by Antonine
Nope, this is an excellent idea. I'd want customised adjust in both inputs and packages, as you suggest.
I'd also like something like this: a checkbox inside packages which you can use to turn on this option:
"Remove play from playcalling if it gains less than X yards on Y consecutive plays". Where X and Y are user defined. That means, if I want a play removed totally if it fails to gain any yards (say) 3 calls in a row, I can guarantee it won't be seen again. That means I have more control over playcalling, which is what AA is meant to give us. I don't have to worry about probability and chance - I can just get rid of something that is repeatedly failing, 100%.
If all the plays in a package get to the point of meeting this criteria, then the package is no longer called upon by an input, unless there are no other outputs (or all the other output/packages are in the same state - bad day!) in which case everything would be reset to scratch again.
Same thing possible for D playcalling, I suppose:
"Remove play from playcalling if it concedes more than X yards on Y consecutive plays".
+1 For this as well!
Nope, this is an excellent idea. I'd want customised adjust in both inputs and packages, as you suggest.
I'd also like something like this: a checkbox inside packages which you can use to turn on this option:
"Remove play from playcalling if it gains less than X yards on Y consecutive plays". Where X and Y are user defined. That means, if I want a play removed totally if it fails to gain any yards (say) 3 calls in a row, I can guarantee it won't be seen again. That means I have more control over playcalling, which is what AA is meant to give us. I don't have to worry about probability and chance - I can just get rid of something that is repeatedly failing, 100%.
If all the plays in a package get to the point of meeting this criteria, then the package is no longer called upon by an input, unless there are no other outputs (or all the other output/packages are in the same state - bad day!) in which case everything would be reset to scratch again.
Same thing possible for D playcalling, I suppose:
"Remove play from playcalling if it concedes more than X yards on Y consecutive plays".
+1 For this as well!
+1, look into the way Playmaker football does it http://www.playmaker.com/software, something like this http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g259/waketripper/saveai.png posted a couple years ago it seems.
Kirghiz
offline
offline
Originally posted by SeattleNiner
+1, look into the way Playmaker football does it http://www.playmaker.com/software, something like this http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g259/waketripper/saveai.png posted a couple years ago it seems.
Doesn't even require that much complexity tbh. All you need is two places to enter a number. One for the adjust down number, and any yardage gain less than that adjusts down, and another for the adjust up number, any yardage gain over that number adjusts up. Anything in between those two numbers does not adjust.
Keep it simple.
+1, look into the way Playmaker football does it http://www.playmaker.com/software, something like this http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g259/waketripper/saveai.png posted a couple years ago it seems.
Doesn't even require that much complexity tbh. All you need is two places to enter a number. One for the adjust down number, and any yardage gain less than that adjusts down, and another for the adjust up number, any yardage gain over that number adjusts up. Anything in between those two numbers does not adjust.
Keep it simple.
Antonine
offline
offline
But if they can do that, Kirghiz, they can make it more adjustable, and give us more control, which is what we want. I'd rather have several adjustable thresholds ("very bad", "bad", "neutral", "good", "very good"). If a user doesn't want so many options, he can simply make the bad-neutral-good spread wide enough to cover everything. If a user doesn't want any options, he can leave it all blank and the default AA thresholds will still work.
But anything would be good.
But anything would be good.
Kirghiz
offline
offline
Originally posted by Antonine
But if they can do that, Kirghiz, they can make it more adjustable, and give us more control, which is what we want. I'd rather have several adjustable thresholds ("very bad", "bad", "neutral", "good", "very good"). If a user doesn't want so many options, he can simply make the bad-neutral-good spread wide enough to cover everything. If a user doesn't want any options, he can leave it all blank and the default AA thresholds will still work.
But anything would be good.
On the one hand I agree with you, but on the other I know how many people find coordinating to be a chore, and I even know a group of people that can't make heads or tails of inputs as they are now. The more complexity that is added further reduces the people that are willing to take the time, and that doesn't help either. Really though, if Bort would just tell us how much each existing adjustment setting moved the numbers, you could make an informed decision on how to set your inputs and packages up without having to add extra functionality.
But if they can do that, Kirghiz, they can make it more adjustable, and give us more control, which is what we want. I'd rather have several adjustable thresholds ("very bad", "bad", "neutral", "good", "very good"). If a user doesn't want so many options, he can simply make the bad-neutral-good spread wide enough to cover everything. If a user doesn't want any options, he can leave it all blank and the default AA thresholds will still work.
But anything would be good.
On the one hand I agree with you, but on the other I know how many people find coordinating to be a chore, and I even know a group of people that can't make heads or tails of inputs as they are now. The more complexity that is added further reduces the people that are willing to take the time, and that doesn't help either. Really though, if Bort would just tell us how much each existing adjustment setting moved the numbers, you could make an informed decision on how to set your inputs and packages up without having to add extra functionality.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
