no threads about the actual game
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Interception numbers skyrocket
burn_209
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Yeah, plus as I said in the initial thread, I have no problem with low confidence on QBs or HBs causing a higher initial turnover chance. My problem is with turnovers greatly increasing the likelihood of additional turnovers. It's not realistic and it's been a problem with the sim for most of this game's existence.
What about the rationale that if a qb throws an interception he starts to try to do too much to make up for that pick and throws another one. It happens in the NFL and in real life.
Not that I dont agree with you there is a flip side to everything
Yeah, plus as I said in the initial thread, I have no problem with low confidence on QBs or HBs causing a higher initial turnover chance. My problem is with turnovers greatly increasing the likelihood of additional turnovers. It's not realistic and it's been a problem with the sim for most of this game's existence.
What about the rationale that if a qb throws an interception he starts to try to do too much to make up for that pick and throws another one. It happens in the NFL and in real life.
Not that I dont agree with you there is a flip side to everything
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by burn_209
What about the rationale that if a qb throws an interception he starts to try to do too much to make up for that pick and throws another one. It happens in the NFL and in real life. Not that I dont agree with you there is a flip side to everything
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
What about the rationale that if a qb throws an interception he starts to try to do too much to make up for that pick and throws another one. It happens in the NFL and in real life. Not that I dont agree with you there is a flip side to everything
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
BadgerPhil
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
So, what you are saying is that QB's are more likely to throw INTs if they've previously thrown one. Got it!
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
So, what you are saying is that QB's are more likely to throw INTs if they've previously thrown one. Got it!
kurieg
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
This is what they don't do in dotball.
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
This is what they don't do in dotball.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
And you continue to insist on promoting the fallacy that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick. That is a laughable idea on its face.
You're embarrassing yourself with this line of thinking. You really are.
What's worse, your continued insistence on arguing the viewpoint that every QB in real life responds exactly the same to throwing a pick simply undermines your far more important point -- that the current morale system in GLB takes the QB's reaction to throwing a pick to absurdly high levels, which in turn can lead to morale-turnover spirals. Bort has never found a good fix for this, so instead he just made INTs harder to get in the first place. But with CB builds improving and INT numbers on the rise over time, this problem is going to come back.
This problem needs to be fixed. You were instrumental in revealing the problem back in the day, and your efforts could be very important in getting Bort to finally address this problem for real instead of slapping a Band-Aid on it like before.
But instead... you'd rather cling to the idea that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick, and argue with people about it while declaring you're not looking for comment or debate. And in the end, you're just undermining yourself and making it easier for Bort to ignore you.
You're distracting yourself from your own main issue, man. Get back on track, and stop acting like Comic Book Guy.
Why are you making me repeat myself again and again and again? QBs do not become more likely to throw interceptions because they already threw one. If anything they become more conscious about trying to avoid additional ones. The only reason a QB would become more aggressive would be if his team was trailing, which is unrelated to the interception. You guys are completely wasting my time bringing up points I've already addressed, plus I've already analyzed all this four years ago. There is no thought you can have that I haven't already dealt with.
And you continue to insist on promoting the fallacy that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick. That is a laughable idea on its face.
You're embarrassing yourself with this line of thinking. You really are.
What's worse, your continued insistence on arguing the viewpoint that every QB in real life responds exactly the same to throwing a pick simply undermines your far more important point -- that the current morale system in GLB takes the QB's reaction to throwing a pick to absurdly high levels, which in turn can lead to morale-turnover spirals. Bort has never found a good fix for this, so instead he just made INTs harder to get in the first place. But with CB builds improving and INT numbers on the rise over time, this problem is going to come back.
This problem needs to be fixed. You were instrumental in revealing the problem back in the day, and your efforts could be very important in getting Bort to finally address this problem for real instead of slapping a Band-Aid on it like before.
But instead... you'd rather cling to the idea that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick, and argue with people about it while declaring you're not looking for comment or debate. And in the end, you're just undermining yourself and making it easier for Bort to ignore you.
You're distracting yourself from your own main issue, man. Get back on track, and stop acting like Comic Book Guy.
Edited by Novus on Jun 4, 2013 09:02:38
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by Novus
And you continue to insist on promoting the fallacy that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick. That is a laughable idea on its face. You're embarrassing yourself with this line of thinking. You really are.
Remember the discussion of reputations a while ago. Yours versus mine is why you shouldn't waste time with this kind of bluster. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that QBs in real life become much more likely to throw another interception after throwing a first one. That's simply not the reality. You guys are making up shit to try inventing a possible explanation, but it's a waste of everyone's time.
Originally posted by
that the current morale system in GLB takes the QB's reaction to throwing a pick to absurdly high levels, which in turn can lead to morale-turnover spirals.
It's not even necessarily related to morale. kurieg PMed me noting something I had already seen as well, which is that players experiencing these mass-turnover games don't appear to be dramatically decreased morale, at least that which is listed on the replays. Most of our QB's 7 interceptions came with morale supposedly at 100 or higher. It's possible that Bort coded something directly and intentionally causing an exponential increase in turnover chance once you experience a first one. Something is causing that exponential increase. Morale seemed to be the most likely culprit, but if the replay figures are accurate then it may be unrelated.
Originally posted by
But instead... you'd rather cling to the idea that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick, and argue with people about it while declaring you're not looking for comment or debate. And in the end, you're just undermining yourself and making it easier for Bort to ignore you.
What I'm saying is correct, and people repeating points discredited four years ago is obviously a complete waste of time. Furthermore, why are you acting like you're an expert on what gets Bort to make changes? How many things have you changed on GLB? Now compare that with the changes I've gotten made. The most annoying thing about you is that presume to speak as if you have credibility when you don't. You haven't accomplished anything, and therefore how would you know what makes an argument compelling or what prompts change? If you have no experience making changes or convincing anyone of anything, why on earth would you continue to speak as if you know what works? That's what makes you so obnoxious. You're an authority on absolutely nothing. Please act accordingly.
Originally posted by
You're distracting yourself from your own main issue, man. Get back on track.
You are causing the pointless arguments. You're repeatedly instigating arguments with me while having no evidence or anything productive to add to the conversation. Take some responsibility for your own behavior.
And you continue to insist on promoting the fallacy that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick. That is a laughable idea on its face. You're embarrassing yourself with this line of thinking. You really are.
Remember the discussion of reputations a while ago. Yours versus mine is why you shouldn't waste time with this kind of bluster. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that QBs in real life become much more likely to throw another interception after throwing a first one. That's simply not the reality. You guys are making up shit to try inventing a possible explanation, but it's a waste of everyone's time.
Originally posted by
that the current morale system in GLB takes the QB's reaction to throwing a pick to absurdly high levels, which in turn can lead to morale-turnover spirals.
It's not even necessarily related to morale. kurieg PMed me noting something I had already seen as well, which is that players experiencing these mass-turnover games don't appear to be dramatically decreased morale, at least that which is listed on the replays. Most of our QB's 7 interceptions came with morale supposedly at 100 or higher. It's possible that Bort coded something directly and intentionally causing an exponential increase in turnover chance once you experience a first one. Something is causing that exponential increase. Morale seemed to be the most likely culprit, but if the replay figures are accurate then it may be unrelated.
Originally posted by
But instead... you'd rather cling to the idea that every QB in real life reacts the exact same way to throwing a pick, and argue with people about it while declaring you're not looking for comment or debate. And in the end, you're just undermining yourself and making it easier for Bort to ignore you.
What I'm saying is correct, and people repeating points discredited four years ago is obviously a complete waste of time. Furthermore, why are you acting like you're an expert on what gets Bort to make changes? How many things have you changed on GLB? Now compare that with the changes I've gotten made. The most annoying thing about you is that presume to speak as if you have credibility when you don't. You haven't accomplished anything, and therefore how would you know what makes an argument compelling or what prompts change? If you have no experience making changes or convincing anyone of anything, why on earth would you continue to speak as if you know what works? That's what makes you so obnoxious. You're an authority on absolutely nothing. Please act accordingly.
Originally posted by
You're distracting yourself from your own main issue, man. Get back on track.
You are causing the pointless arguments. You're repeatedly instigating arguments with me while having no evidence or anything productive to add to the conversation. Take some responsibility for your own behavior.
Novus
offline
offline
Look, Comic Book Guy... you have made the assertion that all QBs behave the exact same way in response to throwing an interception. Given the wide variety of people who play QB within each level of football, such an assertion is ridiculous. In the NFL alone there are 32 teams, each of which has at least 3 QBs each on their roster. That's 96 QBs.
Is it your assertion that all 96 of these individual, unique human beings with varying skill-sets, abilities and mentalities all respond the exact same way to throwing an interception in a game? What is your evidence of this?
You made the assertion. I am challenging it. It is up to you -- not me -- to prove that your assertion is correct.
...
The rest of your post is a distraction. I will ignore it, other than to say that it is incomplete and incorrect -- and also irrelevant.
Is it your assertion that all 96 of these individual, unique human beings with varying skill-sets, abilities and mentalities all respond the exact same way to throwing an interception in a game? What is your evidence of this?
You made the assertion. I am challenging it. It is up to you -- not me -- to prove that your assertion is correct.
...
The rest of your post is a distraction. I will ignore it, other than to say that it is incomplete and incorrect -- and also irrelevant.
kurieg
offline
offline
Originally posted by
It's possible that Bort coded something directly and intentionally causing an exponential increase in turnover chance once you experience a first one. Something is causing that exponential increase.
jb, while I can't rule out the possibility of something in the code, some sort of exponential increase in turnover chance would have resulted in a lot more data of inexplicable turnover bouts than a couple anecdotes. GLB can easily be viewed as a massive Monte Carlo with a whole lot of ensemble results. Focusing on the outliers is not a strong argument, not nearly as strong as you seem to think it is.
It's possible that Bort coded something directly and intentionally causing an exponential increase in turnover chance once you experience a first one. Something is causing that exponential increase.
jb, while I can't rule out the possibility of something in the code, some sort of exponential increase in turnover chance would have resulted in a lot more data of inexplicable turnover bouts than a couple anecdotes. GLB can easily be viewed as a massive Monte Carlo with a whole lot of ensemble results. Focusing on the outliers is not a strong argument, not nearly as strong as you seem to think it is.
coreyls18
offline
offline
Havent read any posts but based off of OP. In my prep game yesterday. I had 1 INT and the team I played picked off my QB 3 times in just the first quarter alone. And this is prep league level 19 players.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by Novus
Look, Comic Book Guy... you have made the assertion that all QBs behave the exact same way in response to throwing an interception.
No, you've said that. I made the assertion that real QBs don't become more prone to throwing interceptions as a result of having thrown a first one. And I continue to be correct about that. QBs who are prone to interceptions are always prone to interceptions, while the common factors influencing frequency include the coverage they're playing against (style and personnel), the score (more prone to take risks when behind), and pressure from the pass rush (as Plankton pointed out).
Originally posted by
The rest of your post is a distraction. I will ignore it, other than to say that it is incomplete and incorrect -- and also irrelevant.
Of course you ignore it because you refuse to take responsibility for your behavior. What do you add here, Novus? What? 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. You are the distraction. You add nothing while instigating conflict. You are the problem.
Look, Comic Book Guy... you have made the assertion that all QBs behave the exact same way in response to throwing an interception.
No, you've said that. I made the assertion that real QBs don't become more prone to throwing interceptions as a result of having thrown a first one. And I continue to be correct about that. QBs who are prone to interceptions are always prone to interceptions, while the common factors influencing frequency include the coverage they're playing against (style and personnel), the score (more prone to take risks when behind), and pressure from the pass rush (as Plankton pointed out).
Originally posted by
The rest of your post is a distraction. I will ignore it, other than to say that it is incomplete and incorrect -- and also irrelevant.
Of course you ignore it because you refuse to take responsibility for your behavior. What do you add here, Novus? What? 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. You are the distraction. You add nothing while instigating conflict. You are the problem.
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by kurieg
jb, while I can't rule out the possibility of something in the code, some sort of exponential increase in turnover chance would have resulted in a lot more data of inexplicable turnover bouts than a couple anecdotes.
It has. There are tons of examples. What planet do you live on that you haven't yet noticed this in all the numerous threads discussing it?
jb, while I can't rule out the possibility of something in the code, some sort of exponential increase in turnover chance would have resulted in a lot more data of inexplicable turnover bouts than a couple anecdotes.
It has. There are tons of examples. What planet do you live on that you haven't yet noticed this in all the numerous threads discussing it?
Originally posted by kurieg
BTW, those outliers are the first thing whacked with negative feedback.
#TheSimScrewedMe
BTW, those outliers are the first thing whacked with negative feedback.
#TheSimScrewedMe
Originally posted by jdbolick
It has. There are tons of examples. What planet do you live on that you haven't yet noticed this in all the numerous threads discussing it?
k but I think his point is that there are thousands of games, and if you were to look at the bulk of them , no issues. But there's another chunk of games perhaps where this does happen. (maybe 5% of the time) but 5% of the games in a single day is still hundreds of games.. so sure you can pull instances of it but if it were hard coded everyone would see it all the time. Meaning you're focusing on something that is an outlier. Doesn't mean that its not an issue, just means that it's not hard coded.
It has. There are tons of examples. What planet do you live on that you haven't yet noticed this in all the numerous threads discussing it?
k but I think his point is that there are thousands of games, and if you were to look at the bulk of them , no issues. But there's another chunk of games perhaps where this does happen. (maybe 5% of the time) but 5% of the games in a single day is still hundreds of games.. so sure you can pull instances of it but if it were hard coded everyone would see it all the time. Meaning you're focusing on something that is an outlier. Doesn't mean that its not an issue, just means that it's not hard coded.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
