Warrior General Games

Originally posted by kurieg
I would expect bhall has looked at the morale of the O vs. what's going on with something like turnovers. I've only looked at one, and what I saw did not look morale caused at all.

I do think when bonn when ffum nuts for a bit, that was morale + marcus' build, but I mostly based that on our inability to ffum on your high Conf squad. I don't think we had morale bars back then.

MPHD had high confidence, but also had high carrying. I think a part of the Bonn FF factor was a relative lack of carrying in those days, along with a really effective FF build playing in a defensive that was designed perfectly to funnel tackles his way.

Originally posted by kurieg
I would expect bhall has looked at the morale of the O vs. what's going on with something like turnovers. I've only looked at one, and what I saw did not look morale caused at all.

I do think when bonn when ffum nuts for a bit, that was morale + marcus' build, but I mostly based that on our inability to ffum on your high Conf squad. I don't think we had morale bars back then.

Honestly I don't think the bars tell the entire story on what all is going on with morale. But there is definitely some correlation there to be seen. Lesser nowadays after they toned it down. But events do come in clumps for sure. There are games where I never felt like I had a chance to succeed after an opening kickoff fumble.

Originally posted by bhall43
Originally posted by kurieg

I would expect bhall has looked at the morale of the O vs. what's going on with something like turnovers. I've only looked at one, and what I saw did not look morale caused at all.

I do think when bonn when ffum nuts for a bit, that was morale + marcus' build, but I mostly based that on our inability to ffum on your high Conf squad. I don't think we had morale bars back then.

Honestly I don't think the bars tell the entire story on what all is going on with morale. But there is definitely some correlation there to be seen. Lesser nowadays after they toned it down. But events do come in clumps for sure. There are games where I never felt like I had a chance to succeed after an opening kickoff fumble.

I mentioned it to jb, but I'm not saying there's nothing there. All I've been saying is that clumpiness/streakiness whatever you want to call it is actually hallmark behavior of randomness in the kinda datasets of a result of a GLB game. GLB's gonna be much, much worse for that than real football because the dots don't learn. Real players and coaches provide feedback all over the field. Receivers/QBs adjust routes, throws, decisions, etc. GLB's only real feedback during game afaict is auto-adjust and the OC guessing what to do when the game score changes.

I would think something is going on under the hood with the sim if there wasn't freaky games the way this game is setup.

Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by kurieg

I would expect bhall has looked at the morale of the O vs. what's going on with something like turnovers. I've only looked at one, and what I saw did not look morale caused at all.

I do think when bonn when ffum nuts for a bit, that was morale + marcus' build, but I mostly based that on our inability to ffum on your high Conf squad. I don't think we had morale bars back then.

MPHD had high confidence, but also had high carrying. I think a part of the Bonn FF factor was a relative lack of carrying in those days, along with a really effective FF build playing in a defensive that was designed perfectly to funnel tackles his way.



I ran into others I knew had high Carrying and still had success. While I didn't have Morale bars, what I could tell pointed to morale busting really helping, and it didn't work vs. you.

But I have to admit I don't have good statistics or anything to back that up.

Originally posted by kurieg
I ran into others I knew had high Carrying and still had success. While I didn't have Morale bars, what I could tell pointed to morale busting really helping, and it didn't work vs. you.

But I have to admit I don't have good statistics or anything to back that up.



I think it's really a cumulative effect. One thing that i always notice about GLB is that there are pretty steep "tipping points."

The interaction between dot-attributes often seems to be such that you go from zero effect, to pretty good effect, to overwhelming effect across a relatively tight scale of values.

You can really see this with slow starter, and with morale+energy levels. You take a dot that has a 2% shot at causing a fumble, give him a boost from slow starter+streaky (old school version)+morale differential+ energy differential (Bonn had high stamina too as I recall?) and you may really push that 2% to a much, much higher value because you cross the threshold of knee-point values.

Originally posted by kurieg
I mentioned it to jb, but I'm not saying there's nothing there. All I've been saying is that clumpiness/streakiness whatever you want to call it is actually hallmark behavior of randomness in the kinda datasets of a result of a GLB game. GLB's gonna be much, much worse for that than real football because the dots don't learn. Real players and coaches provide feedback all over the field. Receivers/QBs adjust routes, throws, decisions, etc. GLB's only real feedback during game afaict is auto-adjust and the OC guessing what to do when the game score changes.

I would think something is going on under the hood with the sim if there wasn't freaky games the way this game is setup.

Right and the freaky games don't really piss me off anymore. Like I said before morale was turned down that was when these things were very easy to see and games were impossible to overcome these events. I could plan all night with the perfect plan and an opening INT for a td or fumble on the KR for a td would completely wipe out anything I possibly did.

Originally posted by bhall43
Right and the freaky games don't really piss me off anymore. Like I said before morale was turned down that was when these things were very easy to see and games were impossible to overcome these events. I could plan all night with the perfect plan and an opening INT for a td or fumble on the KR for a td would completely wipe out anything I possibly did.

The one season where morale had devastating effects was really bad...almost unplayable.

The reason for that was that morale effects amplified the randomness inherent to the game. Some freak bad luck early in the game decided the whole contest, so instead of having the "luck of the draw" distributed over 60 minutes, you often had just 10-20 minutes of game time that effectively decided the whole affair. So with a pool of much fewer "meaningful" plays, the overall results were far more chaotic and far less easy to influence through game planning.

It's like a card counter (i.e. game planner) sitting down for 5 minutes at a shoe. he has no real advantage because he won't see enough cards for his skills to matter. He has to see a lot of hands in order to gain an advantage...just as a game planner needs to see a certain number of plays before the game plan has a reasonable chance to come together.

What jd is actually advocating is less randomness.

The IRL argument for his case is that coaches and coordinators adjust their calculus to the recent events in order to increase their odds of success (or avoidance of abject failure).

If you've given up consecutive picks, you run more and you throw short, high percentage passes.

If your returner has fumbled twice, you either replace him or have him fair-catch/take a knee.

In GLB, your dots just keep trying. And sometimes you make it tougher on them by asking them to try even harder rather than collect themselves.

All that being said, I think the level at which luck rules the game these days is about right.... I rarely see a sim that just screws over one team horribly, but I occasionally see just enough random slings and arrows to allow a lesser team to overcome a better team...if they have it backed up by a decent gameplan.

That's probably the sweet spot, imo. Enough tension to make games worth watching, but not so much that you feel helpless and/or powerless.

It be random. But there is a method to its madness. It isn't like 1 random INT makes interception monsters out of a bunch of low catching dots. (in that season we were talking about with the super amount of randomness that is exactly what it did though) You only see these high interception games against teams with a lot of interception builds. I haven't seen any major fumble games in quite awhile. I think the most I have seen is 5 in a game and most of them were picked up by the offense.

And there should be something said about the confidence of the defense for performing well leading to more good events. I picked up Fire Up on a couple defenders this season with that in mind.

Originally posted by bhall43
It be random. But there is a method to its madness. It isn't like 1 random INT makes interception monsters out of a bunch of low catching dots. (in that season we were talking about with the super amount of randomness that is exactly what it did though) You only see these high interception games against teams with a lot of interception builds. I haven't seen any major fumble games in quite awhile. I think the most I have seen is 5 in a game and most of them were picked up by the offense.

its been enough seasons since the changes to INT's that this is most likely a cause to more interceptions. Entire teams are upping their catching defensively. 6-7 seasons ago you maybe had 1 INT dot per team if that, now you have enough dots sitting at 50 catching min, sticky hands and possibly an int piece that its just probability. more dots with catching = more chances to intercept.

edit: sticky hands

Originally posted by Staz
Having played sports, having watched plenty of them, having heard endless analysis, I'll say this.
Like I said, this is a case of you not knowing what you're talking about and believing a mythology that has been built up around sports. It's the same kind of mythology that leads fans to wish that coaches or players showed more "PASSION! because that somehow associates with winning. Again, a guy who is prone to gamble and make risky throws will always be prone to gamble and make risky throws. Similarly, a guy averse to risk doesn't suddenly shift the other way if he does have a turnover.


Originally posted by Novus
You're the one who said "In fact, a player who throws an interception or has a fumble actually becomes more conscious about not having more," a blanket statement meant to apply to all players.
Which is true. What player has a turnover and then says "Fuck it, I want to have MORE turnovers!"? I wish you possessed the reasoning ability to realize how utterly absurd you're being by arguing over this.

Originally posted by
And I contend that the first interception clearly had Quinn rattled... the decision to try to throw while being hit was a poor decision
I didn't expect you to have the integrity or honesty to admit that you were wrong, but at least spare us from making any bullshit excuses like this. A guy goes more than a half between turnovers (and has two TD passes between them), but an interception caused by being hit during a throw somehow means he was rattled? This is the proof that you're not just stupid, you're clearly trolling. I say that because no one could possibly be stupid enough to genuinely think that Quinn's second interception was in any way a consequence of being rattled by the first given the facts I presented. And he tried the throw because it was third down.

Originally posted by
As for the rest of your post, you challenged my understanding of the English language, said I'm making up shit, and called me a liar and a troll. Since you insist on continuing to insult me, I will insist on continuing to call you Comic Book Guy. Deal with it.
How many times must I repeat myself before your feeble intellect begins to grasp the concept? You can call me whatever you want, but don't do what you did earlier in this thread and cry about how I'm being mean and insulting you when you've been insulting me all along. It's your hypocrisy that annoys me even more than your obvious stupidity.

Originally posted by slashxtreme
I don't buy this massive morale collapse as the reason for "more" INT's anyway... As I typically don't buy anecdotes as evidence for large scale empirical questions.
Because you're blind. We have more than four years of examples.


Originally posted by bhall43
The morale collapse does cause more turnovers. Though it isn't independently based on morale. Their needs to be builds surrounding that premise. You don't throw 7 interceptions against a bunch of low catching builds.
Once the cascade is in progress you can and do. I've seen quite a few examples in those mass-turnover games of that being the only interceptions or fumbles forced for those players in their entire season.

Originally posted by kurieg
I mentioned it to jb, but I'm not saying there's nothing there. All I've been saying is that clumpiness/streakiness whatever you want to call it is actually hallmark behavior of randomness in the kinda datasets of a result of a GLB game. GLB's gonna be much, much worse for that than real football because the dots don't learn. Real players and coaches provide feedback all over the field. Receivers/QBs adjust routes, throws, decisions, etc. GLB's only real feedback during game afaict is auto-adjust and the OC guessing what to do when the game score changes.
As you've already been told, random events by definition cannot be "streaky." They may have the appearance of "streakiness," but that is entirely coincidental. And as you've also been told, a quarterback throwing 5 interceptions in 172 pass attempts over the course of a season only to throw 12 in the final game of that season almost certainly isn't random, especially when combined with the numerous other examples of mass-turnover games popping up out of nowhere. This isn't a question of turnover-prone players having a higher number of turnovers in a particular game. We're talking about players having more turnovers in one game than they had in the rest of their season combined.

Originally posted by jdbolick

Once the cascade is in progress you can and do. I've seen quite a few examples in those mass-turnover games of that being the only interceptions or fumbles forced for those players in their entire season.

Show me at least 2 games of samples in which there were 5+ interceptions in a game that didn't revolve around interception builds. I haven't seen one example even. But I wouldn't doubt there being a random case out there.