User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Suggestions > Allow a percentage of recovered fumbles to be returned...
Page:
 
ChicagoTRS
offline
Link
 
Currently in the sim fumbles are very rarely returned. (less than 1%). WL after 6 games there has not been a fumble returned for more than a yard or two and no TDs.

In the NFL in 2011(31) fumbles were recovered and returned for TDs. 303 fumbles were recovered by defenses and ~10% were returned for TDs.


SUGGESTION:
Allow ~10-15% chance for the fumble recoverer to scoop and immediately run with the recovered fumble. Figure a certain % of the time the player will get tackled but at least we should then have some fumbles returned.


I fully understand we do not want a ton of fumbles returned for TDs but I am not sure how the sim is better by having 0 returned. In real football sometimes fumbles are returned...and sometimes the defense does score. GLB is supposed to be a football simulation. The current lack of defensive scores in GLB is not an accurate simulation of real football.

It seems simple enough to add a "scoop recover" feature that allows GLB to control the number of fumbles returned for TDs. If only 10% are scooped...you are not going to have a rash of TDs and it adds realism/accuracy to the sim. If you think about real football...this is how a percentage of fumbles are returned. The defender makes a quick/clean scoop of the loose ball and is off to the races.

I am not often a proponent of RNG fixes/features like this. But in this case, fumble recoveries in the real world are RNG...ball bounces the right way to the right player and they are off to the races. Real world has forced fumbles where the tackler just basically takes the ball from the offense and starts the return. The "build" of the player is not really important even in the real world. Probably more likely to be a secondary/LB type player return balls for a TD but that should still happen with this solution as d-linemen will be often caught from behind.

The proposal is a simple solution that should be easy to code into the existing sim. There is already a recover try in the sim where the player either falls and recovers or misses the recovery and the ball bounces...this would just add an x% scoop try at the beginning of each recovery try. Maybe only the first two recovery attempts get a scoop attempt.

Should be simple to adjust the sim to a specific chance of return/TD.
Makes the simulation closer to realism.
Not going to be exploitable because it is RNG (not build or strategy dependent)
If I know anything about coding this is minor effort and provides definite improvement to the sim with very little risk.
Edited by ChicagoTRS on Apr 12, 2012 13:42:24
Edited by ChicagoTRS on Mar 8, 2012 13:37:16
Edited by ChicagoTRS on Mar 8, 2012 13:36:56
 
Link
 
Sounds like a new veteran ability
 
ChicagoTRS
offline
Link
 
Disagree on VA. It should just be a chance that the recoverer can make a clean quick recovery and run. In this case I am sort of against making a VA or making it based on attributes as we do not want a ton of FFs returned. Make it pure RNG so it is easy to control. It would be the same sort of roll that we currently get that allows the ball to bounce around on FFs...the recoverer gets a ~10% chance to make a quick scoop return.
 
Mike1709
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by ChicagoTRS
Currently in the sim fumbles are very rarely returned. (guessing 1 in a 1000). WL after 6 games there has not been a fumble returned for more than a yard or two and no TDs.

In the NFL in 2011(31) fumbles were recovered and returned for TDs. 303 fumbles were recovered by defenses and ~10% were returned for TDs.


SUGGESTION:
Allow ~10-15% chance for the fumble recoverer to scoop and immediately run with the recovered fumble. Figure a certain % of the time the player will get tackled but at least we should then have some fumbles returned.


I fully understand we do not want a ton of fumbles returned for TDs but I am not sure how the sim is better by having 0 returned. In real football sometimes fumbles are returned...and sometimes the defense does score. GLB is supposed to be a football simulation. The current lack of defensive scores in GLB is not an accurate simulation of real football.

It seems simple enough to add a "scoop recover" feature that allows GLB to control the number of fumbles returned for TDs. If only 10% are scooped...you are not going to have a rash of TDs and it adds realism/accuracy to the sim. If you think about real football...this is how a percentage of fumbles are returned. The defender makes a quick/clean scoop of the loose ball and is off to the races.


+1, make it like with INT's where they can be returned if there is nobody close.
 
saintedix
offline
Link
 
Good luck with this one TRS. I've posted this in suggestions about 4 times and it fell on deaf ears.
 
beenlurken
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by ChicagoTRS
Disagree on VA. It should just be a chance that the recoverer can make a clean quick recovery and run. In this case I am sort of against making a VA or making it based on attributes as we do not want a ton of FFs returned. Make it pure RNG so it is easy to control. It would be the same sort of roll that we currently get that allows the ball to bounce around on FFs...the recoverer gets a ~10% chance to make a quick scoop return.


This

All they would have to do is give some small % chance (5-10%) that the recovering dot does not fall down when recovering.
 
ChicagoTRS
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by saintedix
Good luck with this one TRS. I've posted this in suggestions about 4 times and it fell on deaf ears.


yeah...seems like something that at minimum Catch is against since he instantly ignores and deletes similar questions in Q&A...just trying the suggestion route to try and get some traction. and trying to frame the suggestion/solution so it is easy for them to code and they can understand that it will not lead to a rash of fumble return TDs.

I just do not understand why Catch thinks defense scores should be 1 in a million type plays. Clue...defenses score in real football. The facts are defenses are responsible ~10% of all points scored in the NFL. Currently in GLB it is less than 1%.
 
Ubasstards
offline
Link
 
+1

i been asking for this for seasons. It was removed because every ST fumble was a TD but in fixing that issue they went to far and its broken now
 
merenoise
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Ubasstards
+1

i been asking for this for seasons. It was removed because every ST fumble was a TD but in fixing that issue they went to far and its broken now


 
Ken1
offline
Link
 
I'm for it as long as it's limited to 10% and there's a short (like 2-3 ticks-- not seconds, ticks) time to gather it up to limit the TDs off fumbles to about the 4% (40% of the 10%) that has been quoted as the real life number, with the rest of the 10% (which is what I was told years ago and will believe until proven otherwise is the percentage of fumbles with any real return) being returned for something less than a TD.

There are also real life NFL rules (and I think the NCAA has similar rules) about the offense advancing the ball after a fumble that I don't know the details of, but should be found and respected.

If that's done for 10%, the other 90% should simply be unreturnable. Right now there's a very small chance someone will pick it up and return it a little after approximately 2-3 seconds (which is 20-30 ticks, I believe) on the ground-- which if there's no other return mechanic is a good thing, but if that is turned off for 10% of fumbles, which is fine, it shouldn't be allowed to create even a few more returns unless someone can show that it's more like 15% of fumbles that are returned in real life.

Something might also be done to distinguish between fumbles that create piles and those that don't, allowing more returns from those without piles in the game and never a return from a pile, as long as it all works out to about 10% with some return overall, and no more than 4% overall for TDs.

I'm fine with all that if done in this way, although I don't see it as a high priority given we're talking such a low percentage of fumbles (and we probably already see some sort of return now on-- guessing-- 3-4% of GLB fumbles, although almost none are returned for any significant distance).
 
merenoise
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Ken1
I'm for it as long as it's limited to 10% and there's a short (like 2-3 ticks-- not seconds, ticks) time to gather it up to limit the TDs off fumbles to about the 4% (40% of the 10%) that has been quoted as the real life number, with the rest of the 10% (which is what I was told years ago and will believe until proven otherwise is the percentage of fumbles with any real return) being returned for something less than a TD.

There are also real life NFL rules (and I think the NCAA has similar rules) about the offense advancing the ball after a fumble that I don't know the details of, but should be found and respected.

If that's done for 10%, the other 90% should simply be unreturnable. Right now there's a very small chance someone will pick it up and return it a little after approximately 2-3 seconds (which is 20-30 ticks, I believe) on the ground-- which if there's no other return mechanic is a good thing, but if that is turned off for 10% of fumbles, which is fine, it shouldn't be allowed to create even a few more returns unless someone can show that it's more like 15% of fumbles that are returned in real life.

Something might also be done to distinguish between fumbles that create piles and those that don't, allowing more returns from those without piles in the game and never a return from a pile, as long as it all works out to about 10% with some return overall, and no more than 4% overall for TDs.

I'm fine with all that if done in this way, although I don't see it as a high priority given we're talking such a low percentage of fumbles (and we probably already see some sort of return now on-- guessing-- 3-4% of GLB fumbles, although almost none are returned for any significant distance).


+1 to OP

-1 to guys who make up stats and are generally just terrible
 
Ken1
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by merenoise
-1 to guys who make up stats and are generally just terrible


-1 to guys who say "fuck realism" and who falsely accuse people of making up stats. Or actually, -1 just for saying that about realism.
 
ChicagoTRS
offline
Link
 
Ken1...the facts:
2011 NFL 303 fumbles recovered by the defense. 31 were returned for TDs. 10% of fumble recoveries result in TDs for the defense.

If we are going for realism 10% should be the number we are shooting for. I even think most would be ok with less TDs...lets say 10% chance the defense makes a clean scoop on a fumble recovery (no fall down...couple ticks at most before returning)...this would still result in some short returns that are tackled by offense but should give us at least some real returns.

So far this season in GLB...in the 8 national pro leagues and WL (~864 games, 1000+ fumbles)...there have been 15 fumble TD returns...a majority of those fumble returns were in 255-0 games so in reality the current sim when playing even teams there is almost no chance for fumble returns.
 
merenoise
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by merenoise

-1 to guys who make up stats and are generally just terrible


-1 to guys who say "fuck realism" and who falsely accuse people of making up stats. Or actually, -1 just for saying that about realism.


You have already been caught making up stats. It isn't just an accusation it is the truth, something which you seem to feel is fine to distort.
 
Ken1
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by merenoise
You have already been caught making up stats. It isn't just an accusation it is the truth, something which you seem to feel is fine to distort.


I estimated a single stat and it was in a context of "assuming 10% of fumbles are returned, and assuming 10% of those returned are returned for TDs" (which doesn't imply absolute knowledge). When you showed 4% of fumbles overall are returned for TDs I respected that, even though on the page you linked to I couldn't even find where you got that.

Edited by Ken1 on Mar 8, 2012 14:20:38
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.