5/26/2013 10:36 AM
Have you started yet?
5/28/2013 11:13 AM
I am on the case. How can I help you? 

5/28/2013 11:38 AM
IMO, go back to 1.0.  Adjust the distribution on running plays so they're not so deterministic (i.e. increase the variability).  When that's done, start adding bells and whistles to your heart's content as long as they're vetted on the beta and added one at a time.

Even though norbert insists this compartmentalized, step by step system is better, the results are proving otherwise.  It's also much more difficult to make adjustments to individual variables since you can't independently test each one on it's own the way the engine is set up.  This is also being proved out by the results since the adjustments take so long and seem to have unintended side effects which shows a lot of unknown linkages.
5/28/2013 12:03 PM
Posted by slid64er on 5/28/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
IMO, go back to 1.0.  Adjust the distribution on running plays so they're not so deterministic (i.e. increase the variability).  When that's done, start adding bells and whistles to your heart's content as long as they're vetted on the beta and added one at a time.

Even though norbert insists this compartmentalized, step by step system is better, the results are proving otherwise.  It's also much more difficult to make adjustments to individual variables since you can't independently test each one on it's own the way the engine is set up.  This is also being proved out by the results since the adjustments take so long and seem to have unintended side effects which shows a lot of unknown linkages.
+1 to the 1.0 ideas oriole_fan.
5/28/2013 1:36 PM
I missed 1.0. Wasn't that the one with all the wishbone all run offenses?
5/28/2013 2:17 PM
1.0 wasn't all wishbone all run offenses.  There was a lot of heavy running teams, but there were passing teams to.  For myself, I ran out of the Box and passed out of Trips.  One of the NCs I won, I had more passing yards for the season than I did rushing.  Of course, it was within a couple hundred yards.
5/28/2013 4:03 PM
We all know the 1.0 is old code and not coming back. 3.0 has the potential to be better. BUT - as slider said, and I have argued against early in the beta, the player and play results are still to mushy to provide consistent ideas of what does what. The comparisons in the play-by-play code don't make sense (are they before or after all the modifying variables?). We may need to simplify and then work forward again. Did Nobert provide any "screws" (adjustable parameters or calculations to alter an end result). If he didn't you may want to add some so they can be easily adjusted with out big re-writes.

Main thing to oriole - Keep on the forums and keep us informed! Some of us have many hundreds of dollars invested in this game and want it to be playable.
5/28/2013 6:32 PM
I would like to know a little bit of your history and goals to getting this game complete, or at least playable.
5/29/2013 10:37 AM
Posted by slid64er on 5/28/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
IMO, go back to 1.0.  Adjust the distribution on running plays so they're not so deterministic (i.e. increase the variability).  When that's done, start adding bells and whistles to your heart's content as long as they're vetted on the beta and added one at a time.

Even though norbert insists this compartmentalized, step by step system is better, the results are proving otherwise.  It's also much more difficult to make adjustments to individual variables since you can't independently test each one on it's own the way the engine is set up.  This is also being proved out by the results since the adjustments take so long and seem to have unintended side effects which shows a lot of unknown linkages.
If I recall JConte's comments correctly, the 1.0 code doesn't exist anymore, and 2.0 (and subsequently 3.0) are written in an entirely different programming language, so just "go[ing] back to 1.0" isn't as simple as folks make it sound.

I've never seen an "anatomy of a play" for 1.0 - and I doubt anyone currently on the staff at WIS has, either - but I'm curious if anyone knows for sure - did 1.0 use (for lack of a better analogy) a "Strat-O-Matic" approach to play results?  (Call the play, roll the dice, look up the results).
5/29/2013 12:29 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 5/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 5/28/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
IMO, go back to 1.0.  Adjust the distribution on running plays so they're not so deterministic (i.e. increase the variability).  When that's done, start adding bells and whistles to your heart's content as long as they're vetted on the beta and added one at a time.

Even though norbert insists this compartmentalized, step by step system is better, the results are proving otherwise.  It's also much more difficult to make adjustments to individual variables since you can't independently test each one on it's own the way the engine is set up.  This is also being proved out by the results since the adjustments take so long and seem to have unintended side effects which shows a lot of unknown linkages.
If I recall JConte's comments correctly, the 1.0 code doesn't exist anymore, and 2.0 (and subsequently 3.0) are written in an entirely different programming language, so just "go[ing] back to 1.0" isn't as simple as folks make it sound.

I've never seen an "anatomy of a play" for 1.0 - and I doubt anyone currently on the staff at WIS has, either - but I'm curious if anyone knows for sure - did 1.0 use (for lack of a better analogy) a "Strat-O-Matic" approach to play results?  (Call the play, roll the dice, look up the results).
The code doesn't exist, but the engine mechanics could easily be transferred to a new language.  

5/29/2013 12:42 PM
Posted by slid64er on 5/29/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bhazlewood on 5/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 5/28/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
IMO, go back to 1.0.  Adjust the distribution on running plays so they're not so deterministic (i.e. increase the variability).  When that's done, start adding bells and whistles to your heart's content as long as they're vetted on the beta and added one at a time.

Even though norbert insists this compartmentalized, step by step system is better, the results are proving otherwise.  It's also much more difficult to make adjustments to individual variables since you can't independently test each one on it's own the way the engine is set up.  This is also being proved out by the results since the adjustments take so long and seem to have unintended side effects which shows a lot of unknown linkages.
If I recall JConte's comments correctly, the 1.0 code doesn't exist anymore, and 2.0 (and subsequently 3.0) are written in an entirely different programming language, so just "go[ing] back to 1.0" isn't as simple as folks make it sound.

I've never seen an "anatomy of a play" for 1.0 - and I doubt anyone currently on the staff at WIS has, either - but I'm curious if anyone knows for sure - did 1.0 use (for lack of a better analogy) a "Strat-O-Matic" approach to play results?  (Call the play, roll the dice, look up the results).
The code doesn't exist, but the engine mechanics could easily be transferred to a new language.  

Without the code, you're going to be re-inventing the game from scratch, unless those game mechanics are documented some place. I would be surprised if they are.  So basically you're advocating tossing out all of the work done on the 3.0 engine (and here I am speaking strictly of the 'generate game results' engine) and go back to square one with a redesign of the game mechanics, and a probable re-write of all of the code.

I'm not saying it's the wrong approach, by the way, but unless oriole_fan is a coding monster, we won't see 3.0 before 2015.

5/29/2013 1:51 PM
Posted by bhazlewood on 5/29/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 5/29/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bhazlewood on 5/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by slid64er on 5/28/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
IMO, go back to 1.0.  Adjust the distribution on running plays so they're not so deterministic (i.e. increase the variability).  When that's done, start adding bells and whistles to your heart's content as long as they're vetted on the beta and added one at a time.

Even though norbert insists this compartmentalized, step by step system is better, the results are proving otherwise.  It's also much more difficult to make adjustments to individual variables since you can't independently test each one on it's own the way the engine is set up.  This is also being proved out by the results since the adjustments take so long and seem to have unintended side effects which shows a lot of unknown linkages.
If I recall JConte's comments correctly, the 1.0 code doesn't exist anymore, and 2.0 (and subsequently 3.0) are written in an entirely different programming language, so just "go[ing] back to 1.0" isn't as simple as folks make it sound.

I've never seen an "anatomy of a play" for 1.0 - and I doubt anyone currently on the staff at WIS has, either - but I'm curious if anyone knows for sure - did 1.0 use (for lack of a better analogy) a "Strat-O-Matic" approach to play results?  (Call the play, roll the dice, look up the results).
The code doesn't exist, but the engine mechanics could easily be transferred to a new language.  

Without the code, you're going to be re-inventing the game from scratch, unless those game mechanics are documented some place. I would be surprised if they are.  So basically you're advocating tossing out all of the work done on the 3.0 engine (and here I am speaking strictly of the 'generate game results' engine) and go back to square one with a redesign of the game mechanics, and a probable re-write of all of the code.

I'm not saying it's the wrong approach, by the way, but unless oriole_fan is a coding monster, we won't see 3.0 before 2015.

From my own work experience using complex, multivariable models I can tell you that the way the current engine is set up is prone to unintended consequences and unseen linkages.  I honestly believe it would be faster to start from scratch than to keep making adjustments and counter adjustments on the way to a playable engine.  There's no way to test the inputs individually, so you're basically guessing and hoping the outcome is reasonable.  And even if they get the game playable in this current structure, there's no way to go about adding future improvements or adjustments without going through the whole guessing process all over again.



5/29/2013 8:01 PM
I sorta agree with slider. When Norbert ran this game out and gave us the code play by play to check out, it seemed fairly easy to understand how it set up with the steps and what happened next. But it seemed things kept getting added on rather than ironed out first. Now, we don't know if the basic design was flawed or all the extras that were added on. We may not need to go back to 1.0, but maybe we do need to go back to the initial 3.0 version and start looking at what is going on. We have caught and Norbert fixed many of the glaring problems (negative KO's and such). But what many coaches have stated about 1.0 (2.0 started as a mess and is just barely playable now) was it just needed tweaking. The 3.0 version we started with may just need tweaking also. But what may need to be tweaked is player ratings for recruits rather than the game. Version 1.0 just needed stronger QB's and DL to be better. Mayber 3.0 original just needs minor player tweaks. Oriole - ball is yours - what's the play?
5/29/2013 10:09 PM
top down

roll the dice for a half, roll the dice for another half

hire some writers and stats monks to generate the bullsh*t we all crave in tabular form
5/29/2013 10:28 PM
i just think they're wasting their energy
of 4

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.