 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Football Beta Testing » Football Beta Test Discussion » Fatigue effects/sub settings
Admin
Let's compare for a moment [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=493088]Karl Webster[/url] and [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?displaytab=stats&id=489186]Tom Estes[/url] of the Reapers (casperthegm's Zeta team). Webster is normally a starting WR (out with an injury right now) and Estes is normally a backup (currently starting at RB due to injury).
Overall rating:
Webster: 72
Estes: 65
These two players probably represent an average split between a starter and a backup. At 80% energy, Webster's ratings are about the same as Estes at 95%. Thus, the falloff is probably too steep.
Right now, the formula is linear, one of the few linear formulas I use in the game. Basically, for every 5 points of fatigue, 3% is lost off of the player's rating. So if a player had a 100 rating in a skill, at 80% energy they would have an effective rating of 88. That is too much of a drop.
I am looking at a new formula for fatigue, and at the possibility of not having Execution affected by fatigue (which would increase the value of Execution and playing your players in-position).
Chris
Fatigue effects/sub settings
April 15, 2014 at 05:20PM View BBCode
I want to split out the split out the discussion on fatigue and substitution settings from the rest of the discussion on "secrets of winning".Let's compare for a moment [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=493088]Karl Webster[/url] and [url=http://footballbeta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?displaytab=stats&id=489186]Tom Estes[/url] of the Reapers (casperthegm's Zeta team). Webster is normally a starting WR (out with an injury right now) and Estes is normally a backup (currently starting at RB due to injury).
Overall rating:
Webster: 72
Estes: 65
These two players probably represent an average split between a starter and a backup. At 80% energy, Webster's ratings are about the same as Estes at 95%. Thus, the falloff is probably too steep.
Right now, the formula is linear, one of the few linear formulas I use in the game. Basically, for every 5 points of fatigue, 3% is lost off of the player's rating. So if a player had a 100 rating in a skill, at 80% energy they would have an effective rating of 88. That is too much of a drop.
I am looking at a new formula for fatigue, and at the possibility of not having Execution affected by fatigue (which would increase the value of Execution and playing your players in-position).
Chris
dirtdevil
as to the fatigue effects, off the top of my head I think a couple of things. one, the higher STAM players, if they don't already, should likely tire slower, maybe significantly. it would add some value to that rating as well as being intuitively realistic.
I also kind of think that the 'star' player should maybe tire more slowly than the 'scrubs'. the top players are just so much better than the backups in real life. a tired Calvin Johnson is almost always still better than his fresh backup, whoever that is. right now that isn't the case here. where that effect should kick in in terms of rating numbers, I don't know. I do think that it should be tied to something else other than overall rating, but that might be too hard to code, since it would have to be done separately for each position.
April 15, 2014 at 05:39PM View BBCode
I think intuitively, EXE should decrease with fatigue. I'm also not sure how much of an issue it should be with out of position players with the new position change code coming in.as to the fatigue effects, off the top of my head I think a couple of things. one, the higher STAM players, if they don't already, should likely tire slower, maybe significantly. it would add some value to that rating as well as being intuitively realistic.
I also kind of think that the 'star' player should maybe tire more slowly than the 'scrubs'. the top players are just so much better than the backups in real life. a tired Calvin Johnson is almost always still better than his fresh backup, whoever that is. right now that isn't the case here. where that effect should kick in in terms of rating numbers, I don't know. I do think that it should be tied to something else other than overall rating, but that might be too hard to code, since it would have to be done separately for each position.
Admin
They do, tire slower than those with lower stamina; do you mean they should tire even slower than they already do?
The tricky part, as always, is balance. If we take the teeth too much out of fatigue, we drastically reduce the benefits of depth.
One thing I have thought about is giving players special ratings, but that feels like a Madden-style crutch. But, say, a WR with high Catching, high Jumping and high Execution gets a "Playmaker" rating, and players that are rated as Playmakers get a bonus on things like spectacular catch and such, and the Playmaker rating wouldn't go away just because a player is tired. Thus, even if a star is tired, and his ratings in general are lower than his backups, he will still be able to pull off things that an average bench warmer couldn't do.
These wouldn't be numerical ratings, just "badges" on a player card, maybe with one or two levels. Again, this is pretty much a Madden rip, and I know that Madden isn't held in high regard among hardcore sim players, but it helps bring some of the "intangibles" of a star player to the table in more specific ways than just high Execution.
Chris
April 15, 2014 at 06:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
as to the fatigue effects, off the top of my head I think a couple of things. one, the higher STAM players, if they don't already, should likely tire slower, maybe significantly. it would add some value to that rating as well as being intuitively realistic.
They do, tire slower than those with lower stamina; do you mean they should tire even slower than they already do?
I also kind of think that the 'star' player should maybe tire more slowly than the 'scrubs'. the top players are just so much better than the backups in real life. a tired Calvin Johnson is almost always still better than his fresh backup, whoever that is. right now that isn't the case here. where that effect should kick in in terms of rating numbers, I don't know. I do think that it should be tied to something else other than overall rating, but that might be too hard to code, since it would have to be done separately for each position.
The tricky part, as always, is balance. If we take the teeth too much out of fatigue, we drastically reduce the benefits of depth.
One thing I have thought about is giving players special ratings, but that feels like a Madden-style crutch. But, say, a WR with high Catching, high Jumping and high Execution gets a "Playmaker" rating, and players that are rated as Playmakers get a bonus on things like spectacular catch and such, and the Playmaker rating wouldn't go away just because a player is tired. Thus, even if a star is tired, and his ratings in general are lower than his backups, he will still be able to pull off things that an average bench warmer couldn't do.
These wouldn't be numerical ratings, just "badges" on a player card, maybe with one or two levels. Again, this is pretty much a Madden rip, and I know that Madden isn't held in high regard among hardcore sim players, but it helps bring some of the "intangibles" of a star player to the table in more specific ways than just high Execution.
Chris
dirtdevil
[Edited on 4-15-2014 by dirtdevil]
April 15, 2014 at 06:08PM View BBCode
yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the playmaker idea, either. it just seems artificial to me. what about a progressive scale for fatigue effects? something like a 1% drop in ratings for the first 5 points of fatigue, 2% for the next 10 (split in two sets of 5) and 3% per thereafter? then that player with a 100 ratings at 80% energy would be playing at 93.[Edited on 4-15-2014 by dirtdevil]
Admin
I am working on something like that now. Of course, my formula is much more complex because that is just how I roll. The formula I am currently looking at would, for a rating of 100, give the following results:
At 95%: 99.4
At 90%: 98
At 85%: 96
At 80%: 93.4
At 75%: 90.2
At 70%: 86.5
At 65%: 82.5
At 60%: 78.2
At 55%: 73.7
At 50%: 69.2
The existing formula gives these results:
At 95%: 97
At 90%: 94
At 85%: 91
At 80%: 88
At 75%: 85
At 70%: 82
At 65%: 79
At 60%: 76
At 55%: 73
At 50%: 70
The new formula can be simply explained as "At 85% there is a 4% drop, at 75% there is a 10% drop, and at 50% there is a 30% drop". The actual formula is:
newRating = rating*(1-sin((-50+fatigue)*0.0325))/3.6+(rating/2.25)
Chris
April 15, 2014 at 06:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the playmaker idea, either. it just seems artificial to me. what about a progressive scale for fatigue effects? something like a 1% drop in ratings for the first 5 points of fatigue, 2% for the next 10 (split in two sets of 5) and 3% per thereafter? then that player with a 100 ratings at 80% energy would be playing at 93.
[Edited on 4-15-2014 by dirtdevil]
I am working on something like that now. Of course, my formula is much more complex because that is just how I roll. The formula I am currently looking at would, for a rating of 100, give the following results:
At 95%: 99.4
At 90%: 98
At 85%: 96
At 80%: 93.4
At 75%: 90.2
At 70%: 86.5
At 65%: 82.5
At 60%: 78.2
At 55%: 73.7
At 50%: 69.2
The existing formula gives these results:
At 95%: 97
At 90%: 94
At 85%: 91
At 80%: 88
At 75%: 85
At 70%: 82
At 65%: 79
At 60%: 76
At 55%: 73
At 50%: 70
The new formula can be simply explained as "At 85% there is a 4% drop, at 75% there is a 10% drop, and at 50% there is a 30% drop". The actual formula is:
newRating = rating*(1-sin((-50+fatigue)*0.0325))/3.6+(rating/2.25)
Chris
dirtdevil
April 15, 2014 at 07:49PM View BBCode
so the differences in the two formulas is much more pronounced at 70-90% and less at ether end? 55 and 50 are essentially the same. I guess the question is, at what point to we want it more beneficial for the average backup to sub for the average starter? if it's 75%, then I think the new formula works. if it's 65% I think it doesn't. if it's 70%, I think people will go either way at those rates and that's probably the tipping point, if that makes sense.
casperthegm
Yeah, I think I generally agree with that. And again, it depends on the quality of the replacements at a given position.
April 15, 2014 at 07:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
so the differences in the two formulas is much more pronounced at 70-90% and less at ether end? 55 and 50 are essentially the same. I guess the question is, at what point to we want it more beneficial for the average backup to sub for the average starter? if it's 75%, then I think the new formula works. if it's 65% I think it doesn't. if it's 70%, I think people will go either way at those rates and that's probably the tipping point, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I think I generally agree with that. And again, it depends on the quality of the replacements at a given position.
Admin
Here is a graph of the new vs old formulas:
[Edited on 4-15-2014 by Admin]
April 15, 2014 at 08:40PM View BBCode
It's going to vary by position... but 80% is definitely too high. This will also reduce some of the complaints about Conditioning being too big of a factor.Here is a graph of the new vs old formulas:
[Edited on 4-15-2014 by Admin]
Admin has attached this image:
Fulla
Could you eliminate the 80% option so the highest anyone can sub is 75%?
April 15, 2014 at 11:53PM View BBCode
In the NFL, its the big heavy guys who tire quickest. Those with less body fat can play all day. In the sim, I think the OL & DL should be subbed more frequently.Originally posted by Admin
but 80% is definitely too high.
Could you eliminate the 80% option so the highest anyone can sub is 75%?
Admin
Now, if you want to bone up on offensive linemen and sub them out, great, but a team shouldn't have enough roster slots to support the needed depth at 80% across the board.
Chris
April 16, 2014 at 02:56AM View BBCode
The limits should never necessarily be at the "reasonable" setting, but there need to be consequences to overdoing a setting, and some sort of communication of that. Now that we have the yellow energy bars, it's easier to see when you are wiping out most of your players subbing too often. Making them take a smidge longer to recover might help too; an extra couple of plays doesn't make a difference at reasonable settings but at 80% could cause a horrible chain reaction if you don't have the depth to cover it.Now, if you want to bone up on offensive linemen and sub them out, great, but a team shouldn't have enough roster slots to support the needed depth at 80% across the board.
Chris
dirtdevil
the trick is to marry 80% sub settings with formational substitutions. if you manage your formations right, it's rare to see someone get to 80%, so the actual fatigue sub-outs are uncommon enough that you aren't tiring everyone who can play at a set position in the process. you only really need a 'lot' of depth at a position if you run a severely unbalanced offence. then you need depth to cover for the people in the 'overused' formation.
April 16, 2014 at 12:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
The limits should never necessarily be at the "reasonable" setting, but there need to be consequences to overdoing a setting, and some sort of communication of that. Now that we have the yellow energy bars, it's easier to see when you are wiping out most of your players subbing too often. Making them take a smidge longer to recover might help too; an extra couple of plays doesn't make a difference at reasonable settings but at 80% could cause a horrible chain reaction if you don't have the depth to cover it.
Now, if you want to bone up on offensive linemen and sub them out, great, but a team shouldn't have enough roster slots to support the needed depth at 80% across the board.
Chris
the trick is to marry 80% sub settings with formational substitutions. if you manage your formations right, it's rare to see someone get to 80%, so the actual fatigue sub-outs are uncommon enough that you aren't tiring everyone who can play at a set position in the process. you only really need a 'lot' of depth at a position if you run a severely unbalanced offence. then you need depth to cover for the people in the 'overused' formation.
dirtdevil
April 16, 2014 at 12:59PM View BBCode
it would be interesting actually, to know how often my high fatigue settings actually kick in for substitutions and how well the formational stuff manages the issue.
Admin
Chris
April 16, 2014 at 02:21PM View BBCode
You can see that by watching DynastyVision. If your fatigue bars are never turning yellow, your players are never reaching "sub out".Chris
Admin
Chris
[Edited on 4-18-2014 by Admin]
April 16, 2014 at 02:25PM View BBCode
However, it is worth noting that I have been considering a change that may make this strategy less useful, in that rest would no longer be linear... so sitting out for only a minute here or there would not recover any useful energy. You might get 0% recovered in the first 30 seconds you sit, 25% of normal in the next minute, 50% of normal in the next minute, then after you've been resting at least three minutes you would start recovering energy like normal. So players on actual rest will recover almost like normal but those alternating every other play won't be recovering as fast as they do now.Chris
[Edited on 4-18-2014 by Admin]
dirtdevil
that seems kind of silly to me, to be honest. I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think that's the way to do it. it's completely counter-intuitive.
April 16, 2014 at 02:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
However, it is worth noting that I have been considering a change that may make this strategy less useful, in that rest would no longer be linear... so sitting out for only a minute here or there would not recover any useful energy. You might get 0% recovered in the first 30 seconds you sit, 25% of normal in the next minute, 50% of normal in the next minute, then after you've been resting at least three minutes you would start recovering energy like normal. So players on actual rest will recover almost like normal but hose alternating every other play won't be recovering as fast as they do now.
Chris
that seems kind of silly to me, to be honest. I can see what you're trying to do, but I don't think that's the way to do it. it's completely counter-intuitive.
Pages: 1