|
Post by Bob on Jul 11, 2013 21:00:43 GMT -8
Okay, if Remi dropped and I can't seem to talk the wife into playing, so that leaves 8 teams. Do we want an 8-team league, or do we want Goers and/or Aurochs? If we do Goers/Aurochs, I'd like to try to make their stats as close to the actual players as possible, meaning FF Wiki FTW. Aurochs being a level behind ('cept maybe Wakka) and Goers being a level ahead. Ya?
Oh, and btw, I've fixed up the program so now people won't shoot until they touch or cross the halfway line (x-position = 0).
Super Goalie and Keepa have been implemented and I'm keeping a close eye on the Keepa package because it MIGHT be OP, so we'll see. Might have to edit in the future and either remove the package or edit it down to 1 SHT 1 CA or something like that. We'll allow all players using it to reformat though, if we need to take drastic measures. For now, just monitoring.
And lastly, I put in a measure to prevent the Juice issue from before. If the program doesn't find your name in both teamdata AND playerdata, it won't sim the game and it'll even tell you which player is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 11, 2013 21:28:37 GMT -8
This is what I have for Aurochs. Currently, Wakka is on par (level 15) while the rest are two down (13). I tried to make their stats similar to their stats in the game, but since our scale is different, things are a tad off. Especially Keepa, who I'm giving some decent SHT, even though he doesn't get SHT until really late levels, but I'm going for the true Auroch's Spirit approach with Wakka. Hoping We'll get some fearful SHT out of Wakka.
Besaid Aurochs Wakka=2|0|0|0|5|2|6|0|0|0|HIGH Datto=0|0|0|0|4|3|3|3|0|0|LOW Letty=4|4|0|0|2|3|0|0|0|0|LOW Botta=0|1|1|5|0|0|0|6|0|0|LOW Jassu=5|0|3|4|1|0|0|0|0|0|LOW Keepa=2|1|0|0|0|0|0|0|5|5|LOW Chappu=0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|LOW Chapoop=0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|LOW
I figure we don't need reserves for this team, hence the placeholder names at the end. I think the Aurochs will just kinda hang out, same line-up game after game, just for simplicity's sake.
(And despite doing this work, I'm okay with scrapping the Aurochs and Goers if ya'll don't want them, I'm just having fun screwing around right now).
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Jul 11, 2013 21:50:05 GMT -8
I vote to keep 'em! But 9 teams makes for unhappy brackets during the season. So if we keep the Aurochs, we either need to add the Goers to balance it out, or start talking about the logistics of bye rounds.
|
|
|
Post by wyvernxk7 on Jul 12, 2013 5:58:52 GMT -8
I'm all for both teams!
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 12, 2013 6:14:57 GMT -8
Mmkay. I'm over halfway to finishing up the Goers. After work, I'll create the team brackets and finalize the Goers stats. I'm making their goalie only level 15, but everybody else level 17. They'll be tough, but at the very least, the Goers aren't a terribly stacked team. I'm going by their approximate in-game stat distributions, which means even their forwards aren't as amazing as some of our level 15 forwards. But still, level 17!
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 27, 2013 15:44:39 GMT -8
Just realized our ballspot distance (the distance that a defender can spot and start moving toward the ball carrier) is currently at 7. I remember now that 3 was too small because they'd spot them too late, but I'm thinking 7 is way too big. I'm cutting it down to 6. Maybe this'll help reduce clusters. Could go more, too, so some testing might be involved.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 28, 2013 19:56:58 GMT -8
Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey guys. Guys. Guess what? Guess. What. Question Mark.
I totally ignored everybody and did what I wanted! ...Okay, not entirely true, but there are hints of truth to it. Sorry. I've made some program modifications. They're not tested yet, but they ARE programmed. Easy to remove if faulty, but I think they'll work out. Lemme know what you think, and feel free to download all the Version 5 stuff (new program, new spreadsheet) and test it out. Let me know if you find bugs.
Now... an explanation!
I've mentioned it before, but I put in a system that uses "Risk" and "Type." Risk has now been changed so that it changes the high and low boundaries for the random value of a stat. Higher risk means more variation in the true "high risk high reward" idea.
HIGH Risk: -30% to 30% of any stat. NORMAL Risk: -20% to 20% of any stat (this is the current stat variation) LOW Risk: -10% to 10% of any stat.
There is also a Type variable now. Each Type increases one stat's high/low boundaries positively and one negatively. The amount they influence that stat depends on Risk.
HIGH Risk, Good Type: -15% to 45% HIGH Risk, Bad Type: -45% to 15%
NORMAL Risk, Good Type: -10% to 30% NORMAL Risk, Bad Type: -30% to 10%
LOW Risk, Good Type: -5% to 15% LOW Risk, Bad Type: -15% to 5%
The possible values for Type are as follow. Use the one- or two-letter abbreviations, not the full names.
BH = "Ball Hog" END up, PAS down TP = "Team Player" PAS up, ATK down AW = "Attention Whore" SHT up, END down PB = "Penalty Box" ATK up, BLK down BF = "Butter Fingers" BLK up, CA down C = "Catcher" CA up, SHT down NO = "Normal/Screw this crap" No ups, no downs
My Comments: I think that this system will allow us a ton of variation in play styles. I AM willing to not use it, but I'd really like to because I see a lot of potential for it. It is already programmed because the changes were incredibly subtle. While you may fear somebody with the "Attention Whore" Type that can get a whopping 45% boost to their SHT, I do also think that it will balance out because I also made a tweak to the program: separate the player stat and random goalie boost stat. This means that now, instead of having Gafgarion's SHT of 38 added to Worker 8's SHT bonus of 20, then taking a number like 58 and doing the boundaries (possibly going as high as 70), it'll randomly pick a random value for Gaf's stat, then randomize the 20 from Worker 8. Yes, there is still the potential for a high value, but the likeliness is much lower (the odds of both of them obtaining the high stats of 46 and 24 are very low).
Also, goalies will be affected by their OWN Type and Risk, even on goalie bonuses. So if you have a High Risk, Attention Whore forward taking a shot, he might receive a goalie from his Low Risk, Catcher goalie, giving him a rather poor bonus. I like this for two reasons. One, it makes it a lot harder to get a super SHT bonus, or really a super anything bonus since the player and the goalie need the same type and both high risk. The second reason is that I feel like goalies now have a reason to have their own Risk and Type. Granted, basically every goalie will be a Catcher, which essentially means they won't be doling out the super shots, not to mention that goalies will be very superior in their positions now, as opposed to a defender that needs to cover for a game or two.
So...thoughts? Hoping you're all up for a new game dynamic that doesn't change things TOO drastically, but does add a new dynamic to the game. I like variables. Makes each team more unique...presumably.
========================================
Finally: for next round, regardless of if you like the above proposal, I have adjusted Super Goalie to be 1.5 CA and the new Excel file includes this, plus a floor feature to remove the decimal so you will see the same value that the program will use. Any players that currently have Super Goalie may remove Super Goalie packages for "free" and reallocate them, as Wyvern asked in another thread, but only Super Goalie packages. So if you don't want them now that they're only 1.5, you can remove them and move them to another package.
And, as we said before, you can completely respec one player on your team. Name changes are okay, but must be announced. All players can now be as high as Level 20. I recommend the new spreadsheet (found on "How to Play" thread) for an accurate CA, plus it'll help you with Risk and Type...unless I get too many boo's from the crowd with my new idea(s).
Questions? Comments? Braaaaaains?
EDIT: Umm, just for the record, in doing a couple quick tests, I AM finding a lot of high-scoring games. I had a 12-11 game GB vs MRC (using last season's stats and random Types/Risks), followed by a 6-4. I DO have high-scoring teams, but I'm almost wondering if my new system takes care of the Super Goalie problems. In other words, I'm thinking we can actually KEEP the 2 CA on Super Goalie. If people wouldn't mind making a few test teams and checking for me, are you also getting high-scoring games? I can very easily turn it back to 2 CA...
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on Aug 29, 2013 0:55:02 GMT -8
Took me a couple of re-reads to understand that system, but now I do I think it looks pretty cool! I do like the idea of these variation packages, especially since they're only really optional. Only teams who want to use it need to. There's probably an overpowered setup in there, some kind of combination of level up packages and type/risk, but I think that's the case in any game that adds greater amounts of variation and depth, and if someone does stumble upon a crazy-good instawin formula, it can be tweaked down the line.
For the super goalie thing, I think it's best to try SM7 using their default lineup with 0 super goalies, vs a team which has 4-5 super goalies. SM7 in theory have a strong aggressive presence, with good, high-endurance forwards, so if they're placed against a similar team dynamic with the only difference being that they have a big super goalie, it may be a good way to find out if the new super goalie is balanced or not. Someone like the Nightshades, Grizzlies, or Guest Who may fit the bill (not sure what their goalies are like)?
I know SM7 had a HUGE drop in success in the second season and I assumed that the lack of a super goalie package was the main contributor to that, now is definitely a good time to test these things out to make sure that it really is the case, and that I hadn't fucked up somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by Fleck on Aug 29, 2013 2:29:29 GMT -8
Overall, I like the idea. It's nothing too complicated, but it adds more customization and personality to the game. Here's my thoughts.
Of course, I am always going to advocate lots of testing. With all these addition options, the chances of someone stumbling upon a super combo increases dramatically. But I STILL cannot get the damn blitz program to run correctly, so I don't think I'll be much help in this regard. Sorry, y'all.
I think that there should be more options for our designated Forwards and Goalies. I can't speak with any certainty, but I feel that--for the most part--we've all designed our goalies and our forwards basically the same. Dump points into SHT for forwards and dump CA for goalies. While these new options provide a lot of customization options for defenders, centers, and reserves, we kinda already had lots of variations in those fields. It's our forwards and goalies that have the homogenization problems. If we can come up with Type packages that add some variation to those positions, I'd be a happy Fleck.
Personally, I think the Attention Whore Type has a capacity to be--if not OP--then at least too useful to be ignored. Like, why would you really give your forward anything else? MAAYBE Ball Hog for the END, but I think that would be a rare exception for a novelty player, not something you'd give your star forward. Maybe we can adjust AW so that it gives SHT up while giving END down? That would at least make it a riskier proposition for a forward and make people consider using other bonuses instead.
As for the CA... I don't have any ideas at the moment. But, it is 530 in the morning here. Maybe I'll have a stroke of brilliance when I go to bed.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 29, 2013 6:06:25 GMT -8
I could maybe see turning Attention Whore into an END down. Then giving Penalty Box the BLK down instead. I will say though, as I'm designing characters, I'm probably about 60/40 Attention Whore to Ball Hog.
I think what'll help keep from the OP-ness is the fact that goalies now use their own bonuses. So now a goalie will give a bonus using his own boost, so unless the goalie is ALSO an Attention Whore, then his CA boost will be kinda meh.
The BIG thing I'm noticing in tests here is that High Risk is VERY dangerous. I was having much better luck with Tseng at Normal Risk than Gafgarion at High Risk because Gaf was deciding he could shoot from half court, then it'd get down to 9 by the time it reached the goal, whereas Tseng would get a lot closer and take a more reasonable shot. I wouldn't be surprised if this new system will turn High Risk players into just that: risky players. They might come through in the clutch, but on the whole, they'll probably let you down a lot.
I'll try to test this a bunch before starting the league, but I'd still like to start the league quickly. Maybe in a week or two?
|
|
|
Post by wyvernxk7 on Aug 29, 2013 7:07:44 GMT -8
I have an issue with the 'Team Player' Type: I can't imagine a logical scenario where hindering attack for the sake of pass makes sense. Block, I could see, but with no attack, how does the player ever get the ball consistently to begin with?
My suggestion is switching the hindrances of Team Player and Attention Whore so that TP is ^PAS, vBLK and AW is ^SHT, vATK, which would also make AW less OP, because again, is the trade-off worth it to have a super shooter who can't grab the ball? I think it makes it less of a foregone conclusion for AW that way.
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on Aug 29, 2013 7:38:20 GMT -8
Actually, I can see TP working very nicely for The Magic Missiles, and I'm toying with the idea of giving it to every player, goalie included. The loss of attack may be a bit of a problem, but when you do get it in your control (either by blocking or catching, most likely), it'll be even harder for the enemy to wrest it from your team. Then again, MAG is a team that's suited to what's an otherwise niche skill.
Besides, you don't need to give TP to everyone. If you've got a player who's a bit shit on attack anyway, a percentage loss of attack probably won't make a huge amount of difference, but if they're in a position where a good pass can make a difference, it'll work out nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 29, 2013 15:32:14 GMT -8
In regard to your idea, Wyvern, I do want it to be clear that I'm not implementing these to give a huge advantage to players. The downside to each package is intended to make one skeptical about it. These Type Bonuses are optional, so you can easily opt out if you'd rather not have that bonus shift. Some characters would benefit from a PAS boost and not care about an ATK decrease, but if you have a player that WOULD care about an ATK decrease, then they should avoid the Team Player package and either stick to the Normal package or find a different one.
Part of it is also that I want the packages to make sense. Team Player would be a player that plays by the rules. Lots of passing, not much hitting. That's also why I like the proposal to change AW to ^SHT, vEND because it makes sense. Like in basketball. It's always the star shooters that if they miss a shot, they pretend like they got fouled and cry a lot. Likewise, Penalty Box isn't going to block! Screw that noise! Just punch 'em in the nose and take it! So PB is going to be vBLK now. Also, I like that it again hinders defenders that take this package because ATK is good, BLK is good, so do you REALLY want more ATK if it means sacrificing BLK? (The answer is yes, btw, because ATK > BLK in blitz).
Changes have been made, including new program. Glad I looked, too, because I actually had an error that is now fixed.
But yeah, sorry, Wyvern, I like TP as is.
|
|
|
Post by wyvernxk7 on Sept 2, 2013 7:39:50 GMT -8
A question for the future, and one I posed to Bob two nights ago:
What if your team's dynamic just isn't doing it for you anymore? You built it around specific players or strategies that you're frankly sick of pursuing... Are you stuck trying to change it one player at a time, or can you scrap your team entirely and rebuild?
And if you can rebuild, should there be a penalty for doing so? I would think there should be, but only a small one. For instance, a -1 lvl. goalie or -1 lvl. all players or -1 lvl reserves. After the first go around (or maybe even between the league and the tournament in a given season), the hindered players are able to catch up and are on an even playing field thereafter.
Thoughts? I would figure you probably couldn't use any of your old player names, although names don't really make much of a difference if they're completely overhauled, but still, I think it should be required to do a new team name and all new player names except perhaps one (think "I'm quittin' this joint and makin' my own team!), but even if you took a player over, they would NOT be able to have the same build.
Anyway...
|
|
|
Post by countlieberkuhn on Sept 2, 2013 11:25:50 GMT -8
I don't see an issue with this even if they keep the same levels as everyone else, honestly. So long as the team is different enough to feel like an all new team, rather than a lame attempt to bypass our rebuild rules, but I'm pretty sure we're all cool-enough dudes to play it fair
|
|