I like that idea of grouping. That is the easiest visual of these are the play types to be called most often and here's the strongest weight for each play in that type.

How about weights for plays in the playbook? If I weight a certain play 100 for example it should get called a good amount while a play weighted like 10 would possibly get called but it would be much less likely. This way we can avoid trimming our playbooks to a small group of plays while also forcing certain plays to be used more without having to always use rules to do it.

I like this as an eventual change, but for right now, I'd be happy with a display that is accurate.

I guess I'm an idiot because that's exactly what I thought an 80/20 run/pass ratio would mean. No wonder it always seems like the plays being called have nothing to do with the gameplanning I have setup.

I'm about ready to give up trying to create a gameplan until there are some better tools that actually make sense and do what you'd expect. I'm probably doing more harm than good as it is now.

Currently if you have an 80/20 split, you will run 80% of the time. I was wrong because I thought that the play split was multiplied by the personnel split. So if I have an 80/20 split but I should only be calling 113 sets 20% of the time, I thought that the probability would be 16% (4/5 play x 1/5 personnel).

Instead we have a union of the two sets where the play split is evaluated first so play U set will yield you running the 113 set 80% of the time if that's where your only running play is.

I was describing what would happen if it didn't take the play type into consideration first - the way it works right now you -will- run 80% of the time and pass 20% of the time in that example, but if you don't have enough appropriate plays of each type and/or have low weights for some formations, it is difficult to figure out which actual play will get called.

The more I think about it the more I believe grouping by play type on that popup is going to solve it, hopefully I can roll that out in the next few days.

This sounds like a full-time job, going in and doing the calculations and weightings and such. The time invested into all the research etc sounds about as fun as the history of plant life in a local garden...

Take the game seriously! :)

Apparently big-time, setherick!!!

This is problem?
" I probably need to dust off my statistics book and review how to best display the probability in this case. The weights are calculated on the popup by multiplying the two sets together, but it breaks down when you have an uneven distribution of plays through the formations and play types"

Now plays do not need to be redistributed manually because the engine is now looking at play type first? Or is this a visual thing in the veiw plays pop up?

This is my veiw as i would do that myself depending on the situation in the game plan. To achieve desirable results.

If you take 40 plays down to 10 plays because its 3rd and 3 ......under that senerio i would just strengthen those ten plays by multiplying them by 10 instead of the 2.5 at 40 plays. If formatioms followed suit the balance would be there and the correct plays would be called.

I see the problem as the engine skips this redistribution of multipiying the two sets together for both plays and formatioms when isolated plays are called.

Really i might play this game crazy, because senerios dictated by rules will have no visuals to go by anyway. So, i am on the fence, but this is a great step!

I understood this before but now i think i am lost, but you have my complete faith JDB!

I think you guys found a good one here.. thanks to everyone with their patience this one had its tough moments and might not be over yet, but really...nice work!