[2024] Spring/Preseason Games NewSim Feedback

[subsequent]

Please use this thread to provide any feedback on the game engine that is related to 2024 Spring and Preseason Games in order to help us triage any issues that may need to be solved prior to the season start.

[subsequent]

In the Week 1 NIU vs Michigan Spring Game, it looks like towards the end of the game, Michigan passed the ball a lot despite winning and NIU ran the ball a lot despite losing.

In Michigan's final possesion, they were winning by 7 points with 5:55 remaining in the 4th quarter and threw the ball 7 times while rushing 3 times, resulting in a touchdown with 1:27 remaining.

In NIU's final possession, they were losing by 14 points with 1:15 remaining in the 4th quarter and threw the ball 1 time while rushing 3 times.

Additionally, Michigan's gameplan looked like the following:

Run to Pass ratio was 20:80 and there are no points allocated to Option or RPO.

Michigan dropped back to pass 35 times and ran the ball 34 times in the game against NIU.

[PoopyRhinoPickle]

From Week 1 Spring Game between Bowling Green and SMU:

Kickoff is caught at the 1 and returned 16 yards then the next play takes place at the 23 yard line.

The next kickoff appears to be off as well:

 

Tackles recorded and yards lost/gained on incomplete passes:

 

Offensive holding call results in replaying the down:

Edited March 29 by PoopyRhinoPickle

[Wahoo]

Homie tried to throw it to himself. Also ended up losing a yard on the incomplete pass (PRP noted this above).

FG yardage is off. 52 yard attempt from 17 yard line (should be 34 yard attempt). Note that TEMP had a later FG attempt where the yardage was correct. Also the blurb is missing the word "yard". Temple then took over at TEMP 43 LOS after this. Guessing that is tied to field goal/punt/yardage issues though.

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly, I think there are LOS issues. I would've expected to take over at UVA 26 after Temple missed the FG, but instead it switches to TEMP 26.

Temple scored a safety while they were on offense, and then UVA kicked off after they scored. Could be tied to LOS stuff.

 

After looking through it, it seems like we were both trying to score on same side of the field? For example, Temple would be at UVA 3 and then score a touchdown (normal), but when UVA got the ball, they would start at TEMP yard lines and progress to UVA yard lines and score from UVA 3 (seems weird).

 

2 point conversions worked correctly (very cool!) and UVA went for 4th downs in 4th quarter when they were losing (awesome!). Also really enjoyed being able to see the formations used. I was very curious what the AI would set up.

[SageBow]

Illinois vs Utah

Despite having my Kicker line up set, my punter took a field goal in the 1st quarter

Additionally, this was on the 43 yard line, would have been a 60 yard field goal, not a 23 yard attempt. There were other special teams and yardage issues associated with those plays, but I'm assuming these will all get fixed together.

 

Post Penalty Yardage - Holden throws a 35 yard piss missile and it looks like we take the gain correctly over a 15 yard penalty, but it's a move of 22 yards to the 23 yard line instead of down to the 10

 

Play 87 is a weirdo. Incomplete pass, but treated as a -11 yard loss. Also a self pass. Similar error occurs again at Play 145 and 164. 

[smackemz]

WVU - Washington State

I see that logic has been improved on when to take and when to not take a penalty. However there are still some examples where a 5 yard penalty is taken over a big gain. For example - this play. 

[smackemz]

This is being discussed in Discord, but placing here just so it's tracked.  Teams have a lot of WRs with several rushing attempts.  The speculation is that RPO passes are being counted as runs by the WR and not a pass/catch. 

 

[Ricky Campbell]

I also have the punter kicking FGs error

[kgreene829]

Tulane vs Purdue

DTs shouldn't have been playing for me but Trent Sale was.

 

Punt yards aren't displaying


Dashaun Knight and William Henry shouldn't have gotten any rushing attempts and Daniel Bell and J'Mon Marte shouldn't have gotten any targets since I set all of their distributions to 0.


Looks like I missed a FG but redid the down and punted it


Just like Wahoo my QB also tried to throw the ball to himself this was on the first play of the game

Edited March 30 by kgreene829

[Curby4]

1 hour ago, Ricky Campbell said:

I also have the punter kicking FGs error

Same happened to me. 

[JC.]

Box score appears to be incorrect for quarters and final  - with actual score to the right hand side of these  

 

[Bundy]

 

Kansas at Wisconsin, Spring Week 1

163	24	22	4	KANS	01:21		2 KANS	Run	Peek Inside Right	Splitback Gun	4-3 Over	Inside Right	Pass Defense	0	Zone	Zone	Zone	2	KANS RB Cody Casspi carries for 2 yards. The 2 Point Conversion is GOOD!
164	24	24	4	KANS	01:21		35 WISC	Kickoff	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0	Man	Man	Man	66	KANS K Jake Ramirez kicks for 66 yards. Fielded deep in the endzone by WISC WR Bryan Reed. Touchback. The 2 Point Conversion is NO GOOD!

didn't effect anything, but play 162 we score a TD, play 163 we do a 2pt conversion and make it, and then on the kickoff it's yelling about a 2 pt conversion being NO GOOD!, so Im wondering if it would have some sort of 2pt logic where it could say "the 2 point coversion is GOOD!" despite it being a kickoff and giving the team that just scored another 2 points.  

[Bundy]

Wondering if we can eventually get some OT logic, Kansas scored a TD on 1st possession so Wisconsin needed a TD to match, and instead settled for a FG which ended the game

179	24	31	5	WISC	15:00	3rd and 9	24 KANS	Pass	Play Action Short	Pistol	4-2-5 Base	Short	Run Defense	0	Zone	Zone	Zone	5	WISC QB Adam Outman throws to WISC WR James Oreilly complete for 5 yards. Tackled by KANS SS Chance Johnson.
180	24	31	5	WISC	15:00	4th and 4	19 KANS	FG	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	0	Man	Man	Man	56	WISC K Daniel McGowan's 36 field goal attempt is good.

[SageBow]

20 hours ago, SageBow said:

Play 87 is a weirdo. Incomplete pass, but treated as a -11 yard loss. Also a self pass. Similar error occurs again at Play 145 and 164. 

 

Doing a deeper dive, I believe this is how the script is notating for sacks taken. hope this helps!

[tsweezy]

 

Looking at the exported play by plays, I noticed that all coverage groups are set to the same man or zone scheme (see below). Both myself and Tulsa did not have these selected (I had zone/zone/man and Tulsa had Man/zone/zone). Looking at a few other games it also looks like none were set to different coverage schema between the groups. Not sure if this is an issue in reporting on the plays, or an issue with the actual groups running the "wrong" scheme in the actual game (would love to know which to see if it hurts my estimation of Savage's abilities)

 

[Vivid]

This is more conseptual than anything else. But when I did my defensive game planning it had listed the offence I was going against as "vertical". In the play-by-play that it looks like a wingT or double wing was used. This switches my defensive scheme from a bonus to a malus without any chance to reset or select formation matchups. With the added bonus/malus for scheme fit and the requirement to match defensive formation to offensive formation this puts teams at a deficit for game planning early in the week. I'm not even sure how the formation matchups would go with this change.

 

Potential solutions:

• Remove specific scheme/formation bonus/malus (e.g., speed getting malus against wing but bonus against vertical) as this should come into play already with positional bonus/malus and leveraging different players on the field
• (less ideal) Set certain timeframe for offensive gameplans to lock in order to be able to set defensive matchups (similar to how subbing works in real life). Otherwise the interface could show you are going against a spread (aligned with a nickle) but in fact its going against a double wing.

Edited March 31 by Vivid

[SageBow]

1 hour ago, Vivid said:

This is more conseptual than anything else. But when I did my defensive game planning it had listed the offence I was going against as "vertical". In the play-by-play that it looks like a wingT or double wing was used. This switches my defensive scheme from a bonus to a malus without any chance to reset or select formation matchups. With the added bonus/malus for scheme fit and the requirement to match defensive formation to offensive formation this puts teams at a deficit for game planning early in the week. I'm not even sure how the formation matchups would go with this change.

 

Potential solutions:

• Remove specific scheme/formation bonus/malus (e.g., speed getting malus against wing but bonus against vertical) as this should come into play already with positional bonus/malus and leveraging different players on the field
• (less ideal) Set certain timeframe for offensive gameplans to lock in order to be able to set defensive matchups (similar to how subbing works in real life). Otherwise the interface could show you are going against a spread (aligned with a nickle) but in fact its going against a double wing.

 

I would support the following actions to address these items.

1. Clarity that defensive scheme changes also have a scheme change penalty

2. The opposing offensive scheme shown on the interface is whatever the team ran the previous game. They’ll suffer penalty with the offense if they attempt to change and it avoid meta gaming for gameplan switching all the way to midnight Wednesday

[alexfall862]

Wide Receivers are getting carries in traditional runs. I think it might be a distribution value issue. Sent the specific plays into the #sim-dev-and-qa-chat discord channel.

All plays with this issue seem to be traditional runs out of sets with RBs in the formation: 


Full example in the discord chat, but dropping here as well.

[SageBow]

16 hours ago, tsweezy said:

 

Looking at the exported play by plays, I noticed that all coverage groups are set to the same man or zone scheme (see below). Both myself and Tulsa did not have these selected (I had zone/zone/man and Tulsa had Man/zone/zone). Looking at a few other games it also looks like none were set to different coverage schema between the groups. Not sure if this is an issue in reporting on the plays, or an issue with the actual groups running the "wrong" scheme in the actual game (would love to know which to see if it hurts my estimation of Savage's abilities)

 

Utah also experienced this bug, showing man/man/man for our team when we ran man/zone/zone

[smackemz]

10 minutes ago, SageBow said:

Utah also experienced this bug, showing man/man/man for our team when we ran man/zone/zone

Same. It showed man/man/man for us when we ran man/zone/man

[alexfall862]

The field goal.... ran out of bounds?



This one is backwards? Dunno if that's wind or a block, but odd.

[tsweezy]

Suggestion: Output all players who are on the field each snap. Makes for easier debugging and especially on ST plays you can start to get a better sense for what supporting players are helping vs. hurting you

[Rocketcan]

1 hour ago, tsweezy said:

Suggestion: Output all players who are on the field each snap. Makes for easier debugging and especially on ST plays you can start to get a better sense for what supporting players are helping vs. hurting you

Please put this feedback here: https://www.simfba.com/forum/422-ncaa-college-football-suggestions/

[TuscanSota]

On 3/30/2024 at 3:02 PM, JC. said:

Box score appears to be incorrect for quarters and final  - with actual score to the right hand side of these  

 

Can confirm this is fixed on the interface side. Thank you for the callout.  

[TuscanSota]

23 hours ago, smackemz said:

Same. It showed man/man/man for us when we ran man/zone/man

 

On 4/1/2024 at 6:57 AM, SageBow said:

Utah also experienced this bug, showing man/man/man for our team when we ran man/zone/zone

 

On 3/31/2024 at 2:23 PM, tsweezy said:

 

Looking at the exported play by plays, I noticed that all coverage groups are set to the same man or zone scheme (see below). Both myself and Tulsa did not have these selected (I had zone/zone/man and Tulsa had Man/zone/zone). Looking at a few other games it also looks like none were set to different coverage schema between the groups. Not sure if this is an issue in reporting on the plays, or an issue with the actual groups running the "wrong" scheme in the actual game (would love to know which to see if it hurts my estimation of Savage's abilities)

 

Can confirm this is now fixed in the interface.