Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Solo replay and super scorepad

Expand Messages
  • Woody Woodson
    I have a wonderful system for solo replay of Paydirt charts. In other words, you can coach both teams without playing chess against yourself . I would be
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I have a wonderful system for solo replay of Paydirt
      charts. In other words, you can coach both teams
      without "playing chess against yourself". I would be
      glad to sit down and make a conversion chart and
      explain the rules to anyone interested.

      I invented other improvements as well, such as a
      better scorepad/scoresheet so I can quickly find the
      major plays and times when they occurred, as well as
      room for comments or historical additions about the
      game, and even allows calculation for time of
      posession.

      I published the replay system in 1999 on Sports Gaming
      Digest, now defunct.

      I'm just interested if others wanted to be able to
      replay teams on their own, rather than have to always
      go head to head. Send email to Irish_Pirate courtesy
      of Yahoo if you want to get this lazy man interested
      in helping you.





      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
    • David Fado
      I like the discussion so far. I wanted to add in some issues and give my take. CHART DESIGN Is it possible to come up with a standard for both pro and
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment

        I like the discussion so far.  I wanted to add in some issues and give my take.

        CHART DESIGN

        Is it possible to come up with a standard for both pro and college?  I think the games have come together enough that we don't need two separate chart designs.  Do you change the pro charts to be more like the college to account for folks like Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve Young etc. or do you make the colelge charts more like the pros?  I vote for doing a common chart.  Whether it is bowl bound or paydirt based is not that important to me.

        NORMALIZATION

        I think this is critical to a set that crosses eras.  Otherwise, we could just use the paydirt/Bowl bound sets we have now.  Variation from the yearly average is a good way to tell how great a team or player is:  Barry Bounds getting on base 60% of the time is still going to be good in any era, so as long as we are looking at the best teams, they should all end up pretty strong. 

        GAME PLAY VERSUS STATISTICAL RECREATION

        I don't think the goal is to just crunch numbers and do a statistical replay.  The game play of paydirt is what makes it so interesting.  As a simulation, Paydirt captures the importance of context, or game circumstance, better than most I have seen. 

        Focus on individual players

        I don't think paydirt can handle individual stats and injuries.  It might be nice, but a design like strat-o-matic or Madden football is better for the individual star and to play what-if games like "if Priest Holmes was still with the Ravens": etc.

         

         

        CHART MODIFICATIONS

        I don't think we need many here.

        STYLE OF DESIGN:

        No preference here, just consistent.

        Here are some topics to consider:

        STYLE OF DESIGN - Are we going with an aggressive curve (powerful

        offenses with potent defenses to counter) akin to the later Pay Dirt
        design or are we going with a modest curve similar to the Mays charts
        and Series 1 Bowl Bound?

        The first choice allows us latitude to create diversity so that no
        two team charts ever resemble one another but at the risk of making
        teams unwieldy and improperly balanced.  The latter choice keeps
        stats in perspective but may cause teams to resemble one another
        and/or make for less explosive games.

        Any thoughts?


        These are just some topics that will eventually

         

         

         

        Here are some topics to consider:

        STYLE OF DESIGN - Are we going with an aggressive curve (powerful

        offenses with potent defenses to counter) akin to the later Pay Dirt
        design or are we going with a modest curve similar to the Mays charts
        and Series 1 Bowl Bound?

        The first choice allows us latitude to create diversity so that no
        two team charts ever resemble one another but at the risk of making
        teams unwieldy and improperly balanced.  The latter choice keeps
        stats in perspective but may cause teams to resemble one another
        and/or make for less explosive games.

        Any thoughts?

        CHART MODIFICATIONS - Do we use the standard format as used by SI
        /  Avalon Hill or do we modify the design features?  Should we add
        more offensive plays (or rename/redesign them)?  Should we design
        defensive charts for teams that used formations not used by others
        (i.e. - 3 - 4 setup as opposed to the 4 - 3 set-up)?

        Should we add other modifiers such as a team's ability against
        kick returns or punt returns?  For an example of what I am talking
        about, look at the Strat-o-matic charts or get a copy of Darrin
        Hunters charts.  Both use innovative ways of modifying the kick and
        punt return results to give further definition to team
        characteristics.

        NORMALIZING - Are we going to do some sort of normalization so
        that we can more easily play teams from differing era's against
        each other?  

        I have never been a fan of normalization.  Randy Cox puts in a
        superior effort producing SI Baseball charts.  With him, it is a
        labor of love.  However, I shy away from his product because my
        favorites turn into anemic wimps when he normalizes the charts.  
        Willie Keeler hit over .400 easily for the 1890's Baltimore
        Orioles but he barely breaks .200 when normalized.

        Keep in mind, Randy produces a quality product and is widely accepted
        for his theories on design.  I just want to be certain that we have a
        very "even" hand if we do any type of normalization.

        Any thoughts?

        These are just some topics that will eventually


        Do you Yahoo!?
        New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
      • pogue21801
        Personally, I love the defenses in the earlier sets of charts, especially Bowl Bound Set I and the Paydirt 79-80-81 charts. The defense charts for Syracuse and
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Personally, I love the defenses in the earlier sets of charts,
          especially Bowl Bound Set I and the Paydirt 79-80-81 charts. The
          defense charts for Syracuse and Georgia are a thing of beauty. I was
          so disappointed when I got Set III and all the defenses were almost
          identical (with very minor variations). The guess right or no result
          (to me, anyway) takes a lot away from the game. And I would also have
          to agree with Matt - I'm not a fan of the offensive () or defensive
          []. The earlier sets of charts seem to handle that better, you'll get
          your serious yardage against the bad or average defenses and the good
          defenses will stop you. That seems much more realistic.

          Quick Game Log -
          The Game from Hell - '80 Raiders (me) vs. '80 Patriots

          I was leading (comfortably, I thought) 21 to 7 in the 4th quarter. I
          was in grind it out mode (which the '80 Raiders are built for - lots
          of 5 yd gains on the line plunge and hardly any fumbles - just one at
          13 on all running plays). I should mention that New England did not
          have many long interceptions on their charts. Anyhow - I drove to
          their 31 with 11 minutes left, ran a draw, rolled a 13 for a fumble,
          Pats recovered with a 37 and ran it back for a TD. I'm not worried -
          yet! Next possession, first play from my 25 - line plunge, 13 for a
          fumble, Pats recover on 38 and run it back for another TD! Now it's
          tied and I'm officially worried. Next possession - I get two long
          passes to their 18, bog down and settle for a field goal. 4 minutes
          left. Pats go three and out on incompletions. I fair catch the punt at
          my 40. All I have to do is hold onto the damn ball. First play -
          counter, 13 for a fumble, Pats recover on 38 again, and (you guessed
          it) run it back for a TD! By now my face is red and I'm sure that my
          blood pressure is registering dangerous levels. To make a long story
          short, I lost the game 28 to 24 and I'm taking the dice to an exorcist.

          The Pogue




          --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, David Fado <dphaedo@y...> wrote:
          >
          > I like the discussion so far. I wanted to add in some issues and
          give my take.
          >
          > CHART DESIGN
          >
          > Is it possible to come up with a standard for both pro and college?
          I think the games have come together enough that we don't need two
          separate chart designs. Do you change the pro charts to be more like
          the college to account for folks like Michael Vick, Randall
          Cunningham, Steve Young etc. or do you make the colelge charts more
          like the pros? I vote for doing a common chart. Whether it is bowl
          bound or paydirt based is not that important to me.
          >
          > NORMALIZATION
          >
          > I think this is critical to a set that crosses eras. Otherwise, we
          could just use the paydirt/Bowl bound sets we have now. Variation
          from the yearly average is a good way to tell how great a team or
          player is: Barry Bounds getting on base 60% of the time is still
          going to be good in any era, so as long as we are looking at the best
          teams, they should all end up pretty strong.
          >
          > GAME PLAY VERSUS STATISTICAL RECREATION
          >
          > I don't think the goal is to just crunch numbers and do a
          statistical replay. The game play of paydirt is what makes it so
          interesting. As a simulation, Paydirt captures the importance of
          context, or game circumstance, better than most I have seen.
          >
          > Focus on individual players
          >
          > I don't think paydirt can handle individual stats and injuries. It
          might be nice, but a design like strat-o-matic or Madden football is
          better for the individual star and to play what-if games like "if
          Priest Holmes was still with the Ravens": etc.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > CHART MODIFICATIONS
          >
          > I don't think we need many here.
          >
          > STYLE OF DESIGN:
          >
          > No preference here, just consistent.
          >
          > Here are some topics to consider:
          >
          > STYLE OF DESIGN - Are we going with an aggressive curve (powerful
          > offenses with potent defenses to counter) akin to the later Pay Dirt
          > design or are we going with a modest curve similar to the Mays charts
          > and Series 1 Bowl Bound?
          >
          > The first choice allows us latitude to create diversity so that no
          > two team charts ever resemble one another but at the risk of making
          > teams unwieldy and improperly balanced. The latter choice keeps
          > stats in perspective but may cause teams to resemble one another
          > and/or make for less explosive games.
          >
          > Any thoughts?
          >
          >
          > These are just some topics that will eventually
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Here are some topics to consider:
          >
          > STYLE OF DESIGN - Are we going with an aggressive curve (powerful
          > offenses with potent defenses to counter) akin to the later Pay Dirt
          > design or are we going with a modest curve similar to the Mays charts
          > and Series 1 Bowl Bound?
          >
          > The first choice allows us latitude to create diversity so that no
          > two team charts ever resemble one another but at the risk of making
          > teams unwieldy and improperly balanced. The latter choice keeps
          > stats in perspective but may cause teams to resemble one another
          > and/or make for less explosive games.
          >
          > Any thoughts?
          >
          > CHART MODIFICATIONS - Do we use the standard format as used by SI
          > / Avalon Hill or do we modify the design features? Should we add
          > more offensive plays (or rename/redesign them)? Should we design
          > defensive charts for teams that used formations not used by others
          > (i.e. - 3 - 4 setup as opposed to the 4 - 3 set-up)?
          >
          > Should we add other modifiers such as a team's ability against
          > kick returns or punt returns? For an example of what I am talking
          > about, look at the Strat-o-matic charts or get a copy of Darrin
          > Hunters charts. Both use innovative ways of modifying the kick and
          > punt return results to give further definition to team
          > characteristics.
          >
          > NORMALIZING - Are we going to do some sort of normalization so
          > that we can more easily play teams from differing era's against
          > each other?
          >
          > I have never been a fan of normalization. Randy Cox puts in a
          > superior effort producing SI Baseball charts. With him, it is a
          > labor of love. However, I shy away from his product because my
          > favorites turn into anemic wimps when he normalizes the charts.
          > Willie Keeler hit over .400 easily for the 1890's Baltimore
          > Orioles but he barely breaks .200 when normalized.
          >
          > Keep in mind, Randy produces a quality product and is widely accepted
          > for his theories on design. I just want to be certain that we have a
          > very "even" hand if we do any type of normalization.
          >
          > Any thoughts?
          >
          > These are just some topics that will eventually
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
        • tonysmmns
          ... scoresheet. My yahoo address is tonysmmns@yahoo.com
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Paydirt@yahoogroups.com, Woody Woodson <irish_pirate@y...>
            wrote:
            > I have a wonderful system for solo replay of Paydirt
            > charts. In other words, you can coach both teams
            > without "playing chess against yourself". I would be
            > glad to sit down and make a conversion chart and
            > explain the rules to anyone interested.
            >
            > I invented other improvements as well, such as a
            > better scorepad/scoresheet so I can quickly find the
            > major plays and times when they occurred, as well as
            > room for comments or historical additions about the
            > game, and even allows calculation for time of
            > posession.
            >
            > I published the replay system in 1999 on Sports Gaming
            > Digest, now defunct.
            >
            > I'm just interested if others wanted to be able to
            > replay teams on their own, rather than have to always
            > go head to head. Send email to Irish_Pirate courtesy
            > of Yahoo if you want to get this lazy man interested
            > in helping you.
            >
            > Woody- I would be very interested in seeing your rules and
            scoresheet. My yahoo address is tonysmmns@...
            >
            >
            >
            > __________________________________
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
            > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.