State of the Sim Transfer: Feb. 10th.

[Oles]

Yeah this is too long to read where is the tdlr

TLDR is they spent 800 hours, made a shit load of spreadsheets, and still didn't test enough to actually fix issues but instead focused on making sure WRs wouldn't get 2k yards. Meanwhile we see egregious issues like DPI,  penalties and all that are just now being fixed even though the sim team spent a lot of time in it.

Wow. If you're going to complain at least make one factual statement or valid criticism. 
1. They focused on QB stats realism, meaning they spent no time making sure receivers got 2k. 
2. Penalty issues have nothing to do with archetypes, game planning, or strategy elements tested which were the obvious priorities.
3. In-game penalty logic is not really something one has a lot of control over. I applaud them for finding a decent solution to this DPI issue and enacting it quickly.

1. I said they were focused on making sure WRs weren't getting 2k yards, not that they made sure they would get 2k yards. 
2. Penalties are still a part of the sim and should take some time to be noticed, the original sim we used had issues with it that were not fixable, but they should have known to lookout for the penalties and see if there was a fix for it. Penalties can kill sim engagement just as much as a bad team, especially if the penalties seem to screw you over on a key drive. 
3. We've already had to find a workaround for issues of a similar nature in the previous sim, the solution was already set, it's not like they determined a new solution no one had ever done. They just took what TC did regarding CB blitz in ddspf16, and did it for the penalties. That solution if they had watched games would have been an easy fix before the switch. 


My concern, and reason I'm critical of the transfer team is that it feels like they rushed out the transfer in order to make it this season. Add in that members of the transfer team are arguing with GMs in a public space, while admitting to withholding information from most GMs (while the member is a GM himself, and therefore privy to information other GMs wouldn't have. Not that I'm saying they would use that info). There are huge issues with transparency, and what was posted today is honestly an insulting attempt at transparency that did not call to attention key issues, just a sort of we're working on it even though we already worked on it. If they wanted transparency, they would make every 1 of their 800+ spreadsheets available to the public.