Marauders
Posts: 4428
Joined: 3/17/2005 From: Minnesota Status: offline
|
quote:
Scott_WAR stated: No, I cant use 'any' AND get my specific situations to not get overidden by it, because when I creat a '1st and any in all catagories - run 60%/pass40%' situation to my playbook, instead of appearing at the bottom of the list of situations I have already created, it appears in the middle of the list, so if its 1rst and 10, with less than a minute left with me losing by 3, and I have a situation specifically for that where I pass 100% of the time, but its below where the previously mentioned 1rst and any group is, the first and any group will be used to get the run/pass %,.... in this case 60% run and 40% pass, instead of the situation specific 100% pass group listed below it. I don't believe you understand my previous post. You are still attempting to use ANY up the line of more specific groups. While David is looking into making a change that would allow one to do that and retain the specific group, that was not what the ANY command was originally put in to do. It was put in to cover areas that one was not going to put in more specific situations. Here is a small example of how ANY would be used as it stands now: DN1, TGANY, TIHANY, DFGANY, TIED DN2, TGANY, TIHANY, DFGANY, TIED DN3, TG>5, TIH>10, DFG76-95, TIED DN3, TG>5, TIH>10, DFG26-75, TIED DN3, TG>5, TIH>10, DFG6-25, TIED DN4, TG>5, TIH>10, DFG76-95, TIED DN4, TG>5, TIH>10, DFG26-75, TIED DN4, TG>5, TIH>10, DFG6-25, TIED Note that the ANY variable does not overlap with more specific groups. On downs 1 and 2 this gameplan doesn't worry about yards to go. If DN2, TG>10, TIH>10, DFG<=5, TIED was added, these plays would be added to the any plays in that situation as plays available. In this case, one would likely add a few extra long passes to go with the general plays that were part of the ALL group. Having ANY as an option makes it much easier to define large areas of the gameplan that one would not normally need to be specific with. I agree that if David can make the change that would make ANY become ANY ELSE (Any unless there is a 100% specific instance found) regarding specific situations, it would allow ANY to be used to cover more areas that could not be covered now. It would allow ANY to fill in the cracks of situations that one doesn't want to be specific but would otherwise overlap specific areas if ANY was used someplace up the tree. This is what you would want it to do, and it would make gameplans easier to design. This gains more importance considering that the half designator may be in use in the future. If specific situations were not allowed to stand on their own, it would be difficult to use the ANY half indicator without diluting the end of half and end of game specific gameplan groups. quote:
quote:
Marauders stated:Every situation group would be exclusive if >1, >5, and >10 would be changed as I have stated above to be >1-5, >5-10, and >10-15 respectively. The use of ALL would still be optional, and there would be no other groups that would overlap. Shaggyra stated: I think this is the solution I like best. I asked David about this, and the operators are set up as a case. That means if >15 is true, it will take that and not check >10 .... The code runs down the case until it finds a true condition. That means they are exclusive already, so >1 already means >1-5 .... This is an important consideration when creating gameplans.
< Message edited by Marauders -- 1/29/2008 1:31:32 AM >
|