Planned Update - Later this Year - Page 17 - Gridiron Dynasty

texcal1997

Posts: 29 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 3 12 29

Prospect

Posted by gt_deuce on 3/5/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):
I equate the current passing "distribution" system to trying to type on a keyboard by sitting 10 feet away and throwing marbles as the key you want to "type." It's complete garbage.

So, we set an aggressiveness and there's a CHANCE the QB throws to an area of a field (but there's a CHANCE he does something else that we don't intend). And we set a receiving depth chart (WR, TE) and there's a CHANCE certain receivers will be in certain areas of the field (but there's a CHANCE they are not). And then after all that CHANCE, maybe I throw to a TE for 1 yard, when I've got All-American-level WR up and down my lineup, with a stud QB throwing the ball and I've set Aggressive as my passing level to get over the top of a pulled-in 4-4 defense that's trying to clog my run. Yeah... LOVE that.

It's an insult to call this control. What we had in GD 1.0 was light-years ahead of this garbage. And anyone who didn't think that was control simply wasn't putting in the mental effort to figure out how to utilize those distribution settings. I got the ball to the guys I wanted to get the ball to the most. Always. And I had the controls to exploit weaknesses in my opponents' defenses if I put in the time to scout and gameplan. Now... well, let's just say it's really hard to hit that 'A' key from ten feet with this marble. My best players only rack up the most stats as a function of being on the field for the overwhelming majority of plays - not because I've got anything resembling controls to get them the ball.

I couldn't agree more with what GT said. I would love to be able to have some type of distribution system set up for WRs and TEs.

3/5/2012 3:11 PM

norbert

Posts: 1245 (0)

Hall of Famer

6 1 15 12 85 47 19 11

Prospect

Well, I'll point out that the aggressiveness setting logic was pulled almost exactly from GD 1.0. It also had the concept that your pass aggressiveness only set the chance the pass was to some distance down the field. The difference in passing between GD 1.0 and 2.0 is the distribution percentage versus the preset (all too impossible to know) distributions baked into the formations. Both of them would look at Very Aggressive and roll a dice and 5% of the time come up with a short pass. The difference is that after it determined a short pass, in GD 1.0, it would pull a random target based on your distribution whereas 2.0 pulls a random target based on the location of the field. You were still tossing marbles at keyboards.

The difference is that you could control who you got the ball to more. Your stud WR that you put at the top of the distribution list would catch screen passes as well as deep balls. YAC was determined solely on the receiver versus the team defense, so the advantageous thing to do was put your fastest WR at the top of the list and call high-percentage short passes that yielded high YAC.

We should be able to bring back the distribution to control who is the primary target more often, but YAC should have other factors than just a ratings comparison. There was also no way to affect that from a defensive perspective in GD 1.0. We'll look at what kind of control you would want to help on defense as well. Not sure we can satisfy everyone, but I'd like to build more on where GD 2.0 was heading and bring back some of what made GD 1.0 appealing.

3/5/2012 3:49 PM

katzphang88

Posts: 1550 (0)

Hall of Famer

92 425 2 3

Prospect

Posted by norbert on 3/5/2012 12:43:00 PM (view original):
What do you guys think about setting left and right positions? If we are going to do it, it would be now. This would be used for offensive line and defense (I'd have to review how that would affect DBs). If that happens, then I would definitely see it affecting the play settings like splitting those inside/outside into right and left as well. I don't know if we want to bring up weak/strong side as well. I want to provide more control, but I also don't want to see it getting too complex.

The one thing I warn against percentage type settings is that it can get awkward with validating the inputs.

I don't see that right/left would have too much effect. It would still be a representation of say DB #1 vs WR#1. It would be just as good to use the old distribution formats, with WR#1 going against DB#1, WR#2 vs DB#2. If we felt the best match-up for a particular game was #1 vs #1 then we adjust our distro to high % for #1 and less for #2. If we felt the match-up was best at #2 then high % distro to #2. Make it man coverage, with extra DB available to limit YAC (or not). Player placement would move up/down based on depth chart settings and substitutions (#1 goes out, #2 becomes #1, #3 in for #2 etc, until real #1 comes back in). Save Left/right for GD VIII.

3/5/2012 8:00 PM

fermor332002

Posts: 2307 (0)

Hall of Famer

179

Prospect

Posted by katzphang88 on 3/5/2012 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by norbert on 3/5/2012 12:43:00 PM (view original):
What do you guys think about setting left and right positions? If we are going to do it, it would be now. This would be used for offensive line and defense (I'd have to review how that would affect DBs). If that happens, then I would definitely see it affecting the play settings like splitting those inside/outside into right and left as well. I don't know if we want to bring up weak/strong side as well. I want to provide more control, but I also don't want to see it getting too complex.

The one thing I warn against percentage type settings is that it can get awkward with validating the inputs.
I don't see that right/left would have too much effect. It would still be a representation of say DB #1 vs WR#1. It would be just as good to use the old distribution formats, with WR#1 going against DB#1, WR#2 vs DB#2. If we felt the best match-up for a particular game was #1 vs #1 then we adjust our distro to high % for #1 and less for #2. If we felt the match-up was best at #2 then high % distro to #2. Make it man coverage, with extra DB available to limit YAC (or not). Player placement would move up/down based on depth chart settings and substitutions (#1 goes out, #2 becomes #1, #3 in for #2 etc, until real #1 comes back in). Save Left/right for GD VIII.

+1 I like the old way. WR with the heighest % would get first look and on down the line. It didn't have to be the WRs either it could be the TEor TEs and it could also could be your RB say in TRIPs.

3/5/2012 8:41 PM

bhouska

Posts: 2045 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 665

Prospect

+1 I like the old way. WR with the heighest % would get first look and on down the line. It didn't have to be the WRs either it could be the TEor TEs and it could also could be your RB say in TRIPs.

+1

3/6/2012 9:39 AM

fermor332002

Posts: 2307 (0)

Hall of Famer

179

Prospect

I also like a % of playing time for each player so that they could sub properly and most if not all players could get a decent amount of playing time in each game. I also liked setting each formation with the players that I wanted to play in that formation. I liked to play sertin players for running or passing formations. Sertin OL are better at BLKing running formations as some are better at BLKing at passing formations. Sertin RBs for running formations and passing formations. ETC.

3/6/2012 11:52 AM

norbert

Posts: 1245 (0)

Hall of Famer

6 1 15 12 85 47 19 11

Prospect

Highest percentage wouldn't always get first look. They'd have the best chance of getting first look. In fact, in GD 1.0 there wasn't a first look or check down. There was just one look. It picked the target randomly using the percentage and that was the only "look". Then the QB either completed the pass or not.

It seems like what we really want is a way to control which of your players is getting thrown to more. But if YAC is determined more by what is happening on the field versus the old style of just looking at the receiver's ratings, is it bothersome that you can't tie the depth of pass to the receiver? I know that a deep receiver isn't always going to be deep, but would it make sense to maybe tie aggressiveness to the receivers than one aggressiveness to the whole play?

What if we revisit the idea of building plays to select in the playbooks and building a play was something like this:

Formation [select formation] - based on formation selected, it would open different options for your personnel. We could have more options on formation than we have now. For instance, there could be several different Shotgun formations.

Say you pick Pro-set. Maybe we display it visually, but let's say each player has a designation - QB, RB, FB, WR1, WR2, TE. For each player spot, maybe you would set the following:
WR1 - Depth Chart [select a receiver depth chart - normal or special] Route Style [select something like Aggressiveness] Primary [select distribution percentage]

So you would name this play and now it would be something you could add to your playbook for like 1st and long. Not sure how you could add the plays, but probably don't want a drop down with a giant list. More just throwing some ideas out to see if any of it would be appealing. Also, maybe instead of Route Style, we have some way to tell what the role of the player is. For instance, maybe you want the player to stay in and Block or Block and Release.

This probably gets back into the issue of possibly making it too complicated in that you might feel like you have to create too many plays in your play list just to set your playbooks. It also ties passing distribution to a player spot rather than a specific player. But it would really be similar to how you used to set Formations, just you would have many more options. Not every Pro-set would be the same. The old way split the settings of passing distribution and passing aggressiveness, whereas this one would tie them together. The downside, like I said, is you might have to make more settings, but it would be more control.

The basic settings would be pretty similar to the old style. You would have each of the basic formations using default settings. You could customize each of those formations for which depth chart they pull from, which would end up being the same as the old way of setting depth charts per formation assuming the reason you are setting a particular depth chart in one formation would be the same as setting it in another. For instance, receiving RB versus power RB. If you wanted to customize further, you could add more plays of the same formation with different settings that you could use in your playbook.

Some holes in this that I can see: it might not be what you want to happen when your backups come in. It removes the coupling of pass aggressiveness from playbook situation to play list which might be confusing (unless we have some way to set pass aggressiveness while setting playbook).

Again, just throwing some things out here. I know the response is typically just add depth charts and pass distribution back to formations, but if I have development time to look at this and will be working on the engine anyway, i want to take this opportunity to really improve the game plans where we can.

3/6/2012 2:41 PM

stingray002

Posts: 220 (0)

Hall of Famer

12 125 5

Rookie

NORBERT

I know where you're coming from...Time and resources have been allotted to GD and you want to go for the home run. This game has been "hit" before by developers going for the home run and the results have not been good. If you can pull it off...GREAT. If you don't, you will probably lose another group of loyal players.

Good Luck!

3/6/2012 2:55 PM

norbert

Posts: 1245 (0)

Hall of Famer

6 1 15 12 85 47 19 11

Prospect

It's not that I want to hit a home run. I just want to get a hit. I also don't want to hit into a double play. I could bunt, but what if there is a slow guy on first base and he can't get over in time and they turn the double play anyways, so now we are both out with no base runners?

Like I've said before, I don't want to change game plans just for the sake of changing them. If we improve the engine and leave the settings as they are, you should still see the improvements, but the randomness of the play calling is going to remain. Just reverting to old settings has it's issues as well and honestly probably can't be done very easily at this point. If I know how we want the game plan settings - even if we keep them simplified for now - I can build that in to the changes in the engine now, rather than trying to get time for another update to change game plans which would require an engine change as well. It's really about planning and efficiency.

But I can understand why users are skeptical and even a little afraid of talks of change. But that's why I want to talk about it now, rather than just throwing it in and then getting feedback. But I would urge you to think outside the current settings (or even the old settings) and look at what you would really like to have. You want passing distributions? What is at the heart of what you are trying to accomplish with those? Is it really just you want to see more Recs for one player than another. I can't believe it's just about stats. There are reasons the current settings don't serve your needs and that's what I want to get at more than just the fact you prefer the old settings.

3/6/2012 3:52 PM

norbert

Posts: 1245 (0)

Hall of Famer

6 1 15 12 85 47 19 11

Prospect

Let me also just introduce a little bit about how the pass is handled in the new engine and how "check downs" work and how we can leverage them in the new engine.

When a passing play is simulated, there is some initial checking done for QB pressure and primary target. Once it's determined the QB isn't sacked, he checks if the primary target is open which takes into account the target and the closest defender. If open, he will attempt the pass. If not, he might attempt to force it in, or he might check down. If checking down, he would look for a new target and repeat the same thing. The initial QB pressure determines how many times he can check down (or look for new targets) before he is sacked, scrambles, or throws the ball away. Yes, hardly any of this is displayed in the PBP. Target progression is based on Aggressiveness and fixed location tendencies based on player slot in the formation. For instance, in the Shotgun formation, perhaps WR1 and WR3 are more apt to get short passes and WR2 and WR4 are more apt to get long passes. If your passing style is Very Aggressive, WR2 and WR4 are more likely to be targets, but if that Very Aggressive rolls up a short pass, it could be targeting WR1 or WR3.

Right now, the progression is Select Distance -> Select Target -> Check Open. If we went back to some passing distribution settings based on player or player slot, the progression would be Select Target -> Select Distance -> Check Open. In GD 1.0, it used the second method, but it never checked on the player being open, it just calculated a chance for a completion and that was it.

What I'm getting at is that the new engine is built to work with target progressions, so why not turn that in to something that improves the game. It seems the bad part about it now is the lack of control, so let's change that. If the solution is a simple percentage distribution, then let's go with that, but where does that go? On each formation? On each play? On players or on player slots?

3/6/2012 4:14 PM

caesari

Posts: 4817 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 48 129 11

Prospect

GREAT STUFF NORB!!

I reserve this spot for my comments, to come later tonight.

3/6/2012 5:08 PM

bhouska

Posts: 2045 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 665

Prospect

Is it really just you want to see more Recs for one player than another. I can't believe it's just about stats.

Not at all, at least not in my case. I just want to have the ability to target who I feel is my best receiver, be it WR1, TE1, or RB1 (for example). It seemed to me that was easy to do in GD1.0 but damn near impossible is GD2.0.

What I'm getting at is that the new engine is built to work with target progressions, so why not turn that in to something that improves the game. It seems the bad part about it now is the lack of control, so let's change that. If the solution is a simple percentage distribution, then let's go with that, but where does that go? On each formation? On each play? On players or on player slots?

That sounds awesome, in theory, but the way it's worked so far gives us coaches no control whatsoever. I would say, for simplicity sake, at least for now, to just put a simple percentage distribution on each formation's depth chart.

3/6/2012 5:43 PM

norbert

Posts: 1245 (0)

Hall of Famer

6 1 15 12 85 47 19 11

Prospect

I guess that's my question though. What does the percentage mean? Is it just the chance that that player is the primary target? What about checking down? Who's next? Does it just check the rest of the players based on that percentage? That might work. The other issue we would need to solve is how to determine where the ball is thrown. If it's just an aggressiveness setting in the playbook, like it is now, it can lead to some strange behavior like the deep ball going to your RB. Might not be bad in some cases, but I'd think some people would want some way to control that as well.

3/6/2012 5:56 PM

mal247

Posts: 356 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 66 105

Prospect

What about adding some AI? If a team keeps running the same formation with the same tendency (deep pass to WR1), the AI should adjust accordingly. Same with an all run up the middle scenario. In "real life", if a team keeps doing the same thing offensively (or defensively) the other team would naturally adjust.

3/6/2012 9:23 PM

katzphang88

Posts: 1550 (0)

Hall of Famer

92 425 2 3

Prospect

Posted by norbert on 3/6/2012 5:56:00 PM (view original):
I guess that's my question though. What does the percentage mean? Is it just the chance that that player is the primary target? What about checking down? Who's next? Does it just check the rest of the players based on that percentage? That might work. The other issue we would need to solve is how to determine where the ball is thrown. If it's just an aggressiveness setting in the playbook, like it is now, it can lead to some strange behavior like the deep ball going to your RB. Might not be bad in some cases, but I'd think some people would want some way to control that as well.

If I try to walk through what I would want to play plan in the context of using these situations in my game plan I would want to know that I can use my best players in certain situations with respect to their attributes and have it occur consistently. Maybe to rethink the depth chart would be the best thing. Right now we are locked into positional depth charts and maybe situational depth charts are better. This would allow depth settings for: Run inside/Run outside (for RB, FB, QB, WR), Pass Short/Pass Medium/Pass Long (for RB, FB, TE, WR) with frequency values chosen for each starter and substitute for that situation. You could even add Depth charts for Run block/Pass block (OL, TE, FB, RB, WR with duplicates not allowed in run/pass charts). Attributes would need to be assigned to each selection so RB in Run inside would be different than Run outside, and WR/TE would use different characteristics to be most effective at different distances. Same with OL and Run/pass settings. That would give 5 depth charts specific to play choice, but not formation, so line-change substitutions would be harder to pull off.

Defense could have depth charts for (names are for demonstration purposes only and should not be used at home without professional supervision) Line of Scrimmage (Pass rush, LB and CB blitz, inside runs), Short and Flat (Short passes and outside runs), Cover (Medium and short passing), Prevent (Medium and deep passes). Again different players with different attribute sets would be more efficient for different formations.

If we hold firm on roster limits, it will test us as coaches to produce players to fill multiple roles, and will allow us to develop specialists for certain depth charts.

Game planning would let us set formation, down and distance, and play (like Pass Medium) which would use players in order from that depth chart. Same on Defense. Would be nice to have a setting for field position too.

3/6/2012 9:33 PM

Forums

Planned Update - Later this Year Topic

Search Criteria