Posted by norbert on 3/7/2012 4:17:00 PM (view original):
I dusted off the old code. I was wrong. It actually did go through a progression, sort of. It actually picks the first read randomly from the distribution and then if not thrown to, it picks randomly again from the distribution, each time shortening the distance of the throw. It's odd how it does it, but it is in there.
We could bring back that style of progression and simply base it on distribution numbers. What about distribution in different situations? The old style just had one distribution for each formation. Would you ever want that progression to change if it were 1st and 10 versus 3rd and 4?
We haven't discussed adding some player specific settings. It might make sense to add the fatigue settings per player, like we do in HD. Perhaps there could be other settings per player that set or adjust their tendencies.
Oops! Guess I should've read the whole thread before responding.
I hate, hate, hate that we were lied to about how "progression" worked in the old engine. We were told - using Trips as our formation - that the progression went from first look, then down the depth chart for WR and over to TE, then back to WR. Or if first look was TE, then over to WR and down the depth chart.
So imagine the following OLD distribution/depth:
#1 WR = 0
#2 WR = 0
#3 WR = 1
#1 TE = 1
So that means #3 WR and #1 TE each had a 50/50 chance of being first look. From this, would arise only two progressions:
#3 WR -> #1 TE -> #1 WR -> #2 WR -> #3 WR.... etc
#1 TE -> #1 WR -> #2 WR -> #3 WR -> #1 TE... etc
Under the old system, supposedly. And RBs were only ever dump-offs/check-downs.
But now you're telling us that this is not at all the case. Though I can now see, after what you've told us about how it really worked, how I would've gotten the results I got, using the distributions I used. It kinda makes sense.
Things I like about the old way
=========================
- Setting a specific distribution for each target
- That the distance down the field was directly related to your Aggresiveness (not a *chance* of distance)
- There was a progression, based on depth chart and first look (or so we were TOLD... I liked the idea of it, anyway)
Things I didn't like about the old way
===============================
- No way to directly involve the RBs in the passing game
- That it didn't actually use a progression
- That it wasn't flexible in terms of sending different receiving targets to different depths on the same play
So, I ask you, can we build the perfect passing system? :)