Posted by norbert on 2/10/2012 3:51:00 PM (view original):
For setting up plays for the different situations, like it is now with the 1st through 4th downs, do you think just adding a percentage of time called to the list would be enough? Keep in mind that if it's just weighted randoms, you could still get a play you have set to 10% actually called more or less than 10%. Say for instance that we had more options on how to set up the plays, so it's much more than just formation, tendency, and style, and then we had the same thing we have now for each down and distance plus this weighted percentage, would that be enough to make your game plans more exciting?
I like the idea of adding a lot more control, but I also don't want it to be confusing or take 3 days to set up a playbook. When I start working on the engine, I'll know more about what we can do with play settings for customization. I certainly don't want to put any playbook settings in that don't actually mean anything. The flip side of this is being able to show what happens on the play in the play-by-play, which admittedly we did a poor job of with the first iteration of the new engine. My concern on that is we are already saving a ton of data for the play-by-play, so I'll need to come up with a way to provide more info without adding too much more data, or at least save it more efficiently.
Back to the real business:
Norbert, if I have understood the community, the things they want to see from play/game planning are (not in any order) 1) Ability to design depth charts for formations with specialists on offense and defense, OL desinations in the depth chart should differentiate between OOL (tackles), and IOL (guards and centers). These wouyld come into play on inside vs outside plays, passing vs run blocking. 2) Ability to design depth charts to designate run, block and pass distribution patterns for RB, WR, TE and rush, blitz, cover options for DL, LB, DB, 3) Some increase in formation variety (I like the set up of the SimLeague football formations), 4) Separate offensive and defensive game plans, 5) Game plans that take into account special game situations (hurry-up, slow down, 2 minute, inside own 20, inside opp. 20, goal line etc). 6) Definite cause and effect relationships between player match-ups.
To address your questions above, and only considering the aspects of the game planning portion of the 5 points above - I think that your ideas would make sense. I could visualize a screen with offensive headings of -FORMATION (Pick your desired formation)- -PLAY (drop down with RUN - inside, RUN - outside, SCREEN, PASS - short&out, PASS - short&in, PASS - long&out, PASS - long&in)- -TENDENCY (normal, hurry-up, slow-down)- DISRIBUTION (Percentages of each play in that down and distance) - FIELD POSITION - (Where does this play run - ALL, TO OWN 30, TO OPP 30, TO OWN 10, TO OPP 10, OPP GL). Defense would be headings of -FORMATION (Pick desired formation)- PLAY (drop down with RUN, PASS-short, PASS-long)- TENDENCY (BLITZ, HOLD, COVER), and FIELD POSITION (Same except OPP GL changed to OWN GL).
My idea that these play/game plans mesh like this: The formation chosen would play to each teams offensive strength and game play would attack areas of hoped strength either run/pass - inside or outside with specific offensive vs defensive players - 7 choices. Defense would choose one of three field positions to defend, and one of three tendencies - BLITZ to attack behind LOS to defend runs and screens for high risk reward of sacks or tackles for loss vs longer gains, HOLD would minimize long runs or RAC on short passes, but with decreased chances of negative plays and sacks, still vulnerable to long passes. COVER would almost eliminate long plays, but would also eliminate chances to stop runs behind the line or get sacks. Would create 9 choices on defense. Defensive designations in depth chart for pass rushing or pass cover would kick in with appropriate tendency. This would create specific player match-ups within the engine and be a way of creating definite cause/effect relationships. Offensive attack type and location would be compared to defensive expectation and graded cause/effect determined in game engine to match or mis-match.
This would not significantly expand the current choices or size of the play/game plan set up, but would add some definitive, expected match-ups by coaches in the play/game plan. Depending on the formation, I would know that if I picked RUN-outside - my specific RB would be running behind my selected OOL, TE/FB, WR/TE against the other teams DE, OLB, CB and S. (The game engine would select from the depth chart the #1 player in each position to use and ding them for fatigue after the play).
Because the play choices may become more specific, I would also change the game plan screen to allow more options beyond main game plan to alter our game plan toward more situations during each half. Start with a main screen, then 3 -5 offensive and defensive options during the half with time and points ahead/behind designations like we have now.