Posted by mal247 on 3/6/2012 9:23:00 PM (view original):
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.

Just saw mal's post after I finished mine. The use of the situational depth charts may allow some AI to occur and shift OFF and DEF tendencies based on the opponents % use of certain situational depth charts. One team always runs SG set at Pass Medium, Sim AI would automatically shift my Def to Cover this when # of plays reaches some preset %.

The right/left could be kept for running plays, and why not say the ball is in the middle of the field on every play for simplicity reasons?  It would be no different than what we currently have, but the right left would allow for more individual matchups, more strategy in setting depth charts, more advantage to having depth, MORE CONTROL! Which is what everyone is asking for.

As far as routes or individual plays for a playbook I think something like this could work.  If I have a little guy with great hands and great elusiveness (WesWelker) I could have him run mostly short routes which could be a drop down.  If you chose short you would understand your WR would be running a drag, quick hit, or slant.  If I have a guy who has good but not great elusiveness and has good but not great speed (Hines Ward 3 years ago) I could set him to medium routes an 8 yard comeback, in, or out.  If I have a burner (Mike Wallace) I could set him to deep routes a fly, post, or skinny post.  If you have a Larry Fitzgerald or Andre Johnson then he can do everything and thus becomes difficult to cover, and will most likely win his matchup as he should.

As far as the corner lined up with him you could have 3 settings of tight, balanced, or cushion.  Against Welker maybe you play tight to disrupt timing and knock him off his route, but if the coach has him running a deep route against you that play you may get burned.  Against Ward depending on the skill of your DB you can play him however you see fit.  Against Wallace you could play with a cushion, or if you know you have 2 blitzing LBs on that particular play you may play tight to keep him from getting a free release and getting into his deep route. 

As far as defensive depth chart I think you need to be able to set your DB to cover a specific WR from the other team.  The issue with WR#1, WR#2, etc. is that coaches hide their WRs by putting WR#1 in the #3 slot and we don't know until the second half and there is no saying he won't change where they line up.

i know noone Else on here cares but i still REALLY hate the way the rankings are done to reiiterate can u honestly tell me in real life if a team plays 13 powerhouses and loses ALL of them and a team plays 13 cupcakes and wins ALL of them that the 0-13 team will be ranked higher ?? there HAS to be another way to do it factor in quality wins for instace cuz as it stands i can beat the #1 and #2 teams and if my sos is 120 ill actually move DOWN in the rankings. Factor in how much u win by and actually factor in ur overall team ratings they should count for something other than to make u THINK ur team is good till u get blown away by a team 80 pts worse than u... factor in ur actual wins and losses cuz that shuld matter ALOT i dont wanna see 2 1-5 teams i beat be 20 spots higer than me when i have 1 loss ever at any point in the season. factor in recent team success or failures hell factor in the QBs height if u want that make more sense than total dependence on SOS cuz u cant even really control that with the engine the way it is i can schedule 5 teams that should be good but with the turnover/injury/penalty streaks any team can suck not to mention that if for some reason ur conf is full of weak or Sim teams ur just totally SOL cuz ur SOS will naturally be weak cuz ur conf is filled with 3-10 teams. Or conversly u could just expand the amount of teams that make the post season so it felt like a more attainable goal to all of us that dont have elite powerhouse squads( cuz honestly no matter how bad the engine my act and how much it tries to let the lower ranked team win somehow i still see alot of undefeated or 1 loss teams in the standings so really the elite teams DO win most the time just seems that cuz there elite they think they should never lose and thats no more real than losing to a cupcake sim ai even elite teams lose occasionally but its when i get beat by 4-6 teams that are way worse that it really sux not the one loss these cats are mad about) that would probably solve the SOS problem but kinda in the same way a piece of gum stops a leak in a pipe but at least its something.

And i really do like all the ideas ur throwin out Norbert cuz i want to control my team not the engine control it so anything u can add that gives me more options and more ways to game plan and get the ball to my better players ( i wont say Stud cuz well u dont get too many studs come thru Hanover College or Coe College cept Fred Jackson of course) is great by me give me many options and for the ppl that dont want to have to think about it for whatever reason (i really dont understand why u would want to play a game like this and not want to have many options and have to think about things i thot thats what Madden was for) give them a dumbed down version of the game plan as an option.

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.

So do I understand you right that you're saying in GD 1.0, the QB had his "one look" - picked from the distribution settings ahead of time - and that's it.  That he either threw the ball to that "one look" or kept it (scramble, sack, etc)? That there was no progression from that "one look" to the next guy or the next or the next?

Posted by gt_deuce on 3/7/2012 11:31:00 AM (view original):

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.

So do I understand you right that you're saying in GD 1.0, the QB had his "one look" - picked from the distribution settings ahead of time - and that's it.  That he either threw the ball to that "one look" or kept it (scramble, sack, etc)? That there was no progression from that "one look" to the next guy or the next or the next?

That is correct.

Posted by norbert on 3/7/2012 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 3/7/2012 11:31:00 AM (view original):

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.

So do I understand you right that you're saying in GD 1.0, the QB had his "one look" - picked from the distribution settings ahead of time - and that's it.  That he either threw the ball to that "one look" or kept it (scramble, sack, etc)? That there was no progression from that "one look" to the next guy or the next or the next?

That is correct.

I do beleive that on several ocations JC told us the complet oposit for the WR progression. What you have told us explanes a lot. Thanks.  :-)

Posted by norbert on 3/7/2012 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 3/7/2012 11:31:00 AM (view original):

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.

So do I understand you right that you're saying in GD 1.0, the QB had his "one look" - picked from the distribution settings ahead of time - and that's it.  That he either threw the ball to that "one look" or kept it (scramble, sack, etc)? That there was no progression from that "one look" to the next guy or the next or the next?

That is correct.

I don't think that's correct.  I can believe there was only one primary receiver based off the distribution and no progression, but there were definitely dump off passes.

What about individual player substitution settings? I'm thinking specifically of the OL and DL. There are certain players that might be close to their subs as far as rankings goes and I would like to keep them at "Fresh" but the starters that are head and shoulders abover their subs I would want to set at "fairly fresh' or something similar. Also, I would like to know what kind of a difference the stamina "levels" make. For example, Fresh = players are at 90-100% of their base stats Fairly Fresh = 80-90 and so on down the line.

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.

We could bring back that style of progression and simply base it on distribution numbers. 

Personally, I'm all for that.  I liked the way it used to be.  Much better than now for sure.

One thing I would like to see addressed concerns formation IQs. You get credit (ratings increase) for formation practice but I have seen no increase for using a formation that is not practiced. One would think that if you ran a particular formation regularly that the IQ for that formation should increase whether you practiced it or not.

Posted by marble26 on 3/7/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
One thing I would like to see addressed concerns formation IQs. You get credit (ratings increase) for formation practice but I have seen no increase for using a formation that is not practiced. One would think that if you ran a particular formation regularly that the IQ for that formation should increase whether you practiced it or not.

+1

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.

My understanding of the old passing system was that progression was controlled by the aggresiveness settings.  For Example: Very conservative would have your QB go through his progressions quicker and very aggressive would have your QB go through his progressions slower.  That would solve the down and distance progressions as we can set the aggresiveness settings for different downs and distances.
I could be way off on this, but that was my understanding.

Posted by nittanylions on 3/7/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by marble26 on 3/7/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
One thing I would like to see addressed concerns formation IQs. You get credit (ratings increase) for formation practice but I have seen no increase for using a formation that is not practiced. One would think that if you ran a particular formation regularly that the IQ for that formation should increase whether you practiced it or not.

+1

I just got beat by a team that used every formation, while I put a soild bit of time into Formations. That ticked me off.

Posted by norbert on 3/7/2012 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gt_deuce on 3/7/2012 11:31:00 AM (view original):

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.

So do I understand you right that you're saying in GD 1.0, the QB had his "one look" - picked from the distribution settings ahead of time - and that's it.  That he either threw the ball to that "one look" or kept it (scramble, sack, etc)? That there was no progression from that "one look" to the next guy or the next or the next?

That is correct.

Your position is demonstrably incorrect.

If what you say is true, RB would literally have never caught a single pass in GD 1.0.  Additionally, I ran Trips and set a '0' distribution for two of my three WR, with a '1' distribution for my #3 WR slot and my #1 TE slot.  If what you say was true, when either/both of those guys with '1' distribution was in the game, not a single other receiver would have so much as had a pass thrown his way.

Perhaps some of your resistance to adopting the GD 1.0 distribution system is a lack of understanding of how it really worked?  I mean this as no insult - you were not the developer for the game at that time.