There is, in my opinion, no AI problem more urgently in need of being addressed than those exposed by the screen passes, specifically:
1) blocking in the open field, which is unrealistic
2) defensive logic in open field situations, which is idiotic in several ways
These two problems feed off each other, and are intertwined, so it is impossible to address one fully without addressing the other.
Fortunately, a solution exists which is, I think, easy to implement. I will discuss other solutions which are far more complex, but my suggestion is to use the easy solution, which I think can be implemented quickly.
My suggested solution is:
1) To define an area called the "box area" which will extend from the outside point of the right side TE would line up (if there was one) to where the left side TE would line up (if there was one), and extending 5 yards upfield and downfield from the line of scrimmage. On a regular pro football field, this area would be roughly bounded by the hash marks and extend +-5 yards from the line of scrimmage.
2) That outside the "box area" all blocking uses pass blocking logic (ie players on the wings and downfield try to shield defenders from the player with the ball but do not drive block the defenders).
3) That defenders who have used any sort of backward "angle of pursuit" logic on a play will afterwards assume a much more conservative tackling approach than normal and will be much more likely to make a tackle at the cost of being much more likely to be dragged for extra yardage and of having almost no chance to force a fumble (exceptions: inside their own 3 yard line and perhaps down late in the game).
Another idea which I think goes well with the above, but which is not essential is to
4) remove the current run focus / pass focus choice for blockers and replace it with a strength focus / agility focus. A strength focus would give a bonus to a blocker's effectiveness when he has a sizable strength advantage over his opponent, but a negative when he faces a strength disadvantage, while an agility focus would give a bonus when a blocker has an agility advantage over his opponent, but a negative when he faces an agility disadvantage. No focus would be neutral.
So those of you who don't like to read a lot can stop here. For those interested in the details, and other, more complex possible solutions, here goes:
I was watching a football game a couple of weeks ago and I noticed a tackle trying to block a cornerback on a screen pass. The announcers commented on how difficult it is for such a big, heavy player to try to block such a quick, fast player in the open field. This started me thinking about the GLB screen plays, where I regularly see big heavies pancake 2 or 3 much quicker defenders at a time on screen plays.
The problem, I recognized, was that once the pass is caught, the defender runs straight for the man with the ball, without any attempt to avoid blockers. Blockers calculate an intersection route and so usually get to the defenders. At this point the defender tries to go through the blocker, and the blocker tries to go through the defender, and big, heavy tackles usually pancake fast cornerbacks, and then start eyeing the next defender to block.
This got me thinking about all sorts of elaborate logic that could be written where the defender would take a path so that, if he is much faster than the blocker, he tries to avoid the blocker, and in any case doesn't try to go through the blocker, so he's still standing and able to make a tackle once the running back who caught the screen tries to get downfield. Meanwhile, I thought, blocking logic could be added so blockers would try to seal off the defenders from the running back. And there would need to be a chance that the quick defenders could get past the attempted seal.
As I thought about the blocking additions, I started to recognize that these are already what blockers do with pass blocking logic. Then I started to think that if the blockers would only pass block to begin with once they were in the open field, that there wouldn't really be any need to write all the fancy logic for defenders I had thought up. The defenders could go ahead and run straight at the ball carrier (which isn't completely realistic but it's easy to implement since there's no code that needs to be written to change defensive paths). The pass blocking logic will effectively simulate the defenders and blockers squaring off on the open field and the defender trying to slip by while the blocker tries to seal him off. It also will allow the defenders to avoid being pancaked and be in position to at least make the tackle 5-10 yards downfield in most cases, which is what defenders would do in real life. Screen passes would still be effective against many defenses, but wouldn't go for so many huge gains.
I also thought about how this same logic should be applied to defenders playing 10 yards downfield, and that's when I came up with the idea of the "box area". Basically, any time a defender is in the open field (outside the "box area"), he gets the benefit of the extra space and blockers are only able to seal him off not try and drive block him resulting in unrealistic pancakes in wide-open field against much quicker players.
Naturally, I also considered special teams plays like kickoffs and punts. I thought, should the same sort of logic apply? My thought - heck yea! It makes no sense seeing 2/3 the kicking team getting pancaked on every kickoff or punt play, then having to get back up and make a tackle. That's completely unrealistic. I think that once the ball is kicked, the "box area" should be completely removed from kickoff and punt plays and ALL blocking from that point can only be pass blocking. (Actually this change is not mandatory for my idea so I don't want to push it too hard but just wanted to state my thoughts and if these are left as they are now that's ok too - let's focus on fixing the biggest problems which are on non-special teams plays.)
As I was thinking of any impacts to the game, I thought of the need to get rid of the current choice of run block / pass block focus since, with this change, much more blocking would be pass blocking. However, I liked the idea of changing the choice to strength focus / agility focus / no focus. Suppose as a result of scouting a tackle is expected to go up against a very quick but not very strong DE. The tackle could go into the game with a focus on trying to outmuscle his opponents and keep them neutralized that way. He would have worked on that focus all week during practice. He is prepared to have improved blocking against opponents where he has a strength advantage. So on most plays when he blocks that weak DE he gets a bonus. However, if on one play he gets matched up with a huge, super-strong defensive tackle he won't have prepared for that during his practices and on that play he'll have a disadvantage. It think this is a good way for offensive players with all-around builds to scout and help neutralize defenders with extreme, imbalanced builds, just like would be done in real life.
As I continued to think about all this, I realized that there was still one issue that I saw on so many screen plays that needs to be fixed. Time after time, I would see the halfback running down the sideline after catching a screen pass, and defenders would take a careful pursuit angle to cut him off and get in a position between the running back and the goal line, then once they got close, instead of forcing the running back out of bounds or just trying to delay him so other defenders could catch up, the defender in good position would try an aggressive tackle and many times would miss that tackle and allow a touchdown or many more yards.
The more complicated solution I thought up was to have defenders recognize if they are a "last man" or "last few men" and also recognize sideline proximity to use that to their advantage and then give a little ground to effect a force out or else cause the runner to need to either try to cut back horizontally into the field of play or run straight through the defender with little to no chance of doing a fake, etc. However, I saw that could be complicated.
So then I recognized that defenders in this situation had almost always taken a backwards angle of pursuit to get in this great position, and it hit me that that was a great trigger! If a defender goes to all the trouble to give up ground taking a negative angle of pursuit then that defender is NOT going to suddenly become aggressive again and fail to make the careful but conservative tackle. The defender is no longer in a normal situation where he is attacking the ball carrier. He is trying to cut off a touchdown or big(ger) play and will use much different tactics when tackling. He will not advance on the running back, so will be very unlikely to fall for any fakes or jukes or spins. Instead he will happily give a bit more ground and use the sideline to his advantage plus anything he can do to slow the running back down so other defenders can catch up. So I thought the easiest way to code the effect of all this is for defenders who have previously taken a negative pursuit angle to receive a significant bonus to tackling and fake avoidance at the cost of giving up a little extra yardage very easily and of having negligible chance to force a fumble.
Of course there are some situations where a defender might still want to be as aggressive as possible when tackling, including:
1) inside his own 3 yard line
2) when down on the scoreboard late in the game
Another possibility for my list is when a first down is on the line but I see many real-life defenders who still play it safe even if they have to give up a first down (although the announcers invariably criticize this choice) so I didn't add that to my list.
I think it would be enough if defenders inside their own 3 yard line or after a certain point in time late in the game if down on the scoreboard would always try to tackle aggressively like they do now, and these were the only two exceptions. Perhaps someone else can add another exception I've failed to recognize.
Ok, that's it. I've thought this through and considered sophisticated logic but I'm comfortable that the comparatively simple adjustments I've recommended here will fix the problem with minimal pain and maximum benefit. I hope you agree but welcome all comments.
1) blocking in the open field, which is unrealistic
2) defensive logic in open field situations, which is idiotic in several ways
These two problems feed off each other, and are intertwined, so it is impossible to address one fully without addressing the other.
Fortunately, a solution exists which is, I think, easy to implement. I will discuss other solutions which are far more complex, but my suggestion is to use the easy solution, which I think can be implemented quickly.
My suggested solution is:
1) To define an area called the "box area" which will extend from the outside point of the right side TE would line up (if there was one) to where the left side TE would line up (if there was one), and extending 5 yards upfield and downfield from the line of scrimmage. On a regular pro football field, this area would be roughly bounded by the hash marks and extend +-5 yards from the line of scrimmage.
2) That outside the "box area" all blocking uses pass blocking logic (ie players on the wings and downfield try to shield defenders from the player with the ball but do not drive block the defenders).
3) That defenders who have used any sort of backward "angle of pursuit" logic on a play will afterwards assume a much more conservative tackling approach than normal and will be much more likely to make a tackle at the cost of being much more likely to be dragged for extra yardage and of having almost no chance to force a fumble (exceptions: inside their own 3 yard line and perhaps down late in the game).
Another idea which I think goes well with the above, but which is not essential is to
4) remove the current run focus / pass focus choice for blockers and replace it with a strength focus / agility focus. A strength focus would give a bonus to a blocker's effectiveness when he has a sizable strength advantage over his opponent, but a negative when he faces a strength disadvantage, while an agility focus would give a bonus when a blocker has an agility advantage over his opponent, but a negative when he faces an agility disadvantage. No focus would be neutral.
So those of you who don't like to read a lot can stop here. For those interested in the details, and other, more complex possible solutions, here goes:
I was watching a football game a couple of weeks ago and I noticed a tackle trying to block a cornerback on a screen pass. The announcers commented on how difficult it is for such a big, heavy player to try to block such a quick, fast player in the open field. This started me thinking about the GLB screen plays, where I regularly see big heavies pancake 2 or 3 much quicker defenders at a time on screen plays.
The problem, I recognized, was that once the pass is caught, the defender runs straight for the man with the ball, without any attempt to avoid blockers. Blockers calculate an intersection route and so usually get to the defenders. At this point the defender tries to go through the blocker, and the blocker tries to go through the defender, and big, heavy tackles usually pancake fast cornerbacks, and then start eyeing the next defender to block.
This got me thinking about all sorts of elaborate logic that could be written where the defender would take a path so that, if he is much faster than the blocker, he tries to avoid the blocker, and in any case doesn't try to go through the blocker, so he's still standing and able to make a tackle once the running back who caught the screen tries to get downfield. Meanwhile, I thought, blocking logic could be added so blockers would try to seal off the defenders from the running back. And there would need to be a chance that the quick defenders could get past the attempted seal.
As I thought about the blocking additions, I started to recognize that these are already what blockers do with pass blocking logic. Then I started to think that if the blockers would only pass block to begin with once they were in the open field, that there wouldn't really be any need to write all the fancy logic for defenders I had thought up. The defenders could go ahead and run straight at the ball carrier (which isn't completely realistic but it's easy to implement since there's no code that needs to be written to change defensive paths). The pass blocking logic will effectively simulate the defenders and blockers squaring off on the open field and the defender trying to slip by while the blocker tries to seal him off. It also will allow the defenders to avoid being pancaked and be in position to at least make the tackle 5-10 yards downfield in most cases, which is what defenders would do in real life. Screen passes would still be effective against many defenses, but wouldn't go for so many huge gains.
I also thought about how this same logic should be applied to defenders playing 10 yards downfield, and that's when I came up with the idea of the "box area". Basically, any time a defender is in the open field (outside the "box area"), he gets the benefit of the extra space and blockers are only able to seal him off not try and drive block him resulting in unrealistic pancakes in wide-open field against much quicker players.
Naturally, I also considered special teams plays like kickoffs and punts. I thought, should the same sort of logic apply? My thought - heck yea! It makes no sense seeing 2/3 the kicking team getting pancaked on every kickoff or punt play, then having to get back up and make a tackle. That's completely unrealistic. I think that once the ball is kicked, the "box area" should be completely removed from kickoff and punt plays and ALL blocking from that point can only be pass blocking. (Actually this change is not mandatory for my idea so I don't want to push it too hard but just wanted to state my thoughts and if these are left as they are now that's ok too - let's focus on fixing the biggest problems which are on non-special teams plays.)
As I was thinking of any impacts to the game, I thought of the need to get rid of the current choice of run block / pass block focus since, with this change, much more blocking would be pass blocking. However, I liked the idea of changing the choice to strength focus / agility focus / no focus. Suppose as a result of scouting a tackle is expected to go up against a very quick but not very strong DE. The tackle could go into the game with a focus on trying to outmuscle his opponents and keep them neutralized that way. He would have worked on that focus all week during practice. He is prepared to have improved blocking against opponents where he has a strength advantage. So on most plays when he blocks that weak DE he gets a bonus. However, if on one play he gets matched up with a huge, super-strong defensive tackle he won't have prepared for that during his practices and on that play he'll have a disadvantage. It think this is a good way for offensive players with all-around builds to scout and help neutralize defenders with extreme, imbalanced builds, just like would be done in real life.
As I continued to think about all this, I realized that there was still one issue that I saw on so many screen plays that needs to be fixed. Time after time, I would see the halfback running down the sideline after catching a screen pass, and defenders would take a careful pursuit angle to cut him off and get in a position between the running back and the goal line, then once they got close, instead of forcing the running back out of bounds or just trying to delay him so other defenders could catch up, the defender in good position would try an aggressive tackle and many times would miss that tackle and allow a touchdown or many more yards.
The more complicated solution I thought up was to have defenders recognize if they are a "last man" or "last few men" and also recognize sideline proximity to use that to their advantage and then give a little ground to effect a force out or else cause the runner to need to either try to cut back horizontally into the field of play or run straight through the defender with little to no chance of doing a fake, etc. However, I saw that could be complicated.
So then I recognized that defenders in this situation had almost always taken a backwards angle of pursuit to get in this great position, and it hit me that that was a great trigger! If a defender goes to all the trouble to give up ground taking a negative angle of pursuit then that defender is NOT going to suddenly become aggressive again and fail to make the careful but conservative tackle. The defender is no longer in a normal situation where he is attacking the ball carrier. He is trying to cut off a touchdown or big(ger) play and will use much different tactics when tackling. He will not advance on the running back, so will be very unlikely to fall for any fakes or jukes or spins. Instead he will happily give a bit more ground and use the sideline to his advantage plus anything he can do to slow the running back down so other defenders can catch up. So I thought the easiest way to code the effect of all this is for defenders who have previously taken a negative pursuit angle to receive a significant bonus to tackling and fake avoidance at the cost of giving up a little extra yardage very easily and of having negligible chance to force a fumble.
Of course there are some situations where a defender might still want to be as aggressive as possible when tackling, including:
1) inside his own 3 yard line
2) when down on the scoreboard late in the game
Another possibility for my list is when a first down is on the line but I see many real-life defenders who still play it safe even if they have to give up a first down (although the announcers invariably criticize this choice) so I didn't add that to my list.
I think it would be enough if defenders inside their own 3 yard line or after a certain point in time late in the game if down on the scoreboard would always try to tackle aggressively like they do now, and these were the only two exceptions. Perhaps someone else can add another exception I've failed to recognize.
Ok, that's it. I've thought this through and considered sophisticated logic but I'm comfortable that the comparatively simple adjustments I've recommended here will fix the problem with minimal pain and maximum benefit. I hope you agree but welcome all comments.