Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Staz
And second off?

I agree, it's a pain in the ass (forum search, anybody?) but I like knowing where my ideas are to refer to them.

I haven't thought of a second one yet. .

Originally posted by Staz

The only reason a play action works is because the offense has run successful run plays prior. If the defense is shutting down the run, and the offense just isn't running, a PA won't be effective.


Not really, no.

Staz, watch an NFL game and pay attention to the depth of the back.

If the back's 7 yards deep, then it's normally a give to the tailback. Watch the lineman too. If the back's 5 yards deep it's either a draw or they're throwin' it.

Here's a a circumstances, and what the result might be -

If the tailback is 7 yards deep and the offensive line is staggered (tackle is 2 yards deep)

1. Zone stretch to the staggered side
2. Play action with the float opposite the staggered side
3. Some type of misdirection with the south lineman taking a bucket step and high hat and moving (pulling) - think counter trap.
4. This one sucks They'll do a straight drop with 3 and a gather or a 5 and no gather. It's a slant with a 0 depth sideline route underneath it as a throwaway option and stretch the width of the 2 or 5 void defender if he doesn't buy it. If you try to pass protect with a back 7 deep, you can't mix and you're honest across your 5 lineman, which means it's big, and if they fire, you're screwed. You do this to get the playside backer to stay at home reading guard to back and you're guessin' zone and you want the 2 or 5 void, and it's 2 or 5 depending on how you number across - for example Paterno goes left to right no matter strength, Spurrier goes strong to weak etc. This will change on how you number across the eligible players.

That's just 1 of a bunch that I can think of.

If anyone wants to dispute this, go ahead and throw on some game tape of any game in the last three years and tell me if you get any result that's different then what I listed.

Where playaction is made is the quality of the run action, and that's where zone comes into play and why Shannahan had such success with it, because he used it exclusively and zone has one advantage that man blocking doesn't - you get the same look from your indicator no matter what. Bucket step, high hat every down - that's the absolute and normal of what he does. If backer X read through the guard to the tailback, then his look is the same, whether they throw it or run it.

If you implement play action this way, then all everyone on the game will do is run it to get to playaction and try to get dipshit X to fail his vision check.

To fix that, you'll need to do this -

Originally posted by Jlocke6
Are we going to see some play action/ fake hand-off plays in the near future? One of my very few complaints is that there is no real incentive for building a QB that scrambles. Not a runner like Vince Young, but an outside the pocket thrower like Jay Cutler.

to do this -

Originally posted by VenomCoach
When I was a tester I tried repeatedly to get QB runs removed in place of PAPs, boots, and rolls.

The QB runs are redonkulous.



otherwise TE's are gonna' be left uncovered everywhere when they try to cover him with the LOLBer's. You're gonna' have to make it indicator specific unless you want a useless position that just blitzes every down.

justme - I would actually love to have Bort put player reads in the game, but I don't know enough about specific ones to say who reads what and what those reads translate to.

Originally posted by Staz
justme - I would actually love to have Bort put player reads in the game, but I don't know enough about specific ones to say who reads what and what those reads translate to.

That would be the beauty of it -

It would allow the user to determine which type of blocking that they used.

I know at one time, before his last change, Bort had zone in pass pro - which how it's done.

If he just transposed that to the run game, that would do it. If he had the linebackers read the guard blanketly and initially, to identify run or pass, then read to assignment -

For example, have the linebacker read the guard to pass/fail a vision check to see how quickly they make a run/pass ID, then move on to whatever assignment they have - however that's determined in the AI.

This would allow the guys in charge of new plays to introduce lead draws. Running back's 5 yards back, lineman shows a pass set, then everyone reads pass, and the player with the back assignment, unless everyone plays zone - which would prove beneficial to the entire defense in this circumstance, would play through the guard to the back. It would be just like how it's actually done.

You could work off that same premise to get whatever effect you need for everything else.

IMO, if you include something as powerful as PAP's, then you have to also give the defense AI a boost to do cross blitzes, or blitz fakes.

I'm all for adding new features, but making one side of the ball so much more powerful without giving anything to the other side just ruins it for one of the coordinators.

Also, if PAPs work like Pump Fakes, it will be insane. Every linebacker would leave his man/zone for a second, and players would be open all day.

Ive never seen 5 players in the backfield react to a QB pump fake before. I thought it was mostly used to slow down D-linemen and QB Spies. GLB doesn't have to be 'real' to be fun. So I'm okay with whatever... Just keep both sides of the ball evenly matched please.

Originally posted by quicksilver

I'm all for adding new features, but making one side of the ball so much more powerful without giving anything to the other side just ruins it for one of the coordinators.


I agree, imagine how mad OC's would have been if DC's were given the defensive play creator and there was no OPC to counter it. Oooh they'd be mad!!!!

I like the idea of a PAP based on run success. If your running successful they will bite, if your not, they won't give a flying hoot if your going to "run" and will defend pass anyways. Each player not in man coverage on a receiver should be forced to make a vision check opposed by the QB/HBs PA Fake modifier, which should entail successful runs (make a limit obviously) and some combination of agility/confidence/vision from both the QB and HB. Maybe add in a SA or 2 just for this.

Originally posted by LionsLover
I like the idea of a PAP based on run success. If your running successful they will bite, if your not, they won't give a flying hoot if your going to "run" and will defend pass anyways. Each player not in man coverage on a receiver should be forced to make a vision check opposed by the QB/HBs PA Fake modifier, which should entail successful runs (make a limit obviously) and some combination of agility/confidence/vision from both the QB and HB. Maybe add in a SA or 2 just for this.

I agree. If a team passes 30 times in a row and then does a PAP and the defenders freeze, it would be stupid.

PAP introduces the whole problem of the defensive players expecting a play and seeing another one develop. I mean, a play action is a basic vision roll (is the QB still in possesion of the ball?) but the implications of it is just another story. An inexperienced LB who just got trucked by a powerback might want to step towards the LOS, biting the fake, while an intelligent and more confident one will just go through his reads (is the OLine going forward? is the QB doing a proper rollout or just jogging the opposite way, looking at the RB to see if he gets yards? and so on). I don't know how the vision checks for D players are set right now, but if we implement something like that, vision will become more important to actually get in the right place at the right time, while its "anti-fake" function would still be intact.
The question is, actually: is reading a PAP just a vision check? Or a vision/confidence/previous plays check? The latter one would require a different way of building players, IMO. I rarely see a non-qb position having more than 2nd capped vision, so I think it would have a very big impact on the sim.

Originally posted by Pibborn
I rarely see a non-qb position having more than 2nd capped vision, so I think it would have a very big impact on the sim.

actually, most positions on defense should have at least 60 vision (DL). LBs should push for 68, and DBs should look for 74+, imo of course... but that is based off consistently seeing builds, especially ones of high quality with numbers like that.

Play action is going to require MAJOR sim reconstruction if Bort wants to make it realistic and balanced at the same time.

Originally posted by Pibborn
PAP introduces the whole problem of the defensive players expecting a play and seeing another one develop. I mean, a play action is a basic vision roll (is the QB still in possesion of the ball?) but the implications of it is just another story. An inexperienced LB who just got trucked by a powerback might want to step towards the LOS, biting the fake, while an intelligent and more confident one will just go through his reads (is the OLine going forward? is the QB doing a proper rollout or just jogging the opposite way, looking at the RB to see if he gets yards? and so on). I don't know how the vision checks for D players are set right now, but if we implement something like that, vision will become more important to actually get in the right place at the right time, while its "anti-fake" function would still be intact.
The question is, actually: is reading a PAP just a vision check? Or a vision/confidence/previous plays check? The latter one would require a different way of building players, IMO. I rarely see a non-qb position having more than 2nd capped vision, so I think it would have a very big impact on the sim.

We need defensive reads, and not just a "vision check" to know exactly what play it is.

And you rarely see a non-qb position having more than 2nd capped vision? DBs are "poor builds" if they don't have vision in the 70's or higher. LBs are getting there, too. DL is probably the only part of the defense that isn't strongly encouraged to hit 68 vision, and I think that might be slowly changing.

Originally posted by quicksilver
IMO, if you include something as powerful as PAP's, then you have to also give the defense AI a boost to do cross blitzes, or blitz fakes.

I'm all for adding new features, but making one side of the ball so much more powerful without giving anything to the other side just ruins it for one of the coordinators.

Also, if PAPs work like Pump Fakes, it will be insane. Every linebacker would leave his man/zone for a second, and players would be open all day.

Ive never seen 5 players in the backfield react to a QB pump fake before. I thought it was mostly used to slow down D-linemen and QB Spies. GLB doesn't have to be 'real' to be fun. So I'm okay with whatever... Just keep both sides of the ball evenly matched please.

You guys have a play creator........really? Please dont complain about giving too much power to anything

Play Action
Each time a play type is ran the easier the vision check is. So if you run 60 times, the checks will see the HB with the ball right away. You would suffer a penalty on seeing the play action and passing though.

Then put in play action and use the check formula for running to see if they think the HB has the ball. Essentially make it check for run on the passing play and if they read the run, have another check to see if they are fooled by the play action up to 5 tics. (Degree of failure)

Originally posted by Worker 3
actually, most positions on defense should have at least 60 vision (DL). LBs should push for 68, and DBs should look for 74+, imo of course... but that is based off consistently seeing builds, especially ones of high quality with numbers like that.

I agree... if I don't see vision triple capped on almost any position I begin to wonder if the player can play. So positions can get away with it, but not 70% of the defense.