Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by snoridr16

Originally posted by Bort


Fakes happen when a defender is getting in position to try and make a tackle, and its in a fairly random order as to who gets picked first amongst those in range, based on which defender is acting first against the carrier.

"which defender is acting first against the carrier" = biggest threat IMO.

Not sure where "fairly random order" fits in if it's "based on which defender is acting first against the carrier"... but we can accept the unnecessarily fuzzy description.

Perhaps there can be some sort of differential range where players can juke more than 1 player per tick... for if a defender rolls VERY pooly or the ball carrier rolls VERY well. So anytime a ball carrier rolls 50+ (totally arbitrary) higher than the defender, the defender fails, regardless of whether or not another player fails, and his fail does not count toward the single fail-per-tick limit.

i.e.,
Play1 - HB rolls 95, Def1 rolls 60, Def2 rolls 90, Def3 rolls 20. -> All defenders failed the check. Def1 (differential 35) and Def3 faked (differential 75). Def2 is not faked because Def1 was the one faked player. (Def2 doesn't count because he was blown out of the water.)

Play2 - HB rolls 65, Def1 rolls 60, Def2 rolls 90, Def3 rolls 20. -> Def1 (differential 5) OR Def3 (differential 45) is faked. Def2 is not faked because he passed the check.

Thoughts?


Like a "critical hit" fake or something?

Sort of, but more "critical difference"... so if the defender rolls REALLY poorly or the carrier rolls REALLY well, or a combination of the 2, the defender is faked regardless of whether another player is faked.

Bort

Another idea to boost fake, is to do a proximity check on the faked player, and have the ability to fake the dots in that proximity.

I do like the "critical fake" idea though.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by DL24

Originally posted by DL24


Originally posted by Bort



Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt





Bort, I am not seeing HB's move to guy A if guy B was faked on tick 2, 3, 4, etc...
Did you change the values of the rolls required to carryout a fake element? Or did you change the bonus from any of the SA's?

Nope.

So, to clarify; you changed nothing other than the ability to fake out more than one defender per tick?



Yup, literally wrapping the fake block in a "if (has_faked_this_tick)"

Then lol @ everyone who's crying that you stealth-nerfed Elusive backs.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Bort

How did you get that?

If he's a better tackler, he has a bigger range of tackling you, and thus becomes a threat sooner.

So...a player with zero tackling is invisible?

Isn't that counter-productive?

Also, LOL @ the people who were saying tackling helps against elusives.

Bort hasn't told you what goes into the Defender's anti-fake roll.



And, a player with no tackling score would be invisible, I guess - but he's not going to make the tackle, either.

Originally posted by Bort
There's a min radius, d00d. The range of allowed tackling distances is also fairly small, but it does vary a bit between a min and max range.

Shouldn't the HB just have a set "range" based on his vision, say "estimated tackling radius", while the defender can actually surpass that "estimated tackling radius" if he has high enough tackling?

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Originally posted by j10er

Originally posted by Bort


If the carrier sees the defender ready to tackle, he gets to try and fake him.

So, with the new system, does that mean there are more vision checks involved?

LOL at guys who thought Vision for a HB was bad.


Kind of what I was getting at. Especially considering who has been complaining about the changes, and what those agents have said about vision in the past.

If I'm digesting all of this correctly, there are a lot more vision checks made in the new system, simply because there are more defenders un-faked on any given tick.


Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Bort

How did you get that?

If he's a better tackler, he has a bigger range of tackling you, and thus becomes a threat sooner.

So...a player with zero tackling is invisible?

Isn't that counter-productive?

Also, LOL @ the people who were saying tackling helps against elusives.


While I see what you're saying, I'm still convinced Tackling goes into the anti-fake equation.

And Bort is going to verify that in 3... 2.... 1...

Originally posted by Sik Wit It
Originally posted by todd_terps_62

I think the point is, that guys with Elusive backs (and owners dependent on them) want a constant stream of juking the guy nearest the HB, thus making it so NO ONE can ever tackle them.

The rest of us want something a bit closer to reality.

LOL seriously.

Yea, seriously...

Originally posted by snoridr16
Sort of, but more "critical difference"... so if the defender rolls REALLY poorly or the carrier rolls REALLY well, or a combination of the 2, the defender is faked regardless of whether another player is faked.

Hm, interesting idea. I would thing it would have to be sort of a "everyone can do it" sort of thing, though, or have some downside to trying to max out your chance, or just happen pretty infrequently. If you can min-max your way to making it happen all the time, you become twice as good as somebody who doesn't do it very often.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by snoridr16

Sort of, but more "critical difference"... so if the defender rolls REALLY poorly or the carrier rolls REALLY well, or a combination of the 2, the defender is faked regardless of whether another player is faked.

Hm, interesting idea. I would thing it would have to be sort of a "everyone can do it" sort of thing, though, or have some downside to trying to max out your chance, or just happen pretty infrequently. If you can min-max your way to making it happen all the time, you become twice as good as somebody who doesn't do it very often.

However, you would likely be lacking in like speed or something, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Bort

There's a min radius, d00d. The range of allowed tackling distances is also fairly small, but it does vary a bit between a min and max range.

Shouldn't the HB just have a set "range" based on his vision, say "estimated tackling radius", while the defender can actually surpass that "estimated tackling radius" if he has high enough tackling?

I suppose that would work; vision checks to see the defenders coming work similarly though.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Bort

Originally posted by snoridr16


Sort of, but more "critical difference"... so if the defender rolls REALLY poorly or the carrier rolls REALLY well, or a combination of the 2, the defender is faked regardless of whether another player is faked.

Hm, interesting idea. I would thing it would have to be sort of a "everyone can do it" sort of thing, though, or have some downside to trying to max out your chance, or just happen pretty infrequently. If you can min-max your way to making it happen all the time, you become twice as good as somebody who doesn't do it very often.

However, you would likely be lacking in like speed or something, wouldn't you?

Depends on the path to increasing your crit chance.

The way I am reading what Bort said, is that the higher the tackling the better for a defender. Because the HB will view him as a bigger threat and try and roll a fake element on another defender whom is deemed to be a lower threat?

Originally posted by Bort
Depends on the path to increasing your crit chance.

Well, yeah.

What about a reverse critical fake, where the HB's chance to fumble goes up significantly?

Originally posted by j10er
Originally posted by Deathblade

Originally posted by Bort


How did you get that?

If he's a better tackler, he has a bigger range of tackling you, and thus becomes a threat sooner.

So...a player with zero tackling is invisible?

Isn't that counter-productive?

Also, LOL @ the people who were saying tackling helps against elusives.


While I see what you're saying, I'm still convinced Tackling goes into the anti-fake equation.

And Bort is going to verify that in 3... 2.... 1...

*Ahem*

You're throwing off my timing here, Bort.