Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > So how does the SIM select the one defender per tick that gets juked or head faked?
Adderfist
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ronnie Brown 23
Originally posted by Bukowski
Originally posted by taurran
It seems pretty random to me.
Only faking one player per juke doesn't seem to even make sense to me.
No, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It was probably just the easiest, quickest fix that he could think of.
But of course, he turned down the values of Head Fake and Juke, just to make sure.
Oh no, you can only fake 10 players per second* now. The sky is falling.
*That's actually what the sim allows for right now.
except fakes usually aren't long enough to make a difference at the moment. So unless you're hitting groups they're iffy. At best.
Originally posted by Bukowski
Originally posted by taurran
It seems pretty random to me.
Only faking one player per juke doesn't seem to even make sense to me.
No, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
It was probably just the easiest, quickest fix that he could think of.
But of course, he turned down the values of Head Fake and Juke, just to make sure.
Oh no, you can only fake 10 players per second* now. The sky is falling.
*That's actually what the sim allows for right now.
except fakes usually aren't long enough to make a difference at the moment. So unless you're hitting groups they're iffy. At best.
kurieg
offline
offline
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
Originally posted by kurieg
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
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?
No.
HBs have to pass a Vision check to see a threat. They only make this check when a defender is close enough. The better the tackler the defender is, the further away the HB decides he's a threat.
HBs only try to fake perceived threats.
So the higher the tacking, the easier they become to 'see' on the vision check and they will roll a fake against that tackler. Hmm. So tackling makes you the biggest threat.
Bort didn't directly say being a bigger threat makes you easier to see. You just look sooner.
My guess is that it's equally the same to see anyone. The distance of the check depends on the level of threat to ensure the HB gets a chance to do something (assuming he sees the guy at all) before the defender decks him.
Originally posted by kurieg
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
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?
No.
HBs have to pass a Vision check to see a threat. They only make this check when a defender is close enough. The better the tackler the defender is, the further away the HB decides he's a threat.
HBs only try to fake perceived threats.
So the higher the tacking, the easier they become to 'see' on the vision check and they will roll a fake against that tackler. Hmm. So tackling makes you the biggest threat.
Bort didn't directly say being a bigger threat makes you easier to see. You just look sooner.
My guess is that it's equally the same to see anyone. The distance of the check depends on the level of threat to ensure the HB gets a chance to do something (assuming he sees the guy at all) before the defender decks him.
Originally posted by Deathblade
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by Deathblade
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
The bug forum will fill up. And I'd hate to be the one saying working as intended.(in your shoes)
Originally posted by Deathblade
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
The bug forum will fill up. And I'd hate to be the one saying working as intended.(in your shoes
)kurieg
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by Deathblade
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
I changed my mind. This would be worth seeing!
Originally posted by Deathblade
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
I changed my mind. This would be worth seeing!
Originally posted by jrry32
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
The_Warden
offline
offline
If I were an elusive back, I would want to have a fake roll against the closest possible defender. If I fail that roll, the next roll should still be against that particular defender, if he is the closest still. To me the closest defender is the biggest threat. With defenders being between the 11 and 1 position of the direction the ball carier is going to be of greater concern.
In my opinion in this replay, the DT and MB had no chance to make a play anyways, the FS should have been the HBs target.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=608091&pbp_id=9645510
In my opinion in this replay, the DT and MB had no chance to make a play anyways, the FS should have been the HBs target.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=608091&pbp_id=9645510
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
Well, I actually meant if the person who "crit reverse faked" them makes the tackle.
But just fumbling in the middle of the field would be funny.
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
Well, I actually meant if the person who "crit reverse faked" them makes the tackle.
But just fumbling in the middle of the field would be funny.
Adderfist
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by Deathblade
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
Would be a great idea though.
Originally posted by Deathblade
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?
Fumble off the knee?
LOL, if just for the lulz. Imagine the complaints when somebody's 23 carrying guy randomly dropped the ball in the middle of the field.
Would be a great idea though.
DL24
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by jrry32
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
So he can't fake people behind him, right?
Originally posted by jrry32
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
So he can't fake people behind him, right?
j10er
offline
offline
Originally posted by kurieg
Originally posted by j10er
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...
Seriously, Bort, all you have to give us is one of your patented, "It would make sense, wouldn't it?" answers, and I'd be happy.
Of course, then I'd ask you if Tackling helps to shed blocks. But one thing at a time
Originally posted by j10er
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...
Seriously, Bort, all you have to give us is one of your patented, "It would make sense, wouldn't it?" answers, and I'd be happy.
Of course, then I'd ask you if Tackling helps to shed blocks. But one thing at a time
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by jrry32
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
Personally, I think the "half circle" is too big...it should be like 75 degrees, then increase towards 180 degrees based on vision.
Originally posted by jrry32
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
Personally, I think the "half circle" is too big...it should be like 75 degrees, then increase towards 180 degrees based on vision.
Originally posted by j10er
Originally posted by kurieg
Originally posted by j10er
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...
Seriously, Bort, all you have to give us is one of your patented, "It would make sense, wouldn't it?" answers, and I'd be happy.
Of course, then I'd ask you if Tackling helps to shed blocks. But one thing at a time
Vision is much more important than tackling for avoiding fakes.
Originally posted by kurieg
Originally posted by j10er
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...
Seriously, Bort, all you have to give us is one of your patented, "It would make sense, wouldn't it?" answers, and I'd be happy.
Of course, then I'd ask you if Tackling helps to shed blocks. But one thing at a time
Vision is much more important than tackling for avoiding fakes.
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by DL24
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by jrry32
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
So he can't fake people behind him, right?
If he can't then lots of dots out there stumble randomly in the middle of running. Bort have you thought about coding it in more? Like in blocking interaction? And does the vision half circles have like "hot zones" where if a guy is in this angle to the ballcarrier, he is much more easily faked then if he is in this angle?
Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by jrry32
Bort, while you are here...have you considered coding in vision cones instead of the current system? Or are there currently vision cones? Because it seems like vision cones are needed because the current vision system allows a dot to not really have a front or back to it. Like OL dots can engage a DT in front of him, disengage him and immediately engage a DE running directly behind him or a WR can engage a CB in front of him and a LB who run into the side of him.
There are vision cones for some things (lead blocking and QB sack avoidance). A lot of it is done with "allowable angles" between vectors. The ball carrier sort of has a vision "half circle" in which he can fake people, as well.
So he can't fake people behind him, right?
If he can't then lots of dots out there stumble randomly in the middle of running. Bort have you thought about coding it in more? Like in blocking interaction? And does the vision half circles have like "hot zones" where if a guy is in this angle to the ballcarrier, he is much more easily faked then if he is in this angle?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
