Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by jrry32

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?



No, it's just "is he in front of me" - fakes are not more or less possible from the side or front. It would be possible to add a sliding scale based on angle differences between the players' vectors, easily enough.

Here is what I was thinking:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/jrry32/Fake.jpg
I'm sorry it's a poor drawing but lets say the Redzone is the hot zone, if 1 or more guys are in it, very high chance they are faked. Orange zone is an average chance you'll be faked and yellow zone is low chance you'll be faked. Green zone is 0 chance you'll be faked. Instead of doing it so only 1 guy gets faked per tick, you could do it so that fake chances are based on angles or zones. The better faker the RB is(points in SAs and AEQ in fake chance, etc.) the bigger the red zone and smaller the yellow and orange zones, of course you can't let the Redzone get too big or else it would be a big problem with fakes like Dooley. But this way, a RB can fake multiple guys with the same move but it's very hard and rare because they'd have to be perfect angle to allow him to do it. And also, a RB should not be able to fake out guys on both sides so if he does use a fake, it should only effect lets say the right side of the Red, the right orange and the right yellow zone so if there are guys on the other side of him, they won't fall for a fake and will tackle him because no RB can make a fake that works on both sides.

Again, the drawing is poor but I hope you get my point, instead of having it so only 1 guy can get faked per move, you make it relative to the angles that defenders are into the RB and NEVER should a guy behind the RB be faked. This would be a realistic type deal.

Originally posted by Chester101
Originally posted by Bort

Originally posted by Bukowski


It used to be, when the fake SA activates, the defender that was the highest threat would normally be faked.

LOL, you just pulled that out of your ass, because it ain't true.

All I needed to read.
Though I knew that before you said it bort.

Thanks for the info!

QFT

Just being 'the best' makes me

Can my HB plz go back to being 'supreme overlord of souls'?

Originally posted by taurran
Originally posted by Bort

Originally posted by Bukowski


It used to be, when the fake SA activates, the defender that was the highest threat would normally be faked.

LOL, you just pulled that out of your ass, because it ain't true. Usually it was just the guys who failed their rolls most miserably. It's the same math & progression as it's always been now. 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. If the carrier sees the defender ready to tackle, he gets to try and fake him. If the tackler is already faked out, he can't get stack-faked, so we can go on to the next guy.

Therefore, lets say there are 3 guys trying to make the tackle.

Tick 1, you fake guy B.
Tick 2, you fail all your rolls and don't fake anybody. Guy B is still faked.
Tick 3, you can't fake guy B because he's already faked out, so you fake guy A.
Tick 4, guy B and A are already faked out, still shrunken, so you fake guy C.

Now, with this method, you do end up with fewer chances to fake people, because you have to wait until the next tick to try for the next guy when you succeed, but that's what I wanted - focus on taking out one tackler at a time.

Makes sense, but is still not very realistic considering a player fakes once and everyone sees and reacts at the exact same time.

Why not just allow a HB to affect a number of defenders with the same fake, but slightly decrease the frequency of fake rolls?

To sum up.

Vision cones
Critical jukes/btk's
Crit failures
zones for faking.

Did I miss anything?

Originally posted by tonylieu
Originally posted by Chester101

Originally posted by Bort


Originally posted by Bukowski



It used to be, when the fake SA activates, the defender that was the highest threat would normally be faked.

LOL, you just pulled that out of your ass, because it ain't true.

All I needed to read.
Though I knew that before you said it bort.

Thanks for the info!

QFT

That's an epic quote.

Originally posted by jrry32
Originally posted by Bort

Originally posted by jrry32


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?



No, it's just "is he in front of me" - fakes are not more or less possible from the side or front. It would be possible to add a sliding scale based on angle differences between the players' vectors, easily enough.

Here is what I was thinking:
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/jrry32/?action=view&current=Fake.jpg
I'm sorry it's a poor drawing but lets say the Redzone is the hot zone, if 1 or more guys are in it, very high chance they are faked. Orange zone is an average chance you'll be faked and yellow zone is low chance you'll be faked. Green zone is 0 chance you'll be faked. Instead of doing it so only 1 guy gets faked per tick, you could do it so that fake chances are based on angles or zones. The better faker the RB is(points in SAs and AEQ in fake chance, etc.) the bigger the red zone and smaller the yellow and orange zones, of course you can't let the Redzone get too big or else it would be a big problem with fakes like Dooley. But this way, a RB can fake multiple guys with the same move but it's very hard and rare because they'd have to be perfect angle to allow him to do it. And also, a RB should not be able to fake out guys on both sides so if he does use a fake, it should only effect lets say the right side of the Red, the right orange and the right yellow zone so if there are guys on the other side of him, they won't fall for a fake and will tackle him because no RB can make a fake that works on both sides.

Again, the drawing is poor but I hope you get my point, instead of having it so only 1 guy can get faked per move, you make it relative to the angles that defenders are into the RB and NEVER should a guy behind the RB be faked. This would be a realistic type deal.



That's basically what I was thinking of with the "sliding scale" based on angle I was referring to. Make the fake less and less possible the more you get away from dead center in the player's vision cone.

Originally posted by jrry32
Originally posted by Bort

Originally posted by jrry32


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?



No, it's just "is he in front of me" - fakes are not more or less possible from the side or front. It would be possible to add a sliding scale based on angle differences between the players' vectors, easily enough.

Here is what I was thinking:
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/jrry32/?action=view&current=Fake.jpg
I'm sorry it's a poor drawing but lets say the Redzone is the hot zone, if 1 or more guys are in it, very high chance they are faked. Orange zone is an average chance you'll be faked and yellow zone is low chance you'll be faked. Green zone is 0 chance you'll be faked. Instead of doing it so only 1 guy gets faked per tick, you could do it so that fake chances are based on angles or zones. The better faker the RB is(points in SAs and AEQ in fake chance, etc.) the bigger the red zone and smaller the yellow and orange zones, of course you can't let the Redzone get too big or else it would be a big problem with fakes like Dooley. But this way, a RB can fake multiple guys with the same move but it's very hard and rare because they'd have to be perfect angle to allow him to do it. And also, a RB should not be able to fake out guys on both sides so if he does use a fake, it should only effect lets say the right side of the Red, the right orange and the right yellow zone so if there are guys on the other side of him, they won't fall for a fake and will tackle him because no RB can make a fake that works on both sides.

Again, the drawing is poor but I hope you get my point, instead of having it so only 1 guy can get faked per move, you make it relative to the angles that defenders are into the RB and NEVER should a guy behind the RB be faked. This would be a realistic type deal.




That's even simplifying it a bit much. It's not just a "cone" around a HB, it also includes the direction of travel, and also the defenders proximity and direction of travel.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by jrry32

Originally posted by Bort


Originally posted by jrry32



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?



No, it's just "is he in front of me" - fakes are not more or less possible from the side or front. It would be possible to add a sliding scale based on angle differences between the players' vectors, easily enough.

Here is what I was thinking:
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/jrry32/?action=view&current=Fake.jpg
I'm sorry it's a poor drawing but lets say the Redzone is the hot zone, if 1 or more guys are in it, very high chance they are faked. Orange zone is an average chance you'll be faked and yellow zone is low chance you'll be faked. Green zone is 0 chance you'll be faked. Instead of doing it so only 1 guy gets faked per tick, you could do it so that fake chances are based on angles or zones. The better faker the RB is(points in SAs and AEQ in fake chance, etc.) the bigger the red zone and smaller the yellow and orange zones, of course you can't let the Redzone get too big or else it would be a big problem with fakes like Dooley. But this way, a RB can fake multiple guys with the same move but it's very hard and rare because they'd have to be perfect angle to allow him to do it. And also, a RB should not be able to fake out guys on both sides so if he does use a fake, it should only effect lets say the right side of the Red, the right orange and the right yellow zone so if there are guys on the other side of him, they won't fall for a fake and will tackle him because no RB can make a fake that works on both sides.

Again, the drawing is poor but I hope you get my point, instead of having it so only 1 guy can get faked per move, you make it relative to the angles that defenders are into the RB and NEVER should a guy behind the RB be faked. This would be a realistic type deal.



That's basically what I was thinking of with the "sliding scale" based on angle I was referring to. Make the fake less and less possible the more you get away from dead center in the player's vision cone.

Sounds like another busy offseason then.

Originally posted by DL24
Sounds like another busy offseason then.

LOL, when is it not?

Originally posted by Bort


That's basically what I was thinking of with the "sliding scale" based on angle I was referring to. Make the fake less and less possible the more you get away from dead center in the player's vision cone.

Yea, that's something I think that would work well. That way, very low chance you can make 2 defenders miss on the same fake just like real life but there is a rare occurence where it will happen.

Originally posted by taurran
That's even simplifying it a bit much. It's not just a "cone" around a HB, it also includes the direction of travel, and also the defenders proximity and direction of travel.

Of course, totally agreed...just starting simple.

Originally posted by Bort
That's basically what I was thinking of with the "sliding scale" based on angle I was referring to. Make the fake less and less possible the more you get away from dead center in the player's vision cone.

I'd almost go as far as saying directly in front of the HB should be HIGHER than current rolls. Maybe even 150%, while perpendicular is significantly smaller, like 50%.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Bort

That's basically what I was thinking of with the "sliding scale" based on angle I was referring to. Make the fake less and less possible the more you get away from dead center in the player's vision cone.

I'd almost go as far as saying directly in front of the HB should be HIGHER than current rolls. Maybe even 150%, while perpendicular is significantly smaller, like 50%.

Or lower than 50% because IRL, when are you really going to fake a guy next to you? You have to stop and juke behind him.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by DL24

Sounds like another busy offseason then.

LOL, when is it not?

Haha nice. So can we expect the logistics of Elusives to be totally different next season then?

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by Bort

That's basically what I was thinking of with the "sliding scale" based on angle I was referring to. Make the fake less and less possible the more you get away from dead center in the player's vision cone.

I'd almost go as far as saying directly in front of the HB should be HIGHER than current rolls. Maybe even 150%, while perpendicular is significantly smaller, like 50%.

I agree with this.

As it stands (or as it stood before recent changes) players head on weren't faked nearly enough, while players at glancing angles were faked FAR too often.

Of course, maybe the head on players are being faked often enough, it's just that the ball carrier doesn't have enough time to get around them?

Could maybe consider some sort of sliding scale of fake severity? Wehre players who are faked head on are faked for a longer period of time?

Originally posted by Gart888
Originally posted by Deathblade

Originally posted by Bort


That's basically what I was thinking of with the "sliding scale" based on angle I was referring to. Make the fake less and less possible the more you get away from dead center in the player's vision cone.

I'd almost go as far as saying directly in front of the HB should be HIGHER than current rolls. Maybe even 150%, while perpendicular is significantly smaller, like 50%.

I agree with this.

As it stands (or as it stood before recent changes) players head on weren't faked nearly enough, while players at glancing angles were faked FAR too often.

Of course, maybe the head on players are being faked often enough, it's just that the ball carrier doesn't have enough time to get around them?

Could maybe consider some sort of sliding scale of fake severity? Wehre players who are faked head on are faked for a longer period of time?



Agreed, how long they stay down has been a constant problem.