Yea, I agree Gart.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > So how does the SIM select the one defender per tick that gets juked or head faked?
DL24
offline
offline
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?
qfrollover
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?
qfrollover
AngryDragon
offline
offline
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?
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
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?
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by AngryDragon
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?
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Totally agreed with that as well.
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?
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Totally agreed with that as well.
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
This
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
This
r87
offline
offline
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
so basically free safeties would be fucked
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
so basically free safeties would be fucked
PackMan97
offline
offline
Originally posted by taurran
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?
Let's say you've got three guys, one in front, one to the left and one to the right with the HB heading to the middle. Now. The guy in the middle *should* be harder to fake, because why would he bite on a fake to the left or right, he knows he has his buds there. Ditto for the outside guys, they wouldn't bit on a fake to the inside, only bite to the outside.
Or a guy breaking one down the sideline, why would a defender bite on a fake TOWARD the sideline? The only fake he'd bite on would be one toward the open field since he'd use the sideline as another defender.
This is why it's tough to get code like this right while making a sim that can complete in a reasonable time frame.
If it were *my sim*, I'd count the side line as a defender and make it so the more defenders in your fake radius, the tougher it is to pull off a fake, but make it so you could fake more than one person a tick.
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?
Let's say you've got three guys, one in front, one to the left and one to the right with the HB heading to the middle. Now. The guy in the middle *should* be harder to fake, because why would he bite on a fake to the left or right, he knows he has his buds there. Ditto for the outside guys, they wouldn't bit on a fake to the inside, only bite to the outside.
Or a guy breaking one down the sideline, why would a defender bite on a fake TOWARD the sideline? The only fake he'd bite on would be one toward the open field since he'd use the sideline as another defender.
This is why it's tough to get code like this right while making a sim that can complete in a reasonable time frame.
If it were *my sim*, I'd count the side line as a defender and make it so the more defenders in your fake radius, the tougher it is to pull off a fake, but make it so you could fake more than one person a tick.
Edited by PackMan97 on Jul 7, 2009 14:16:29
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by entropy
so basically free safeties would be fucked
Free Safeties with 20 strength, taking a Powerback head on...probably.
so basically free safeties would be fucked
Free Safeties with 20 strength, taking a Powerback head on...probably.
AngryDragon
offline
offline
Originally posted by jrry32
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
This
This just got epic.
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
This
This just got epic.
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by PackMan97
Originally posted by taurran
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?
Let's say you've got three guys, one in front, one to the left and one to the right with the HB heading to the middle. Now. The guy in the middle *should* be harder to fake, because why would he bite on a fake to the left or right, he knows he has his buds there. Ditto for the outside guys, they wouldn't bit on a fake to the outside.
Or a guy breaking one down the sideline, why would a defender bite on a fake TOWARD the sideline? The only fake he'd bite on would be one toward the open field since he'd use the sideline as another defender.
This is why it's tough to get code like this right while making a sim that can complete in a reasonable time frame.
If it were *my sim*, I'd count the side line as a defender and make it so the more defenders in your fake radius, the tougher it is to pull off a fake, but make it so you could fake more than one person a tick.
Well that's adding human intelligence into dots...that'll be hard because it's hard to make the dots aware that they have help on both sides...or else dots in cover 2 would do a better job of playing underneath the WR knowing they have safety help over the top.
Originally posted by taurran
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?
Let's say you've got three guys, one in front, one to the left and one to the right with the HB heading to the middle. Now. The guy in the middle *should* be harder to fake, because why would he bite on a fake to the left or right, he knows he has his buds there. Ditto for the outside guys, they wouldn't bit on a fake to the outside.
Or a guy breaking one down the sideline, why would a defender bite on a fake TOWARD the sideline? The only fake he'd bite on would be one toward the open field since he'd use the sideline as another defender.
This is why it's tough to get code like this right while making a sim that can complete in a reasonable time frame.
If it were *my sim*, I'd count the side line as a defender and make it so the more defenders in your fake radius, the tougher it is to pull off a fake, but make it so you could fake more than one person a tick.
Well that's adding human intelligence into dots...that'll be hard because it's hard to make the dots aware that they have help on both sides...or else dots in cover 2 would do a better job of playing underneath the WR knowing they have safety help over the top.
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
Mind = Blown
Actually, would be very easy to implement. Just have a "tackle from front" ability formula, and a "tackle from behind" ability formula, and average between them with a coefficient based on velocity vector differences.
Originally posted by AngryDragon
Those dead zones for fakes should also be key zones for good tacklers vs poor tacklers. A good tackler should be able to wrapup a HB from this angle and roll him to the ground but a poor tackler should only push him off his path a bit imo.
Oh shit...
Tackling from the front requires mostly strength, with some tackling ability, while tackling from the back requires almost all tackling ability, and little strength, with a gradient scale between them.
Mind = Blown
Actually, would be very easy to implement. Just have a "tackle from front" ability formula, and a "tackle from behind" ability formula, and average between them with a coefficient based on velocity vector differences.
AngryDragon
offline
offline
Originally posted by PackMan97
Originally posted by taurran
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?
Let's say you've got three guys, one in front, one to the left and one to the right with the HB heading to the middle. Now. The guy in the middle *should* be harder to fake, because why would he bite on a fake to the left or right, he knows he has his buds there. Ditto for the outside guys, they wouldn't bit on a fake to the outside.
Or a guy breaking one down the sideline, why would a defender bite on a fake TOWARD the sideline? The only fake he'd bite on would be one toward the open field since he'd use the sideline as another defender.
This is why it's tough to get code like this right while making a sim that can complete in a reasonable time frame.
If it were *my sim*, I'd count the side line as a defender and make it so the more defenders in your fake radius, the tougher it is to pull off a fake, but make it so you could fake more than one person a tick.
I don't think GLB has teamwork yet but that would be an awesome VA.
Originally posted by taurran
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?
Let's say you've got three guys, one in front, one to the left and one to the right with the HB heading to the middle. Now. The guy in the middle *should* be harder to fake, because why would he bite on a fake to the left or right, he knows he has his buds there. Ditto for the outside guys, they wouldn't bit on a fake to the outside.
Or a guy breaking one down the sideline, why would a defender bite on a fake TOWARD the sideline? The only fake he'd bite on would be one toward the open field since he'd use the sideline as another defender.
This is why it's tough to get code like this right while making a sim that can complete in a reasonable time frame.
If it were *my sim*, I'd count the side line as a defender and make it so the more defenders in your fake radius, the tougher it is to pull off a fake, but make it so you could fake more than one person a tick.
I don't think GLB has teamwork yet but that would be an awesome VA.
Edited by AngryDragon on Jul 7, 2009 14:17:41
taurran
offline
offline
It shouldn't be that busy if it's tested prior to the offseason. No need to procrastinate.... heh
One problem I have with having fake distance rely on vision is that pathing is also currently relying on vision. If your HB "sees" a tackler 8-10 yards away and fakes him, he most likely will adjust his course to avoid the defender while executing a fake. This often times gets the HB in trouble, and may even send him laterally into another defender.
People currently run players with low vision because they want more downfield movement and less hokey stuttering and avoidance that plagues current ball carrier pathing. So right now we're faced with the dilemma - do we want to be able to juke from farther away, or actually move downfield and make yardage?
I'd love to see further improvements in pathing so vision becomes something that is GOOD for HBs in every way. Currently you're kind of damned if you do/damned if you don't.
And yes, I actually agree with Gart on the higher juke % in the front... otherwise this simply becomes a nerf.
One problem I have with having fake distance rely on vision is that pathing is also currently relying on vision. If your HB "sees" a tackler 8-10 yards away and fakes him, he most likely will adjust his course to avoid the defender while executing a fake. This often times gets the HB in trouble, and may even send him laterally into another defender.
People currently run players with low vision because they want more downfield movement and less hokey stuttering and avoidance that plagues current ball carrier pathing. So right now we're faced with the dilemma - do we want to be able to juke from farther away, or actually move downfield and make yardage?
I'd love to see further improvements in pathing so vision becomes something that is GOOD for HBs in every way. Currently you're kind of damned if you do/damned if you don't.
And yes, I actually agree with Gart on the higher juke % in the front... otherwise this simply becomes a nerf.
so how about the original question?
"So how does the SIM select the one defender per tick that gets juked or head faked?"
"So how does the SIM select the one defender per tick that gets juked or head faked?"
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
