Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Deathblade
The sideline is what makes me actually think it works like I think it does.

The whole "run into defender" thing on the sideline. Bort said that the sideline gave off a vector equal to the defender, or something like that...which "makes sense" in that it would cause the HB to not run out of bounds. However, it doesn't make sense in the sense that the HB thinks the sideline is running at him.

The sideline has zero mobility...and when faced with a defender and the sideline, an inch from the sideline should always be your goal...since the sideline doesn't move. It has no "danger area" like a defender does, you can get as close to it as you want, and have zero fear of it getting you.

Oh ya, I agree.

But that's basically like running on +100 Power... effectively adding no/little avoidance radii to threats. So I guess I mean treat sidelines as though you're on +100 power.

Or does that not work either? Will +100 power guys run away from the sidelines? I should probalby know this >.>

i think one of the keys is to realize that an elusive back is trying to change the vector of his opponent and take advantage of that change, and his anticipation knowledge of that change.

Powerback pathing is easy...which is why it pretty much works fine.

Originally posted by kurieg
Oh ya, I agree.

But that's basically like running on +100 Power... effectively adding no/little avoidance radii to threats. So I guess I mean treat sidelines as though you're on +100 power.

Or does that not work either? Will +100 power guys run away from the sidelines? I should probalby know this >.>

I don't think 100 power will run away from the sideline

Originally posted by tautology
i think one of the keys is to realize that an elusive back is trying to change the vector of his opponent and take advantage of that change, and his anticipation knowledge of that change.

Powerback pathing is easy...which is why it pretty much works fine.

The problem with the translation of that into GLB, is that defenders turn on a dime. They can make a 180 degree turn in a tick.

nvm bro.

Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by kurieg

Might just start with the sidelines threat not being affected by what running style you're on.

Then go to trying to understand how to build a dynamic 2d map of everywhere the HB would like to go weighted by threats, blockers, and personal tactics.

The sideline is what makes me actually think it works like I think it does.

The whole "run into defender" thing on the sideline. Bort said that the sideline gave off a vector equal to the defender, or something like that...which "makes sense" in that it would cause the HB to not run out of bounds. However, it doesn't make sense in the sense that the HB thinks the sideline is running at him.

The sideline has zero mobility...and when faced with a defender and the sideline, an inch from the sideline should always be your goal...since the sideline doesn't move. It has no "danger area" like a defender does, you can get as close to it as you want, and have zero fear of it getting you.

The way it is currently coded... The sideline is a bigger threat than the defender for sure. The HB will nearly always bounce into the defender versus going out of bounds.

Actually, if the sidelines had a fixed "threat" value, at one point going out of bounds would be less threatening than staying in, like...

Defender is moving at 3x -3y, you're heading towards the endzone at +4y. If you've got a -1x threat from the sideline (It should not have any north-south threat, it's a sideline), you still end up at -2x +1y, meaning the guy will either move out of the field or try to head forward for another yard or something. It should never reverse field in that situation unless the sideline has a north-south vector instead of just "left right". And if it does, there's your bug.

EDIT: and one more thing, if things were calculated like this, there would be no ping pong. The adjustment would be smooth, since vector adition is not discrete but continuous (or well, it is discrete but with changes small enough that the naked eye wouldn't really notice in the PBP)

Originally posted by Squab
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=982819&pbp_id=13018282

Figured i'd post it before ITS or Skanker did.

About 20 pages too late.

Originally posted by Deathblade
The sideline is what makes me actually think it works like I think it does.

The whole "run into defender" thing on the sideline. Bort said that the sideline gave off a vector equal to the defender, or something like that...which "makes sense" in that it would cause the HB to not run out of bounds. However, it doesn't make sense in the sense that the HB thinks the sideline is running at him.

The sideline has zero mobility...and when faced with a defender and the sideline, an inch from the sideline should always be your goal...since the sideline doesn't move. It has no "danger area" like a defender does, you can get as close to it as you want, and have zero fear of it getting you.

I think this is rather obviously correct.

Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt

About 20 pages too late.

Thanks, edited. lol.

Originally posted by Deathblade
The problem with the translation of that into GLB, is that defenders turn on a dime. They can make a 180 degree turn in a tick.

The effect of a fake or cut needs to be considered differently then I think, in order for this to work.

I think Bort maybe should just consider damping Elusive in the presence of many defenders. Keeping it pegged at a value on matter what doesn't really work well... just guessing at how his logic is.

The behaviour reminds me of systems that are weakly/not damped and can get pushed into oscillatory responses.

So maybe, if a ball carrier has defenders on either side, Elusive -> partial power temporarily. Get upfield!

And all you have to do is watch punt returns to see the oscillating thing is happening...and the avoidance behavior that causes it.

I really thought that this was well understood actually...just that no better solution had been found.

Originally posted by kurieg
I think Bort maybe should just consider damping Elusive in the presence of many defenders. Keeping it pegged at a value on matter what doesn't really work well... just guessing at how his logic is.

The behaviour reminds me of systems that are weakly/not damped and can get pushed into oscillatory responses.

So maybe, if a ball carrier has defenders on either side, Elusive -> partial power temporarily. Get upfield!

The problem in that language is that defender reactions are all optimally damped...they never over correct.

Originally posted by tautology
And all you have to do is watch punt returns to see the oscillating thing is happening...and the avoidance behavior that causes it.

I really thought that this was well understood actually...just that no better solution had been found.

I think it's understood, but without really knowing some details, I'm not sure I'd say "well".