are you talking to yourself taut 
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Elusive pathing and vision discussion (with a foreword about spin)
TyrannyVaunt
offline
offline
Originally posted by Deathblade
I hate out thinking myself.
I'm blanked
Look at this and think about it for a second.
Originally posted by tautology
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!
I really like the concept of picking a "strategy" rather than a path.
Each decision point gives you a discrete decision point and a coherent football move:
1) Cut hard once and commit
2) Juke and cut
3) Dive between 2 guys for yards
4) race to the sideline and try to shake the tackle
Something like that....
Lets call the coherent football move the 'avoid tackle' roll. Based on your HB's build, you determine things just like Taut laid out...
a.) Quick Cut (sub roll),
b.) Head Fake (sub roll),
c.) Juke (sub roll),
d.) Dive for yards (sub roll),
e.) Draw new vector - Path of least resistance (sub roll)
.
.
.
.
n
These sub rolls are carried out. The highest score goes up against the Tackle score by the defender. Higher score wins.
I hate out thinking myself.
I'm blanked
Look at this and think about it for a second.
Originally posted by tautology
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!
I really like the concept of picking a "strategy" rather than a path.
Each decision point gives you a discrete decision point and a coherent football move:
1) Cut hard once and commit
2) Juke and cut
3) Dive between 2 guys for yards
4) race to the sideline and try to shake the tackle
Something like that....
Lets call the coherent football move the 'avoid tackle' roll. Based on your HB's build, you determine things just like Taut laid out...
a.) Quick Cut (sub roll),
b.) Head Fake (sub roll),
c.) Juke (sub roll),
d.) Dive for yards (sub roll),
e.) Draw new vector - Path of least resistance (sub roll)
.
.
.
.
n
These sub rolls are carried out. The highest score goes up against the Tackle score by the defender. Higher score wins.
Bukowski
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ahrens858
are you talking to yourself taut
Na, I'm just listening.
They sound like they have a pretty good handle on it
are you talking to yourself taut
Na, I'm just listening.
They sound like they have a pretty good handle on it
blln4lyf
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by tautology
Tough call.
The tick system is a little too coarse for a black/white freeze/pause scenario...perhaps a vision check where 100 would fairly reliably give you no penalty, but 50 would generally give you a 50% penalty to your agility for one tick (while making the cut)?
Something on that scale?
I am actually not sure how much of an effect that would be...but it seems reasonable.
Also scale it with the quality of the cut somehow i think.
I don't think it would be much of an effect actually, but rethinking what I said..I think the vision check tick by tick is a good idea but instead of just a solid pass/fail, your roll determines the % penalty to your agility(maybe tackling as well?) for that tick and each one after.
As a base maybe 80 vision player would normally be close to 100% on the 2nd tick and 100% on the 3rd? The quality of the cut would def. have to be factored in as well I think.
Originally posted by tautology
Tough call.
The tick system is a little too coarse for a black/white freeze/pause scenario...perhaps a vision check where 100 would fairly reliably give you no penalty, but 50 would generally give you a 50% penalty to your agility for one tick (while making the cut)?
Something on that scale?
I am actually not sure how much of an effect that would be...but it seems reasonable.
Also scale it with the quality of the cut somehow i think.
I don't think it would be much of an effect actually, but rethinking what I said..I think the vision check tick by tick is a good idea but instead of just a solid pass/fail, your roll determines the % penalty to your agility(maybe tackling as well?) for that tick and each one after.
As a base maybe 80 vision player would normally be close to 100% on the 2nd tick and 100% on the 3rd? The quality of the cut would def. have to be factored in as well I think.
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bukowski
Yeah, it would have to be somewhat adjusted behind a lead blocker, until the RB is out in space, or unless he's challenged by a defender behind the LOS.
I am leaving out the whole FB scenario for now...my brain is too small to contain it
Yeah, it would have to be somewhat adjusted behind a lead blocker, until the RB is out in space, or unless he's challenged by a defender behind the LOS.
I am leaving out the whole FB scenario for now...my brain is too small to contain it
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by blln4lyf
I don't think it would be much of an effect actually, but rethinking what I said..I think the vision check tick by tick is a good idea but instead of just a solid pass/fail, your roll determines the % penalty to your agility(maybe tackling as well?) for that tick and each one after.
As a base maybe 80 vision player would normally be close to 100% on the 2nd tick and 100% on the 3rd? The quality of the cut would def. have to be factored in as well I think.
Yes, pass/fail is not a good idea...too random and looks bad.
I like the penalty system much better.
I don't think it would be much of an effect actually, but rethinking what I said..I think the vision check tick by tick is a good idea but instead of just a solid pass/fail, your roll determines the % penalty to your agility(maybe tackling as well?) for that tick and each one after.
As a base maybe 80 vision player would normally be close to 100% on the 2nd tick and 100% on the 3rd? The quality of the cut would def. have to be factored in as well I think.
Yes, pass/fail is not a good idea...too random and looks bad.
I like the penalty system much better.
blln4lyf
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by Bukowski
Yeah, it would have to be somewhat adjusted behind a lead blocker, until the RB is out in space, or unless he's challenged by a defender behind the LOS.
I am leaving out the whole FB scenario for now...my brain is too small to contain it
That comes after figuring out the basic outline, imo.
Originally posted by Bukowski
Yeah, it would have to be somewhat adjusted behind a lead blocker, until the RB is out in space, or unless he's challenged by a defender behind the LOS.
I am leaving out the whole FB scenario for now...my brain is too small to contain it
That comes after figuring out the basic outline, imo.
blln4lyf
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
Originally posted by blln4lyf
I don't think it would be much of an effect actually, but rethinking what I said..I think the vision check tick by tick is a good idea but instead of just a solid pass/fail, your roll determines the % penalty to your agility(maybe tackling as well?) for that tick and each one after.
As a base maybe 80 vision player would normally be close to 100% on the 2nd tick and 100% on the 3rd? The quality of the cut would def. have to be factored in as well I think.
Yes, pass/fail is not a good idea...too random and looks bad.
I like the penalty system much better.
Agreed, but do you think the penalty system with the tick by tick layout is a good idea?
Originally posted by blln4lyf
I don't think it would be much of an effect actually, but rethinking what I said..I think the vision check tick by tick is a good idea but instead of just a solid pass/fail, your roll determines the % penalty to your agility(maybe tackling as well?) for that tick and each one after.
As a base maybe 80 vision player would normally be close to 100% on the 2nd tick and 100% on the 3rd? The quality of the cut would def. have to be factored in as well I think.
Yes, pass/fail is not a good idea...too random and looks bad.
I like the penalty system much better.
Agreed, but do you think the penalty system with the tick by tick layout is a good idea?
Deathblade
offline
offline
Would the cut vision check thing just result in Tecmo Super Bowl?
As in, if you zigzag down the field, you always get a TD?
That's the problem I have with it. I mean, it MAY correct the pathing if the HBs are basing it solely on current vector. But it just seems like it could lead to other wtf moments.
As in, if you zigzag down the field, you always get a TD?
That's the problem I have with it. I mean, it MAY correct the pathing if the HBs are basing it solely on current vector. But it just seems like it could lead to other wtf moments.
Edited by Deathblade on Dec 31, 2009 00:19:13
Dpride59
offline
offline
BTW, off topic as all get out, but I just hopped outta the shower, and while I was in there I was thinking fb's are probably some of the better spin guys in real life. I just remember Alstott always spinning out of a pile. How the hell is spin not a 2nd or 3rd sa ability for a fb
Edited by David Stern on Dec 31, 2009 00:18:43
TyrannyVaunt
offline
offline
1.) You have to take into consideration when the HB would be able to determine the 'threat'.
2.) Once the HB can determine where the least threat would be - he would go on that coordinate.
3.) Once a threat intersected with his coordinate... This is when an Elusive or Tackle avoidance roll would occur.
a.) Quick Cut (sub roll),
b.) Head Fake (sub roll),
c.) Juke (sub roll),
d.) Dive for yards (sub roll),
e.) Draw new vector - Path of least resistance (sub roll)
.
.
.
.
n
Where the highest sub roll would be placed against the defender (aka threat) tackle roll.
If the HB's Elusive or Tackle Avoidance roll is greater than the defenders tackle roll, then the HB gets to perform which ever skill was highest on the sub roll.
If the Defenders Tackle roll score is higher than the HB's Elusive or Tackle Avoidance score - then the tackle is made.
What am I missing here?
2.) Once the HB can determine where the least threat would be - he would go on that coordinate.
3.) Once a threat intersected with his coordinate... This is when an Elusive or Tackle avoidance roll would occur.
a.) Quick Cut (sub roll),
b.) Head Fake (sub roll),
c.) Juke (sub roll),
d.) Dive for yards (sub roll),
e.) Draw new vector - Path of least resistance (sub roll)
.
.
.
.
n
Where the highest sub roll would be placed against the defender (aka threat) tackle roll.
If the HB's Elusive or Tackle Avoidance roll is greater than the defenders tackle roll, then the HB gets to perform which ever skill was highest on the sub roll.
If the Defenders Tackle roll score is higher than the HB's Elusive or Tackle Avoidance score - then the tackle is made.
What am I missing here?
Deathblade
offline
offline
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
What am I missing here?
1.) You have to take into consideration when the HB would be able to determine the 'threat'.
What determines threat? In the current sim, the sideline is as threatening as defenders. Would HBs repeatedly try to juke the sideline?
What am I missing here?
1.) You have to take into consideration when the HB would be able to determine the 'threat'.
What determines threat? In the current sim, the sideline is as threatening as defenders. Would HBs repeatedly try to juke the sideline?
blln4lyf
offline
offline
Originally posted by Deathblade
Would the cut vision check thing just result in Tecmo Super Bowl?
As in, if you zigzag down the field, you always get a TD?
The % loss would need to be monitored for that to not be possible, zigzagging should never lead to a defender being able squeak between all the defenders..HB's zigzagging would also need to be limited as well, which I thought was to be intended.
Currently, are HB's zigzagging at the appropriate speed they should be?
Would the cut vision check thing just result in Tecmo Super Bowl?
As in, if you zigzag down the field, you always get a TD?
The % loss would need to be monitored for that to not be possible, zigzagging should never lead to a defender being able squeak between all the defenders..HB's zigzagging would also need to be limited as well, which I thought was to be intended.
Currently, are HB's zigzagging at the appropriate speed they should be?
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by Deathblade
Would the cut vision check thing just result in Tecmo Super Bowl?
As in, if you zigzag down the field, you always get a TD?
That's the problem I have with it. I mean, it MAY correct the pathing if the HBs are basing it solely on current vector. But it just seems like it could lead to other wtf moments.
That could def be a problem, especially with a low vision defense.
I think you have to try it out and tweak it a bit to see how it looks. At some point it surpasses my ability to visualize exactly how it would play out.
One solution might be to have defenders take sub-optimal angles in response, perhaps in addition to the slowed reaction...varying the sub optimal angle penalty and the slowed reaction penalty as separate checks.
A more complicated system leads to more realistic looking behaviors.
(the angles should not be ass-backward, just sub optimal)
Would the cut vision check thing just result in Tecmo Super Bowl?
As in, if you zigzag down the field, you always get a TD?
That's the problem I have with it. I mean, it MAY correct the pathing if the HBs are basing it solely on current vector. But it just seems like it could lead to other wtf moments.
That could def be a problem, especially with a low vision defense.
I think you have to try it out and tweak it a bit to see how it looks. At some point it surpasses my ability to visualize exactly how it would play out.
One solution might be to have defenders take sub-optimal angles in response, perhaps in addition to the slowed reaction...varying the sub optimal angle penalty and the slowed reaction penalty as separate checks.
A more complicated system leads to more realistic looking behaviors.
(the angles should not be ass-backward, just sub optimal)
TyrannyVaunt
offline
offline
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by TyrannyVaunt
What am I missing here?
1.) You have to take into consideration when the HB would be able to determine the 'threat'.
What determines threat? In the current sim, the sideline is as threatening as defenders. Would HBs repeatedly try to juke the sideline?
Going back to some of....Hagalaz's ideas...
Originally posted by Hagalaz
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 TyrannyVaunt
What am I missing here?
1.) You have to take into consideration when the HB would be able to determine the 'threat'.
What determines threat? In the current sim, the sideline is as threatening as defenders. Would HBs repeatedly try to juke the sideline?
Going back to some of....Hagalaz's ideas...
Originally posted by Hagalaz
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)
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
