Warrior General Games

Just added

3-18-09

Originally posted by Bort
- Formation based overrides on DC

Here is a screenshot of the new D-positions depth chart in its current form.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd314/tpaterniti/DPositionsScreenshot.jpg
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/ratenxs/formationdepthchart.jpg

3-18-09

Originally posted by Bort
- QB pass style now a slider
- Punter punt style slider (distance vs hang time)

Discussing FB Lead Blocking and HBs following FBs.

Originally posted by Bort
I just made a BIG update to lead blocker AI. I believe I have fixed a long standing bug with it (the runaway problem) by reconfiguring the way it saves waypoints.

I've also improved the method in which it works quite a bit, by using a simple method: an increasing vision cone the longer the play has gone on, with a minimum distance. This allows (with some updates to the play definitions) much more proper lead blocking on outside plays like sweeps. I've updated the I form HB Sweep play to use a new definition, and it works quite a bit better. Other outside running plays will still have problems until I update them.

Please run some tests on the sweep play, and some up the middle plays like the Strong I slam to look for differences.

Originally posted by Bort
Ok, I've done an update on every single running play. Took a bit longer than I thought (all of yesterday), heh, but I basically went through every single running play and made adjustments/tweaks. Quite a few of them now use hotspots and another new method I've added, waypoints, to define where the runner is to go. This gives the runner more freedom of movement by using attractive spots on the field to guide him instead of set locations (go to x/y, now go to x/y).

I would suggest running another test or two, or three, to go check them out.

Originally posted by Rate
Ran the first test and everything looks pretty dang good.

Here's a few notable plays from the game:
FB goes out to the next level and blocks the SS
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126005
Nice HB-follow here until the FB engages the MLB
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126009
TE seals off the CB, FB seals the LOLB. HB runs out of bounds though
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126032
FB takes the LE so the TE can get the SS
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126033
FB takes the SS for an easy TD
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126037

I'm seeing the FB get caught up on the already-blocked RDE or LDE a lot on I-Form outside runs, so I'm going to run another test specifically on that.
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126078
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126096
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126099

And the FB doesn't block at all here, looks almost like the bug we had before, though it could just be a failed vision check of some sort, since the same Pro Set run worked fine a few plays later.
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=450&pbp_id=126098

Added 3-28-09

Originally posted by Bort
- Line shift options added for basic and advanced AI. Formations have been shifted a bit to account for the new settings.
- Several additions to passing game PBP output (jumping catch, low pass, etc)
- Receivers can dive for a ball that is out of reach; fairly low chance of a catch though
- Adjustments to leading ability, bad pass checks, and catch n run catching checks
- Jackhammer style PD's show up in pbp as "knocked loose" and now count as a drop for the WR as well

Related to the falling forward:

Originally posted by Bort
I've seen this complained about - that perhaps falling forward and dive 4 yards type SA's and VAs are too powerful. Or perhaps it's just too hard to stop guys from falling forward. Your LB's might meet them at the line, but they gain an extra 2 yards from diving, etc.

Originally posted by Tester
I've long thought this-- not so much when it's an SA or a VA, but the fact it happens so often without "Dive For Yards" or a VA (in fact, I think Mr. First Down should be a 5%/level chance, that it's too weak-- and that we aren't usually talking about 0.5 yards here). I doubt those abilities need to be weakened, but just from my experiences I think the chances of picking up yards while being tackled, without those abilities, are considerably too high.

It does help, it seems, not to be on wrap-up; and that's a good thing. But when not on wrap-up and the opponent lacks that ability, he should be stopped where he's tackled, or within 0.5 yards, almost all the time. Even on wrap-up, falling forward should occur less often or for less yardage than it does.

Not sure if the part about not being on wrap up helping is accurate.

Originally posted by Tester
I'd have to agree that happens way to often and the main complaint, as I see it, is the combination of strength/carrying/diving SAs. The defender will hit the ball carrier and the next thing you know, the ball carrier is 3-4 more yards down field and there's at least a healthy gap between the two, even when they meet head on in the middle of heavy traffic. In these scenarios, you wouldn't normally see a ball carrier diving for yardage after or in the process of being tackled in the middle of traffic (they generally go down pretty quick in reality). Instead, you normally see diving for extra yards after being hit when the players are in the open and the defender essentially dives and knocks the ball carrier off balance and momentum moves the ball carrier the extra yardage. So I would have to agree with the folks complaining.

Speed runners would have a better chance at getting the extra yards from side or behind tackles while power runners would benefit most from the 45 angle and head on tackles. Power runners aren't really known for the agility it takes to make miraculous dives for extra yardage, but the elusive guys are. Plus, limiting the power runners with the after-tackle extra yardage they can gain and giving an edge back to the elusive runners will make the masses happy.

Originally posted by Tester
This definitely isn't a power vs. speed back issue. I've seen both kinds of rushers get way too many extra yards while being tackled.

Basically, what needs to be done is that falling forward should happen without an SA/VA about half as often as it does, regardless of back type, and when it does it should never be more than about a yard.

Originally posted by Tester
Brick Wall helps; but remember, the backs can get Tenacious also (although Brick Wall defeats an equal level of Tenacious, and Tenacious can be defeated by avoiding wrap-up)..

I always thought (partially because they aren't available until Level 25 and aren't available at high levels until much later) that VA's should be an enhancement and not necessary for a realistic outcome.

I'd basically like to have the formulas work as if everyone already had 15 in Brick Wall-- and then Brick Wall could, of course, add to it. It seems pretty much that if you don't have Brick Wall, 80% or so of wrap-up tackles result in 2-3 extra yards after the tackle, and that's without regard to whether one is tackling a power, speed, or agility back. That's probably more like 40-50% of balanced tackles, and it's good to have the wrap-up vs. balanced difference in there (and maybe it's extremely rare when using Power tackling; I don't have the guts to try power tacking to find out).

I'd like to see (presuming no Tenacious VA or Dive For Yards SA firing) the chance be more like 50% on wrap-up, 25% on balanced, and maybe 10% on Power tackling, or maybe slightly higher but the amount usually 0.5 or 1 yards.

One reason for running game dominance is that there still are too few rushing plays that fail, besides those where the play is poorly designed or a blitz breaks the play up. I see 3+ yard gains all the time on tackles made by D-linemen. Make it so that 0-2 yard gains are more likely, and teams will have to go back to passing more on first down (although ideally the right balance can be found to improve passing without overpowering it)-- which might lead (with more pass defense) to some longer runs that aren't due to a problem with the sim.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by Tester

I always thought (partially because they aren't available until Level 25 and aren't available at high levels until much later) that VA's should be an enhancement and not necessary for a realistic outcome.

Yes.

Originally posted by Bort
I've got an update now on the test server to test this out. Hopefully with an up to energy usage per rush it works well and doesn't neuter rushing in the mean time. On my dev box its working fairly well.

Originally posted by Tester
Rushing type definitely should matter on amount of forward progress after contact. The further the bar is to elusive the more likely the carrier is to be moving sideways. Being tackled without forward momentum certainly won't yield the same results as being tackling while going north/south.

The relation between power > balanced > wrap is correct.

The add on is Carrying. What does Carrying do? Does it only affect your ability to put a pass away and not fumble or does it help trigger SA's, does it help you create glancing blows instead of solid hits. I don't really know what GLB Carrying does.

Originally posted by Bort
When falling forward, the sim takes your velocity vector, your height, and your SA's and VA's to figure out the maximum for how far you can dive or fight out. Then it chops it down based on the quality of the tackle and his abilities vs the ball carrier's. The value I generally will adjust is the multiplier used to figure out how much to chop it down by.

FYI: carrying is all those things. It's "how well you handle the ball and run with it." Its main purpose is fumble avoidance, though.

Originally posted by Tester
Feedback on last night's game I just watched, run before I turned my Offensive AI off so that Bones could test his Strength defense against my team with the 50/50 run/pass he asked for (and before today's uploads):

I love the lack of falling forward, but I do worry that it might need a countervailing change to help the running game. I did notice less acceleration when RB's got the ball than before. Returning that to its old value might be helpful (if what I noticed was a real change in that area); I'm not sure.

But I would like to keep it while helping the running game in some other manner.

Originally posted by Bort
I didn't adjust that aspect. However, they are likely getting tired much quicker than before now, which will slow them down.

Originally posted by Tester
What has been done is way, way too far. I just finished a scrim with Mike. 128 strong I slams and 1 broken tackle. Yards per carry under 1.

This isn't what we are looking for. If anything Mike is not in a big strong I slam D and his builds were if anything slightly below what I was using..

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=392

Originally posted by Tester
There is a problem with this code, no question. The problem, though, seems to be that doing this, for whatever reason, eliminated most missed tackles (including those not even counted as missed when a D-Lineman just touches the running back).

I'd guess that there's some sort of spectrum like:

-----Just some Balance Lost----|----Missed Tackle----|----Tackle But Fall Fwd----|----Tackle with no Fall Fwd----

("Drag" might be in there somewhere)

It seems to have shifted everything way to the right.

If so, it should work much more the way "Brick Wall''s description suggests it works, that it only changes things if a tackle is made in the first place, not changing the chances of the two left results, but just narrowing greatly the "Tackle But Fall Fwd," making those "Tackles with no Fall Fwd."

It shouldn't in any case create a tackle where there would otherwise not be one, whereas it seems to be doing that.

Originally posted by Bort
Hm, I will keep playing around with it.

Perhaps I should try shifting the d alignment in the 4-3 like you're suggesting, and test how it affects things.

Originally posted by Bort
Some things I am now trying out instead (rolling back most of what I did, except for the fall forward update):

- Increase slowdown from running through the pile again. It's pretty minimal at the moment.
- When overlapping blockers/defenders at/near the LOS, force elusive style running on the rusher to make him find a hole instead of just plowing through people because he's on power. If I do some playing around with "hot spots" like suggested elsewhere this might work quite well to help running through the hole more realistic.
- Add a delay to the O-line jump on the snap. I noticed that with the player "Tom Hanks" on here who has 100 everything, he was very disruptive to running plays because he's fast and gets a big jump on the play. Being able to have that happen with normal players is important I think. We may want to think about maybe having a "first step" like action being able to happen for bull rushing the line, perhaps with really high vision or something.
- Give defense a little more chance to push back and win blocking contests. Right now offense has a bit of an advantage and is often able to get 2-3 yards of push consistently, if they are reasonably built.
- Reduce cut block chance. I think we're seeing too many of them, and with defenders being able to push back better, the chances are going to go up on them anyway.

I'm running some test games on my dev box with these updates and will upload here if/when I feel it's ready for more widespread testing. I may try shifting around the D line some, too, to see if it makes much of a difference. Being further in towards the hole for the DE or NT would tend to make it easier for him to get off the block and make the play.

Originally posted by Tester
Well, I think it really is a big deal that when a player is tackled he should go down at his point of tackle most of the time, and never (except with Tenacious or Dive 4 Yards) more than a yard ahead of that point.

The thing is it was (or seemed to be) it was turning missed tackles or even touches by the D-Line into tackles.

I guessed you had a spectrum like above, although I could be wrong about that. What I am sure about is that the D-Line was making a lot of tackles that would normally have been just minor slowdowns and that breaking tackles was extremely hard.

Isn't it possible to first check to see if it's a tackle, a drag, a broken tackle, or just a slowdown-- perhaps making slowdowns slow people down a bit more-- but aside from that one difference leave the drags, broken tackles, and slowdowns alone-- but then, if it is a tackle, cut way back on the chance of yards after the tackle-- but again, only if he'd be tackled anyway?

I'm assuming that's what Brick Wall does, as if it also makes tackles more likely it's not only poorly described but very much underrated.


Originally posted by Bort
Brick Wall just affects how much yards the guy gets when you successfully make the tackle. Similar with Big/Monster Hit. They improve the "quality" of the tackle.

Your spectrum is sorta right, but replace "Missed Tackle" with "Missed w/drag."

I'm making some progress on my updates. More later.

Originally posted by Bort
Ok, my new updates are up on the test site now. I have added some experimental "hot spot" code to guide the ball carrier's movement. The one play that has the code is the strong I slam. The HB is no longer being instructed to follow the FB on that play; instead he is using hotspots to be attracted to the spots where holes are supposed to be opened.

Running a game with that play in particular (and a few others) would be beneficial.

Originally posted by Tester
Hmm...the hot spot didn't seem to work too well, as the HB tended to go straight ahead a lot.

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=401

It seems like the reduction in falling forward truly did go too far in containing the inside running game. But there has to be a better way than letting rushers fall forward for an extra several yards each time. One part of the solution would seem to be to make it harder for D-Linemen to make tackles when engaged, if the rest of the code is kept.

Also if you look at that box score, both DE's on my teams netted 4 sacks each. The opposing line, TPat's "typical" line, wasn't anything special, but people have to realize just how huge 4 sacks in a game is.

I'm about to schedule another, just to see if the 4 in a game is a fluke.

Originally posted by Bort
Seemed like there was an awful lot of instances of "hole plugged immediately" in that game, where the RB had nowhere to go.

Perhaps you should try some games against pass defenses, and compare to rush defenses, such as cover 3 vs cover 1, short vs long distance, etc. You'd expect rush defenses to give up few yards as opposed to pass defenses.

Defenses like this: http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=401&pbp_id=117541 are bound to stop rushes well if the players are decent.

Originally posted by Bort
A few more adjustments made, including my update to lead blocking.

- I think the forced elusive pct near the line was too strong for a slower player, so I've toned that percentage down to allow some more plow ahead.
- D line tackle ability while being blocked chopped in half.
- O line ability adjusted very slightly back upward


Originally posted by Bort
I just ran a couple games with the "base" team vs itself:

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=410
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=411

Tampa had 100% strong I slam tactics, and the results were fairly reasonable as far as averages (mid 3's ypc), and there weren't even many broken tackles (defense is decent on that team isn't it?).

Seems like play selection is going to make a big difference in testing this update until we can improve some of the other plays more.

Originally posted by Bort
Another update:

I ran the same team against itself, both sides with the same offense (strong I slam).

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=413

Phoenix was using a defense over shifted to the strong side while Tampa was using the normal basic tactics D.

Huge difference in production. This suggests that we're getting to where a proper defense with good planning can make a difference in stopping the run consistently.

Originally posted by Tester


That's how it should be, with the right defense. but notice that even the team playing against the neutral defense averaged only 3 yards per carry, where if evenly matched it should have been more like 4. That's the Season 3ish part I've been talking about.

Can you try restoring the broken tackle code to where it was, unless after 4 or 5 broken tackles on one play or the like...simply reducing the falling forward greatly, plus giving the defense a little more of a chance in the pushing battle with the offense, should bring more realistic results?

Originally posted by Bort
I decided to copy over the live version of the AI module, and just update the fall forward amounts:

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=417

Still not a lot of broken tackles, fairly similar results. I think it's just these teams more than anything. They do have the "powerback nightmare LB" on them.


Originally posted by Bort
Here is the same teams with the base AI from the live sim, no adjustments other than my update for lead blocking on the play:

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=418

Originally posted by tester


I ran a couple of tests yesterday that led to my extreme worry, the second with the "powerback nightmare LB's" off the DC, in which absolutely never was a second tackle broken by the same player.

I really think the increased balance loss on a missed tackle (which is what I'm guessing you added) is way, way over the top....

Originally posted by Bort


Nope, not what I added. I just added a broken tackle counter that increased the difficulty of breaking tackles the more you broke, to sort of of simulate additional energy loss in play. I also added a limiter to not allow multiple break tackle SA's on the same tick. Those are currently disabled, though.

Originally posted by Tester
I'm actually okay with increasing the difficulty the more you broke, but it shouldn't even have an effect until 2-3 have been broken, and should only have a big effect after 4-5. The limiter per tick probably shouldn't even be used, as it's more common than one thinks that two people get a shot at once.

What I would suggest (because I want to help safeties, as they need to have a ton in Speed, unlike LB's) would be to make the Wrap-Up Tackle and Diving Tackle SA's work better. Without a good AE roll, only safeties can get Wrap-Up Tackle, which is what most tackles are, and if you increased that SA's effect you'll be helping safeties keep the play in hand a lot.

Originally posted by Bort
Diving tackle SA is actually pretty good already, especially at high levels. I don't want to overpower it.

Maybe wrap up tackle could be improved a little. It's not bad at the moment either, though.

3-21-09

Originally posted by Bort
- D play creator update to show offense and allow a bit more freedom of movement
- Some updates to player AI on lead blocking. I think I have figured out a major cause of the runaway bug we were seeing at various times throughout the past 8 seasons. Pretty much all outside rushing plays will need an update to take advantage, and some of the inside rushing plays. The one that I have updated at the moment is the I form "HB Sweep"
- Testing idea of repeat plays giving boost to stats on defense.

3-28-09

Originally posted by Bort
- Line shift options added for basic and advanced AI. Formations have been shifted a bit to account for the new settings.
- Several additions to passing game PBP output (jumping catch, low pass, etc)
- Receivers can dive for a ball that is out of reach; fairly low chance of a catch though
- Adjustments to leading ability, bad pass checks, and catch n run catching checks
- Jackhammer style PD's show up in pbp as "knocked loose" and now count as a drop for the WR as well

4-2-09

Originally posted by Bort
- Latest updates to more realistic LB reactions
- Some pass game bug fixes

4-14

Since I want to keep everyone up to date on what I am testing/doing, I will post here whenever I do something on the test server.

I was going to run some tests to determine VA effectiveness. Initially, I was going to test passing game VA's on both sides of the ball, so I set up a pass only offensive AI with a variety of 2 WR, 3 WR and 5 WR defenses. I wanted to run 10 test sims to get base line values with which to work with and then I was going to assign VA's to players and compare the results to the averages of these 10 test sims. The numbers were a bit too high and out of whack on the offensive side for me. Initially, I thought it was because the HB or FB was always open, so I created a few DPC plays to make sure the HB was covered but the numbers were still high so I think my test team builds are a little out of whack, so I'm going to have to go back to the base rosters assigned to tester teams, reset VA's on all the players to 0, and re-try. Not sure when I'll get to it though with pre-season starting soon as I'm sure I'll be quite busy in the bugs forum with users posting bugs.

Games that I ran today:

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=734
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=735
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=736
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=737
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=738
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=739
http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/game.pl?game_id=740

Related to fixing issues with the passing game, open man targetting such business:

Originally posted by Koncorde
We still have significant issues with recognition of the open man, pass placement and timing. It's the return of the Target Distance issue.

When it comes to 3WR vs 2CB's and a Cover 1 there is really no excuse for this kind of crap still. Especially when, in the majority of these plays, no attempt is really made by the LB or FS to cover WR3, and the pass is perfectly timed for them to intervene.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=516330
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=516404
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=516520
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=516598
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=516688
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=517937
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=517991
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=518049
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=518109
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=518220 - to actually take a sack from one of these plays is an absolute joke when effectively WR2, WR3 and the TE are all wide open.

I'll be running tests for various formations, and to be fair many of them seem to be working much better, but there are still glaring issues.

Originally posted by Bort
That FS looks crazy fast w/high vision...WOW. Seems like there are a lot of passes that would have gotten in there if he weren't quite so fast.

Anyhoo, what's your suggestion to continue to refine the logic? The QB is taking his drop and throwing almost right away on all those plays. Should he be able to throw earlier in the drop if there is a wide open player? Maybe there should be some additional player tactics options for open man aggressiveness?

Originally posted by Koncorde
When you have the situation where they have 1 less man in pass coverage, than you have receivers on the field - the QB needs to recognise this pre-snap, or the open man needs a significant boost to being thrown to earlier. This goes back to Season 6's updates when we had teams lining up FS and SS in M2M in the knowledge that the QB wouldn't throw the ball until it was too late to do any damage.

The reason the FS gets there so fast is because the WR is often running directly at him, plus the fact that the QB hangs onto the ball until the WR reaches the 10 yard marker. There's no reason for him to wait if the QB leads the player better.

For instance if the QB throws when the WR is at the 6 yard mark, he can lead him to the 8 or 9 yard mark and then the WR can do all the moves to get downfield for 10 yards.

The QB should take what the defence gives him, and if that's an automatic 5 yard reception on every down because they're using a retarded defensive formation then that's what should happen.

In this one http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=517991 - Reuben is completely wide open on the entire route, but he waits for him to reach the 10 yard mark. It's 1st down...6 yards is better than nothing.

The FS is obviously a good player, but the lack of logic with the timing of passes benefits him more than it really should.

Realistically nobody should be able to run a Cover 1 and use 1 player to provide blanket coverage across 2 players.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545723&pbp_id=517937 in this case the FS is 20 yards away from the open man, but the QB only releases the pass when the FS is 10 yards away.
A - at the snap, the QB should be able to read the fact that they have a mismatch at WR3 and WR1.
B - after 3 ticks it should be patently obvious either of them can be hit.
C - after 7 ticks it's pretty obvious that all 3 WR's are easy targets for a 3 or 4 yard gain.
D - after 14 ticks, everybody is still wide open. The FS is completely out of the equation.
E - after 18 ticks we can see WR3 is going to leave that corner for dead whilst the coverage on the strong side is clearly making WR2 and the TE unfavourable match-ups. WR1 meanwhile is a safe option still for 5 yards.
F - it takes 26 ticks for the ball to arrive at the WR after point E. 7 ticks is the throwing animation. 18 ticks through the air, 4 or 5 ticks just watching the WR move away from coverage before even beginning the throwing animation.

That delay is a killer. Now, the "Quick Release" VA might do something here, I'm not sure what part of the passing process it alters - speed of animation, or actually time between seeing an open player and releasing the pass.

There's really no reason for a close to 30 tick delay between a player being wide open, and the ball arriving or leading him into the wide open coverage.

What's the point of having a "shotgun" formation, if the "drop" of the QB still delays the release so grossly?

Originally posted by Tester1
I am going to disagree on this one a bit as this is a SIM not real life. I agree in real life the QB would check down and throw the ball to the open receiver quickly every time as he would do his pre-snap reads. In real, this would only happen to a defense once or twice and the DC would get the crap fixed. Since this is not real life, this change if implemented would toast anyone that made a simple error in their AI.

If you want to make the game real for the QB, why not the defense. In real life, the MLB or SS would likely call timeout quickly and get the issue fixed. I realize that from time to time the open guy happens but it is rare as the defense can correct.

Originally posted by Koncorde

So what you're saying is that if I noticed this team played Cover 1, 4-3 vs 3WR sets I should be forced to watch epic examples of stupidity in order to pamper some other guys fragile ego? C'mon Tester1, if someone fucks up, then they should get canned and that's the way the game works.

We all work within the limits and reasoning of the AI, however this is a mechanic entirely outside the AI causing an issue that I had hoped we'd dealt with 2 seasons ago.

Originally posted by Bort
You're doubling up on ticks there K, on 20 FPS replays, there's a tween frame added. If you want to view actual game tick by tick, switch to 10 FPS replays. Therefore, 3 ticks more likely = 1 or 2. The QB is usually going to hold the ball for at least 2-3 ticks or so. Otherwise, it's the silly insta-throw thing we had a while back.

QR will reduce the number of frames in the throwing animation considerably. That is its power - it lets you get the ball off quickly when those guys are open.

I agree with Tester1 here somewhat, but not entirely. We don't want to reward failure too much. Yes you have to be forgiving a little here and there, but not all the time. If you screw up your settings and play 4-3 vs a 5WR set, you should get burned if the offense is reasonable at all. With a good zone defense setup, you could still be able to get away with it vs 3 receivers if your players are quick and agile enough to make the plays. Longer passes that stretch the field should eat it alive, though.

I think maybe we're running into an area where clashing ideas will happen. Koncorde, and I'm sure other players, would like his QB to be able to change long route calls to short ones if a player is wide open early. Other players would like the route to continue further on because they called for a long pass, not a short one. I've tried to ride the line with the QB AI, and it works alright, but doesn't fully please either player. It sounds to me like a perfect opportunity to introduce a new QB tactic setting for open man passing aggressiveness.

Originally posted by Koncorde
Cheers, I'll switch to 10FPS.

As for route calls. Yes, I would like to see QB's, on "long" pass plays recognise the fact that 6 yards is better than a risky 14 (especially on first down). Conservative vision based QB's should have the capability to adjust and better make short pass play calls and more free to adjust who they target. At short to medium distances the lofty to medium pass velocity should be the best option.

Gun armed QB's meanwhile with lower vision should in comparison not pick up on deeper defenders and be more "sticky" with their targets downfield - however their higher passing skill and strength should make their passes High Velocity should be the best option here.

However what we tend to be finding at the moment is:
A - vision does not capably compensate a QB for the loss in passing skills. i.e. the 30+pts of equipment in theThrowing attribute is not equal in passing terms to 30pts in Vision. Which is fine, but it means that QB's are all built in a fairly similar fashion.
B - the passing velocity options are unclear. Is medium pass velocity with 70 strength better than 50 strength and high velocity?
C - the velocity options don't have obvious benefits or penalties, or clear uses, and/or all 3 should actually be fluid and in the QB's toolbox. For instance if we use High Velocity - will the QB ever attempt finesse passes on short efforts to the HB/TE/WR?
D - the "favor long passes" option is still very unclear, and its impact is questionable.
E - many of the pass plays are still designed poorly.

So, yes, I'd like to see an open man targetting option, particularly if it is a slidey bar.

I'd actually love to have multiple slidey bars.

Velocity slide bar.
Check down slide bar.
Open man slide bar.
Throw away slide bar.

Possibly even a 3pt (or 5 or whatever you so wished, 50, 100 etc) weighted slide bar for receivers:

WR 1-3
TE 1-3
HB 1-3
FB 1-3

Where
1 = -10% to targetting.
2 = normal.
3 = +10% to targetting.

So you could effectively skew your QB passing to give a bonus to particular positions (or reduce them to particular positions).

Slidey bars would be appreciated.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by Tester1

Originally posted by Bort
It sounds to me like a perfect opportunity to introduce a new QB tactic setting for open man passing aggressiveness.

So pre-snap you are going to see if WRs are not covered, single covered, double covered?


More just something that allows the QB to say "I don't care about the route distance as much, pass it early if the guy is open."

Originally posted by Tester2
I agree on a slider for passing aggressiveness. I know I'll want QB's more to look to make a pass of the proper length, but as you say, many people will want different things, and that should all be up to the player.

Originally posted by Tester1
After playing around a lot with the passing game, I must agree with Bort there are just too many variables to sort through by just looking at games. You can make general statements but things are not wrong enough to clearly show most issues. To really test this area, you are going to need to know a whole lot about how the inner workings process the various factors. This info is not the sort of stuff people playing should know.

The areas mentioned by Koncorde mentions would assist the passing game. I agree it is frustrating to watch QB throw to someone blanketed by coverage when open receivers in shorter routes are open.


Originally posted by Bort
I love the idea of the slidey bars for position targeting Koncorde! Why didn't I think of that one? That could add some serious fine tune capabilities for offense.

I think I will play around with that idea, and the idea for the early passing slider. Both could very easily be made into sliders based on the current methods of QB targeting.

Originally posted by Tester3
Yay for more slidey thingies!

Don't you love using technical terms?

But no, in all seriousness, I love that idea as well. The "favorite target" stuff is generally avoided because I don't think anyone is actually sure exactly how it works, but that seems much more straight forward and usable.

Originally posted by Koncorde
Another fine example of QB illogic:

http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545728&pbp_id=1372932 - they have a cover 3, and whilst Felix Bonk is in fact wide open and almost makes the first down marker, the fact WR3 is completely uncovered due to a CB/WR mismatch is a bit of a shambles.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545728&pbp_id=1372655
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545728&pbp_id=1372869 - I mean there's really no excuse not to at least make a completion on a coverage like that.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=545728&pbp_id=1374382 - he does the pass much better here, which makes you wonder what the issue is at times.

Otherwise there's some good stuff going on now in the passing game. It's just those moments of glaring mismatch that need ironing out somehow.

Originally posted by Bort
I've just uploaded my v.1 of the QB slider for pass priority (distance vs openness). It basically adjusts the weight of route completion distance up and down as far as risk calculations, and the point at which the QB is willing to throw early.

At -100, the QB completely disregards distance in risk calculations except on 3rd/4th down (for 1st downs), and is willing to throw once the play has gotten to about 10% of the play's distance. This means he will pretty often throw right as his drop completes if somebody's open.

At 0, it's the same as current version; sort of riding the middle.

At +100, distance is weighted double in risk calculations, and the QB will not be willing to throw as early in the play.

Seems to work about like I figured it would in the tests I've run on my dev box, where I set up 2 teams, one with QB at -100 and one at +100. If you would like to test it out, please do, and give some feedback!

Originally posted by Tester2
Just ran a test, having QBs between the two teams on fairly extreme settings both ways, and both seemed to have their strengths and weaknesses.

Seems to work well.

Originally posted by Tester1
Looks good. You can also keep the quick throws down if you keep the backs in to block on some plays. The Scat Back VA just got alot better since HB will get the ball more if that is what you want.

Originally posted by Tester3
I ran two tests as well with one QB at -50 and one at +50 and everything looked good there as well. QBs had similar stats both times, so it's not like one is much better then the other, it really does just come down to preference.

Originally posted by Tester1

I did notice a rather large effect on throws to HB/FB if they go out into the pattern with the throw early set high but I think this is what is needed. It also helps a lot on teams that blitz.

Originally posted by Bort
Well, I wasn't expecting it to work so well for everyone right away without much tweaking! It's a pretty simple concept, though, so I guess it makes sense.

Seem reasonable to add to the live site soon?

Originally posted by Tester2

I think so. I think the reason it works is that if there's a bad setting, the worst case scenario is that people will avoid the bad setting.

But I saw QB's complete passes fairly well using about both +75 and -75, so it's more flexible than I thought.

It'll eventually need some minor tweaking if one side is found much better than the other, but since people can then alter their settings they shouldn't complain if that happens.

Originally posted by Koncorde
I tried -100 and +100. There was a bit of a difference at that level, but I was running a really condensed playbook.

However I'd like clarification on:

A - how does it interact with "favour long/short passes".
B - how does it interact with favourite targets?

Originally posted by Bort
Favor long passes makes the longest guy seem less risky to the QB in comparison to the short routes, so he's more likely to target them.

Favorite targets does the same thing, but for the favorite guy vs the other players.

This new setting would interact with those by adjusting the risk values up and down somewhat. Having +100 on the pass setting and favor long would end up with a lot of bombs, methinks. -100 would sorta negate the favor long somewhat. Favorite target would help the QB choose if there were two guys of about equal risk to choose between.

This should be added for the final day of scrimmages.

Edit: Moved to Test Results

I spent most of the evening helping test the vision/stun effect for improved DE pass rush performance. Ran a 5 game quick test and the numbers were about where I would expect them to be.

Elite DE (Pro LDE Two on Milwaukee) had 8 sacks and 4 hurries.
Almost Elite DE, just a notch below above guy (Pro RDE One on Milwaukee and Pro LDE One on KC) each had 4 sacks and 4 hurries.
Above Average DE (Pro RDE One and Two on KC and Pro RDE Two on Milwaukee) had 6 sacks and 8 hurries between the 3 of them.
Run Stopping LDE's had 1 sack and 6 hurries between the two of them.

Total sacks from the DE's in the 5 games was 23 or an average of 2.9 sacks per player (which equates to a 9 sack season). Maybe just a touch high so a small adjustment downwards would be ok, but it's pretty close imo.


We also spent some time discussing the increased fumbling rate that seems to be going on. The common thought is that more teams/players are going to balanced and power tackling and using combinations such as Sure Tackler/Power Tackler to help increase the fumbling rate. Couple that with the reduction in attribute VA's causing a reduction in strength/carrying and you have the basis for the increase in fumbles.

New updates currently in testing, likely coming soon:

- New option for DPC to play man coverage without moving from set position
- Update to flats zones to not follow anyone out of them, and attempt to tackle the QB if he gets too close
- Update to AI interface to use new tactics section design (new tabs) which is a long time in coming
- Fix to basic tactics not using QB/FB outside rushing plays
- New slider for carrying style: aggressive vs cautious (+fum, +brktk vs -fum, -brktk, slowdown)
- Fix to long distance man coverage on normal plays (SS on TE usually)
- Above mentioned pass rushing update
- Been looking through running plays for odd G blocking where blocks a back blitzer instead of the DL guy in front of him, like the singleback play recently fixed

5-4-09

Originally posted by Bort
- New colored dots
- Updates to pass blocking pocket update, lower intensity

5-5-09

Originally posted by Bort
- dot color javascript preview

D play creator updates:
- Fallback option added to man coverage
- Blitz arrow added


Also new mod tools.