Warrior General Games

Originally posted by r8
Originally posted by Tigam

It's my understanding that they don't want, or have not, changed where the CB is going to go after the ball. They are just changing the trajectory to make it to where the CB doesn't jump so far out on the receiver.

Which doesn't really help the underlying problem IMHO...

It should, IMO, be a vision check for the optimal place for the CB to catch the ball, not the first place he can.

On the flipside, however, if he went for the 100% optimal place to catch the ball every time, we'd see waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many PDs and INTs.

I suggested that instead of a CB going for the first intercept every time or going for the best intercept point every time, that it should fluctuate somewhere in between based on a vision, jumping, catching, and a little randomness.

Sweet picture r8! Our dots are gaining dimensions! 1 dimension to 2!



Here's my input for whatever it is worth. It looks as if the green line is the CB saying...Hey I can jump this high , and my max height line will intercept the trajectory at Pt X, so I want to get there. But in reality, he could intercept the ball at any point in between Pt X and the WR.

My worry is messing with trajectory arcs is going to have tons of unintended consequences.

I just don't see this as a bug. My CB has been burned by jumping routes a few times on close/aggressive, but he has also picked a few balls jumping the route. When he has jumped a route and missed I just attributed it to his aggressive setting.

This was something I rarely, if ever saw on close/semi that I almost exclusively used for the majority of my CB's career until this season.

Originally posted by Mightyhalo
I just don't see this as a bug. My CB has been burned by jumping routes a few times on close/aggressive, but he has also picked a few balls jumping the route. When he has jumped a route and missed I just attributed it to his aggressive setting.

This was something I rarely, if ever saw on close/semi that I almost exclusively used for the majority of my CB's career until this season.

The more I see it the more I'm starting to agree with you. For instance, I just noticed that other day that the EEPL team that I OC for has only allowed 4 passing TDs all year, partly because the DC asks all of the CBs to play on Semi-Aggressive. Of course, we don't get many interceptions, either. We've taken away 8 INTs and only allowed 4 TDs, whereas the two INT leaders, with 31 and 25 INTs, have given up 14 and 13 TDs. And all 3 teams have allowed between 2000-2200 yards.

I think we're focusing a little more now on giving people the option of customizing how aggressive they want their player to be. The idea that was brought up that I liked the most was Deathblade's 3 slider idea.

Originally posted by Deathblade
With help over the top:
0% < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 100%

Without help over the top:
0% < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 100%

Try for:
Pass Deflection < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> Interception

That's just part of the discussion at this point, not guaranteed to be implemented, but it's just giving you an idea of what we're trying to do.

As long as the logic with "help over the top" isn't flawed, it could work. Vision allow you to notice the help over the top? I know there is "pre-planned" help over the top, but we know that it doesn't always work like that (both in GLB and real life)

Originally posted by r8

I think we're focusing a little more now on giving people the option of customizing how aggressive they want their player to be. The idea that was brought up that I liked the most was Deathblade's 3 slider idea.

Originally posted by Deathblade

With help over the top:
0% < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 100%

Without help over the top:
0% < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 100%

Try for:
Pass Deflection < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> Interception

That's just part of the discussion at this point, not guaranteed to be implemented, but it's just giving you an idea of what we're trying to do.

I brought up 'Deathblades idea' Like 3-4 seasons ago...

With regards to the "try for PD vs INT" slider, what would head hunters fit in? currently defenders have to allow the catch and then go for the tackle, but ideally you'd time your hit to occur just as the ball gets there.

Originally posted by wlarson
With regards to the "try for PD vs INT" slider, what would head hunters fit in? currently defenders have to allow the catch and then go for the tackle, but ideally you'd time your hit to occur just as the ball gets there.



Yeah cuz this sim has got a fever baby, and the only prescription is More Knocked Loose?

i dont think so.

The broken coverage is compounded by the Safeties waiting for the receiver to catch the ball and then running to the place where the receiver caught the ball. Thus allowing us to watch 3 people chace the WR down the field.

I put this out in the Live Issues forum, but figured to put it on here also.

=====================================================================================

I'm not much for these sorts of discussions, but seeing as how CBs are my favorite part of this game... here are my two cents:

Everytime I watch football, I always hear the commentators talking about how you have to go get the ball instead of the ball coming to you. I also hear that you have to get the ball at its highest point.

Neither of these things seem to be taken into account in the programming. So, aggressive CBs in the game are following these two rules and they are getting penalized for them???

My solution (and perhaps some parts of the passing game already function this way... I don't know, forgive me)

1. Both offensive and defensive players should have the original 3-choice (loose, medium, aggressive) coverage style setting . This will determine the player's aggressiveness towards getting the football. For offensive players, we can call it reception style.

2. Comfort level should be coded as a 3 dimension, spherical bullseye (kinda like a diagram of the earth's interior). The core will be the ideal location for the ball (highest rate of conversion, only the lowest level of checks). The outermost ring will have the highest difficulty rating (nearly impossible with activation of special attributes required). The middle ring can be a region of uncomfortable, but makeable successes (high level checks required). The axes covered will be height of ball, the lead ball has in front of receiver, and the coverage area of the arms.

Just as an example then,
- the ideal pass could be the area from the chest to face within a 2-handed (which is shorter than a one-handed) arms length.
- passes a little behind or a little in front or a little to the side would be the middle region.
- passes too far behind, in front, or to the side would be the high difficulty region.

Drawing -- http://www.freewebs.com/kinglehr/passing%20game%20fix.jpg

= = = = =

How this would play in practicality:

The QB will aim their throw at the receiver's core ring. When QBs throw, using checks or whatever kind of coding, there will be somekind of randomness where the ball will go. Sometimes it will be a bad throw... sometimes an okay throw... in relation to the receiver. The core comfort region would obviously require the highest standard of throwing, vision, strength, and confidence. High level QBs would reach this region relatively frequently... but lower levels would not.

Aggressive setting will mean that the players would go for the ball regardless of what ring in the bullseye the ball goes. In the case of receivers, they will be required to have jump catch/dive catch/one hand catch etc to activate (and this should be a small %) for them to make catches in the outer ring. In the case of defenders (without the special attributes)... an attempt to INT a ball in the outer ring will mean likely failure not only to INT... but also the attempt will put them out of position from PDs and from making the tackle. They will be burned as it were.

Medium setting will mean that the players would only go for the ball that is projected in the core or middle ring. And in the middle ring, they will have to pass higher level checks in order to make the play.

Loose setting will mean that the players would only go for the ball in the core zone, where plays are easier to make.

Notice however that the zones for the defenders and receivers will be different. For example, if a defender is behind the receiver, a badly thrown ball behind the receiver (in his outer ring) might fall in the defender's core ring.

Other possible results in this system:
- in long passes, because of trajectory, a ball headed for the receiver's core zone might fall in the defender's middle ring.
- in short passes, a ball headed for the receiver's core might also fall in the defender's core.
- there's more to list but I don't have the time to do so right now.

Doesn't this seem like a ridiculously small sample size?

First off I have to commend you Kingler on one of the most thought out and easy to understand suggestion I've seen posted on the topic. I usually don't post much on the message boards myself but this topic seems to be effecting a lot of the guys with DB's in GLB. So I put in a similar disclaimer if some of my suggestions aren't possible or are a little off the wall.

I have a couple questions. My concern is that the DB will still have the biggest downside to selecting aggressive than a WR. In your scenario DB's will only go for picks when balls are badly thrown because the ball has to be in their "spectrum" to trigger. QB are throwing to spots and in most cases in picks DB's are "intercepting" balls or cutting passes off rather than waiting on the ball to come to them. Also there's still really wouldn't be a major downside for WR's to select aggressive based on your suggestion other than simply failing a catch that was badly thrown anyway. Kind of how you mentioned earlier DB's are taught to go after balls at the highest point. That is 100% true, but Wide WR's are taught the same thing. Instead of Aggresive settings for WR to determine the success rate of catches outside of the core of a WR. I'd simply allow the physical (Catch) attributes and Jump Catch SA and even vision to determine the range and timing of the WR's jump to catch passes not thrown perfect(I believe this is currently how the mechanics work).

So I think what I slightly disagree with is having a setting for WR's that determine how aggressive they go after the ball when in reality there is never a time where a WR shouldn't be aggressive when it comes to attacking a ball at its highest point or coming back to the ball after its thrown. It's just never taught to be any other way. But for DB's it is even more true based on GLB definition of being aggressive, it really means for DB's going after an int even if you have no help. And I think there in lies the problem. The definitons and functions of the current aggression settings.

Now if the setting definitions change then my take on the subject may change as well. But how they're currently defined, I don't believe so. A DB doesn't go into a game saying I'm going to deflect all passes instead of going for picks. The situation determines whether to pick a pass off or deflect it. And usually a PD is selected simply because the DB isn't in the needed position to pick it off. You dont see a ball thrown directly to the chest of a DB and he just swat it down.
But in saying that I can understand it much more for DB's if the agressive setting were defined a little better.
For example: A player on aggressive will attempt to plays close to the defender (bump and run style, which maybe will do away with the seperate close med loose settings) and will be in better position for ints, but may be more prone to pump fakes and double move type patterns (especially those with lower vision). And may also get beat on slants and drag routes if they don't have the proper strength and agility needed to jam WR's and keep up with them on the "quick cut routes". So basically I feel a DB's physical attributes should play more of a factor into the success of the outcome for DB's when selecting the aggressive setting.

Another example could be a CB with high vision, decent Jump catch and a good catching attributes should be more prone and very good at jumping routes and getting picks especially if in the aggressive setting. But a CB with say high agility, high speed, but low vision and catching attributes and Vision SA's, should be good in coverage but attempt fewer amount of int's due to the delay in seeing the play before it happens,which in turn will generate less picks, but not force them to go for the picks and get toasted for jumping the route when their not incline to do so based on the build. And if an agent chooses to use an aggressive setting with a db that isn't built for that type of play there should be a negative effect in maybe getting less pass deflections and getting beat more in coverage due to being out of position, but not to a point where they force the DB completely out of the play Due to jumping way too early.

Sure I've seen CB's jump routes but usually its due to double moves and QB pump fakes which is totally understandable and should be a major part of GLB. But in the sims they seem to simply just be jumping way too early, you see cbs jumping routes early in the pros but usually its a missed time a jump, or being a split second late on getting the pick but their still usually within an arms reach of the WR an usually are still in position to make the tackle or at least make contact with the WR even if the strength of the WR breaks the takle. But you will rarely ever see on any level see a cbs take themselves out of the play so badly by over jumping like in the sims.

Just my take!

Originally posted by ksimon32
First off I have to commend you Kingler on one of the most thought out and easy to understand suggestion I've seen posted on the topic.

Thanks!


Originally posted by ksimon32
I have a couple questions for you. My concern is that the DB will still have the biggest downside to selecting aggressive than a WR. Originally posted by ksimon32
Also there's really no major downside for WR's to select aggressive based on your suggestion other than simply failing a catch that was badly thrown anyway.

That's only because this system I created is very basic and I never described the downside to a WR being aggressive, and only rudimentally dealt with the positives of a DB being aggressive. What the downsides are for aggressiveness is up for anyone else to discuss... it's not the problem I wanted to deal with.


Originally posted by ksimon32
Sure I've seen CB's jump routes but usually its due to double moves and QB pump fakes which is totally understandable and should be a major part of GLB. But in the sims they seem to simply just be jumping way too early, you see cbs jumping routes early in the pros but usually its a missed time a jump, or being a split second late on getting the pick but their still usually within an arms reach of the WR an usually are still in position to make the tackle or at least make contact with the WR even if the strength of the WR breaks the takle. But you will rarely ever see on any level see a cbs take themselves out of the play so badly by over jumping like in the sims.

This is the problem I wanted to deal with in creating my system. I wanted to create a passing game base that would provide more realism 1) in the physics of defenders and receivers jumping the routes and going for the ball, 2) in the decision making of defenders and receivers and 3) more randomness in where defenders and receivers will actually jump routes/cut off passes (sometimes far off, sometimes closer).


Originally posted by ksimon32
In your scenario DB's will only go for picks when balls are badly thrown because the ball has to be in their "spectrum" to trigger. QB are throwing to spots and in most cases in picks DB's are "intercepting" balls or cutting passes off rather than waiting on the ball to come to them.

You are half right and half wrong in your interpretation of my system suggestion.

Yes, QBs will be throwing to a spot in this system. This spot is determined to be the core ring of the receiver, wherever that is.

No, the quality of the QB's pass does not determine the action of the defender. The QBs pass can be good or bad.

The important criteria is
a) the position of the defender in relation to the ball.
b) the aggressiveness setting of the defender, which correspond to a set of rings defined by degree of difficulty

The aggressiveness doesn't decide what the defender will do either. The aggressiveness only determines how far out a defender is willing to make a play... the further away from him the ball is, the higher the degree of difficulty in achieving the result he wants.

Also, notice how the positioning of both the receiver and the defender creates a large variety of decision probabilities. And how each probability will change the results of plays depending on the settings of the individual players.

Originally posted by ksimon32
Now if the setting definitions change then my take on the subject may change as well. But how they're currently defined, I don't believe so. A DB doesn't go into a game saying I'm going to deflect all passes instead of going for picks. The situation determines whether to pick a pass off or deflect it. And usually a PD is selected simply because the DB isn't in the needed position to pick it off. You dont see a ball thrown directly to the chest of a DB and he just swat it down.

I think you are oversimplifying the current definitions. DBs set to PDs still get interceptions in GLB, and vice versa. So I think this description is very off. A more apt description for the current setting definitions is this:

Loose: Makes the safest play... which is usually allow the receiver to make the catch and then tackle him.
Medium: Make the safe play... don't try risky PDs and INTs unless you have backup. (Notice you can still make safe PDs and INTs)
Semi-Aggressive: Try for PDs (risky and safe) and INTs (only the easy/safe kind)
Aggressive: Try for INTs no matter what

The problem people have I think is that the coding don't live up to the definition. Hence my suggested model.

Originally posted by kinglehr

Loose: Makes the safest play... which is usually allow the receiver to make the catch and then tackle him.
Medium: Make the safe play... don't try risky PDs and INTs unless you have backup. (Notice you can still make safe PDs and INTs)
Semi-Aggressive: Try for PDs (risky and safe) and INTs (only the easy/safe kind)
Aggressive: Try for INTs no matter what



I like this idea...separating the idea of a safe vs. risky INT or PD...

I wouldn't be opposed to two sliders


Deflect---------------------------------------------Intercept
Safe-----------------------------------------------Aggressive

Originally posted by Staz
I wouldn't be opposed to two sliders


Deflect---------------------------------------------Intercept
Safe-----------------------------------------------Aggressive

I disagree with the deflect/intercept slider. I agree with ksimon32 that CBs don't go into a game thinking deflect or intercept. They think make the play whatever the play may be at the moment. The actual result is determined by positioning, ability, and degree of difficulty for defender and the positioning, ability, and degree of difficulty for receiver.

The truth that the current coding doesn't realize I think is that once the ball is in the air, everyone plays receiver. The only questions are which of the players are in position to make a play and what they can accomplish. The defender and receiver are both operating under the same formula.

I think Bort has to find a way to make PD/INT/Catch/Drop just different sides (results) of the same cube (formula). Plug in one formula accounting for everyone's position, skill, and difficulty. Then, coming out with a specific result.