Warrior General Games

Originally posted by thehazyone
If the team has tagged the rushing QB and set their defensive AI with some input and plays for the tagged running QB, yes, in a sense, that is correct. Like here:

http://test.goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=1448&pbp_id=316117

The defensive AI had one input. Basically looked to see if the Running QB was in the game (he was tagged as Runner). If he was, run goal line defense with all player blitzing.



so in the above example if the Offense had put the Rushing QB at the WR5 slot on the Depth Chart, every time the Offense went into a 5 WR set the defense would run a Goalline All out Blitz?

Originally posted by HULK
I agree. I think tagging will hurt the game for a couple of reasons:

-AI just went from hard and time consuming to even harder and even more time consuming
-Defenses will be able to key in on anything, with 100% accuracy


THe only way it might work is if there was a 1 tag per game limit. You want to the defense to focus on taking 1 thing away, thats somewhat realistic. Them being set up to take everything away, well, its not realistic and it will be a ton of work for DCs.

It is even less realistic for a team to field a QB who rushes every play and has no passing ability at all or a FB/TE who never has to block. "Limiting build diversity" by forcing players to make QBs who can throw and TEs who can both block and receive is a good thing.

I hate this implementation of tagging. It is way too much work. It makes me want to quit DCing. That being said, if we're keeping the offensive custom slots the way they are (the real core problem), then we have to have some solution.

I see people complaining a lot about how DAIs will be 400 inputs long etc. However, I can't imagine a way to allow DCs to have a different defense based on which QB/RB/FB/TE is in the game without having it be an option in the DAI inputs.

Would AI input "OR" options help? Like, a list of different "inputs" that all trigger the same thing? Seems kind of like packages, only hopefully would make for a smaller looking AI screen as well.

Originally posted by zakatakrr
so in theory if an OC could put their speed back at any position on the field to force the defense into a certain DAI.

For example as a OC if I noticed that a team set out to shut down the outside runs with my 'Speed Back' in the game but left the middle weak, i could put the 'Speed Back' in at WR and then run the ball up the middle to exploit that D.

There are a million different scenarios like the one above that will force DCs to make the choice between:

using the Tagging Option - and having a DAI with 400+ inputs
or
Not using the Tagging Option

And I don't know about everyone else but that choice is pretty easy.

Completely the opposite. If the DAI is set to react for the "speed" back only when he plays HB then the defense will be blind to him playing any other position. The DC sets what the defense can see and it is a combination of players tag and position. If you didn't set a tag for a "speed back" at WR you will never see him play WR (and by the way, you can check tags only for the HB, FB, TE and QB positions).
And yes a DC that want top cover everything will have many hundreds of inputs.

Originally posted by NiborRis
I see people complaining a lot about how DAIs will be 400 inputs long etc. However, I can't imagine a way to allow DCs to have a different defense based on which QB/RB/FB/TE is in the game without having it be an option in the DAI inputs.

Would AI input "OR" options help? Like, a list of different "inputs" that all trigger the same thing? Seems kind of like packages, only hopefully would make for a smaller looking AI screen as well.

There is a somewhat easier solution, which is using a two levels of DAI. Ie generate defense packages, and allow to use the tagging inside the packages. The amount of scenarios to cover doesn't change, but spreading the load from the DAI to a package page will help keeping it intact. It also removes repetitions that otherwise are needed in the DAI (for example, prevent defense in the end of the first and second half).

Originally posted by NiborRis
I see people complaining a lot about how DAIs will be 400 inputs long etc. However, I can't imagine a way to allow DCs to have a different defense based on which QB/RB/FB/TE is in the game without having it be an option in the DAI inputs.

Would AI input "OR" options help? Like, a list of different "inputs" that all trigger the same thing? Seems kind of like packages, only hopefully would make for a smaller looking AI screen as well.

That would be a way to get hierarchical inputs without the actual hierarchical structure: full boolean logic on the inputs, rather than the current and/nand based system (each input currently is X and Y and Z and not (any of previous input predicates)). I think some form of tree/hierarchy would be easier for most of us to understand, visualize, and manage though...

All you DCs are bitching about how much work they'll have to do, but I think you'll change your tune when you get packages. A good DC can already shut down running QBs.

Ran a quick test.

Put the running QB in at FB2 and the elusive HB in at FB1. Had some plays set on offense to have them in at FB on offense.

On the defensive AI, had two specific defenses - one was under the QB tagging drop down, I had Runner selected, the other was under the HB tagging drop down, I had Speedy selected. In both instances if those hit, they would have had all out Goal Line defense called. Numerous plays were called in the 1st and 2nd quarter and the all out goal line defense was called.

Conclusion: If you want to defend a particular player, you MUST tag them for the position they are in the game at. So in these instances if you wanted to defend the running QB at FB, you would have to select runner under the FB tagging drop down and not the QB drop down.

It should also be noted that it is very important to have your AI when using tagging lined up very specifically. For example, I had my running QB tagging option underneath the power HB tagging option - if the power HB was in the game at the same time as the running QB, it would call the power HB play and not the running QB play (of course, a simple solution would be to create an input that had the running QB and power HB both tagged in the same play, but just wanted to point out that AI errors are probably going to be very common when this is first introduced).

Any chance that we can get Bort to improve the AI interface? Allow things like cutting and pasting so that we can move things up and down easier, or inserting our new Input somewhere in the middle instead of having to work it down one by one? Even if we don't set up tags for every possible situation, AIs are still about to grow by a good amount, and fixing the interface will do a lot of good.

Originally posted by thehazyone
Ran a quick test.

Put the running QB in at FB2 and the elusive HB in at FB1. Had some plays set on offense to have them in at FB on offense.

On the defensive AI, had two specific defenses - one was under the QB tagging drop down, I had Runner selected, the other was under the HB tagging drop down, I had Speedy selected. In both instances if those hit, they would have had all out Goal Line defense called. Numerous plays were called in the 1st and 2nd quarter and the all out goal line defense was called.

Conclusion: If you want to defend a particular player, you MUST tag them for the position they are in the game at. So in these instances if you wanted to defend the running QB at FB, you would have to select runner under the FB tagging drop down and not the QB drop down.

It should also be noted that it is very important to have your AI when using tagging lined up very specifically. For example, I had my running QB tagging option underneath the power HB tagging option - if the power HB was in the game at the same time as the running QB, it would call the power HB play and not the running QB play (of course, a simple solution would be to create an input that had the running QB and power HB both tagged in the same play, but just wanted to point out that AI errors are probably going to be very common when this is first introduced).

So let's say that you tagged the other team's TE's as 'blocker' & 'receiver'. If the blocking TE was put in at FB, the defensive AI against the blocking FB would fire?

If so, it sounds like some of the generic labels could become meaningless and that we may need more custom slots.

Originally posted by pottsman
Any chance that we can get Bort to improve the AI interface? Allow things like cutting and pasting so that we can move things up and down easier, or inserting our new Input somewhere in the middle instead of having to work it down one by one? Even if we don't set up tags for every possible situation, AIs are still about to grow by a good amount, and fixing the interface will do a lot of good.

I was thinking the AI wouldn't be quite so obscene if we were able to attach the tags to the inputs instead of the outputs but with the way it is set up I doubt that is even possible.

I'm going to have to find a way to simplify the D AI because adding 2 or 3 more tagging outputs for every situation doesn't sound like fun and it will be a nightmare to update from game to game.

Originally posted by Mightyhalo
I was thinking the AI wouldn't be quite so obscene if we were able to attach the tags to the inputs instead of the outputs but with the way it is set up I doubt that is even possible.

I'm going to have to find a way to simplify the D AI because adding 2 or 3 more tagging outputs for every situation doesn't sound like fun and it will be a nightmare to update from game to game.

?

The tagging is done in the input. It would be mice nicer to have it in the outputs (so you can use packages to keep the DAI shorter)

Originally posted by tragula
?

The tagging is done in the input. It would be mice nicer to have it in the outputs (so you can use packages to keep the DAI shorter)

That's what I mean.