Also I don't like the idea of boosting speed on guards arbitrarily. In real football the running back slows down to match his blocker. Accelerating guards creates a block further beyond the LOS than would occur naturally. It would make more sense for the HB to make a vision check to stay on the inside of a pulling guard, if there is a defender unblocked beyond the line.
Forum > Test Server Discussion > Bort speak from the test server
beenlurken
offline
offline
Originally posted by PP
No, he mentioned that the KLs would become fumbles in those examples...The only reason I didn't post that here is the mechanics will be completely revised if the amount of fumbles become too high and I didn't want to needlessly risk creating a possible sky is falling scene.
Thanks for getting Bort to look at this!!
I dont see a problem with high fumbles (considering the are at the hands of defenders who are built to cause them) initially provided the code is accurate (and there is fair warning in the form of an announcement... im looking at you Bort
). There are a lot of wr builds that have neglected strength and carrying because ff's are not a concern (much like there are a lot of dbs who have neglected strength and tackling because there is no ff benefit by having it). If the ff spike then wrs will add more strength and carrying to fix them and it will balance out.
No, he mentioned that the KLs would become fumbles in those examples...The only reason I didn't post that here is the mechanics will be completely revised if the amount of fumbles become too high and I didn't want to needlessly risk creating a possible sky is falling scene.
Thanks for getting Bort to look at this!!
I dont see a problem with high fumbles (considering the are at the hands of defenders who are built to cause them) initially provided the code is accurate (and there is fair warning in the form of an announcement... im looking at you Bort
). There are a lot of wr builds that have neglected strength and carrying because ff's are not a concern (much like there are a lot of dbs who have neglected strength and tackling because there is no ff benefit by having it). If the ff spike then wrs will add more strength and carrying to fix them and it will balance out.Tigerbait0307
offline
offline
Originally posted by steellithium
Also I don't like the idea of boosting speed on guards arbitrarily. In real football the running back slows down to match his blocker. Accelerating guards creates a block further beyond the LOS than would occur naturally. It would make more sense for the HB to make a vision check to stay on the inside of a pulling guard, if there is a defender unblocked beyond the line.
While I agree that the HB should follow the G. In GLB world if the HB can't slows down to wait for the G. The LBs, CBs, FS and RDE would kill the play in the back field. The longer the play takes to develop the worse that play is. The more time the D has to read and react. I really think this is the only way to get the G out in front. Like it should be.
Also I don't like the idea of boosting speed on guards arbitrarily. In real football the running back slows down to match his blocker. Accelerating guards creates a block further beyond the LOS than would occur naturally. It would make more sense for the HB to make a vision check to stay on the inside of a pulling guard, if there is a defender unblocked beyond the line.
While I agree that the HB should follow the G. In GLB world if the HB can't slows down to wait for the G. The LBs, CBs, FS and RDE would kill the play in the back field. The longer the play takes to develop the worse that play is. The more time the D has to read and react. I really think this is the only way to get the G out in front. Like it should be.
timthorn
offline
offline
Originally posted by Tigerbait0307
While I agree that the HB should follow the G. In GLB world if the HB can't slows down to wait for the G. The LBs, CBs, FS and RDE would kill the play in the back field. The longer the play takes to develop the worse that play is. The more time the D has to read and react. I really think this is the only way to get the G out in front. Like it should be.
How about we see both results before making judgments, though I do agree that a HB slowing down (especially on super-elusive) would end up badly.
While I agree that the HB should follow the G. In GLB world if the HB can't slows down to wait for the G. The LBs, CBs, FS and RDE would kill the play in the back field. The longer the play takes to develop the worse that play is. The more time the D has to read and react. I really think this is the only way to get the G out in front. Like it should be.
How about we see both results before making judgments, though I do agree that a HB slowing down (especially on super-elusive) would end up badly.
PP
offline
offline
Originally posted by steellithium
Also I don't like the idea of boosting speed on guards arbitrarily. In real football the running back slows down to match his blocker. Accelerating guards creates a block further beyond the LOS than would occur naturally. It would make more sense for the HB to make a vision check to stay on the inside of a pulling guard, if there is a defender unblocked beyond the line.
I wish I could put this on the main forum, instead of here, but the thread is locked....The G in the example has 120 speed, iirc. It isn't a boost done by Bort. DB bumped the G speed that high, just to help bort workout the blking logic of the G when he gets out there, because it stunk before he started working on it. So far, all that's been done on the test server is that the pathing of the G and who he blks when is beng fixed...Next would come how the hell we can make it so the G actually gets there, since a 70 speed, 77 agility G can't even come close to serving any kind of a useful purpose on the play with a 99 speed PB running it.
The only talk has been giving a boost during the east/west portion of the pull. The reason the G looks so damn fast the entire play is because he has 120 speed
Also I don't like the idea of boosting speed on guards arbitrarily. In real football the running back slows down to match his blocker. Accelerating guards creates a block further beyond the LOS than would occur naturally. It would make more sense for the HB to make a vision check to stay on the inside of a pulling guard, if there is a defender unblocked beyond the line.
I wish I could put this on the main forum, instead of here, but the thread is locked....The G in the example has 120 speed, iirc. It isn't a boost done by Bort. DB bumped the G speed that high, just to help bort workout the blking logic of the G when he gets out there, because it stunk before he started working on it. So far, all that's been done on the test server is that the pathing of the G and who he blks when is beng fixed...Next would come how the hell we can make it so the G actually gets there, since a 70 speed, 77 agility G can't even come close to serving any kind of a useful purpose on the play with a 99 speed PB running it.
The only talk has been giving a boost during the east/west portion of the pull. The reason the G looks so damn fast the entire play is because he has 120 speed
PP
offline
offline
If this is going to work long term (these Bort quotes being posted here), I'm going to need some help. Lots of ideas get tossed around over there that never see the light of day. I'm sure not asking anyone to keep their opinions to themselves, but it'd be damn helpful if you have concerns, ask ?s here 1st. Though it may seem like it sometimes, I'm not on 24/7 and I have games to GP for some of the time I am here. So, sometimes it may take me a day or 2 to get back here, but I'll try to address concerns whenever I can. I guess what I'm asking for is, can we pls address that type of stuff here before it hits the main forums. If you don't like the answers, go for it, but I fear that too main needless fires (those caused by a miscommunication on my part or a misunderstanding on the users') on the main forum will not help this project
TheGreatAus
offline
offline
Originally posted by timthorn
How about we see both results before making judgments, though I do agree that a HB slowing down (especially on super-elusive) would end up badly.
Does it end up badly in the NFL? HB's often times have to slow down a bit for the giant roadgrader to clear the way. They usually just slow down enough to ride their ass. I think the idea of an east to west speed boost in a pull would probably be benefical. This is the one play where Gs really get to move, they will have adrenaline pumping and be moving quite fast despite their size. Comparably, HB's 40's are generally 4.2-4.4 depending on size. Lineman can vary from 4.8-5.x, they are still pretty fast at the pro level.
How about we see both results before making judgments, though I do agree that a HB slowing down (especially on super-elusive) would end up badly.
Does it end up badly in the NFL? HB's often times have to slow down a bit for the giant roadgrader to clear the way. They usually just slow down enough to ride their ass. I think the idea of an east to west speed boost in a pull would probably be benefical. This is the one play where Gs really get to move, they will have adrenaline pumping and be moving quite fast despite their size. Comparably, HB's 40's are generally 4.2-4.4 depending on size. Lineman can vary from 4.8-5.x, they are still pretty fast at the pro level.
Joe Buck
offline
offline
Originally posted by steellithium
Maybe I don't understand the code, but shouldn't securing the ball be a result of the pass.
If I look at the distance between the receiver and the ball, (x, y, z), then it seems a pass on the numbers should be secured instantly. When I look at the replays, that doesn't seem to be the case. I would say the knocked loose roll should only occur on a percentage basis, dependent on the distance as a modifier. This distance would slant the reception in favor of the receiver for on target passes, and more towards the defender when the receiver has to stretch out.
i always assumed this is how the code was already set up, but now that you mention it is a dangerous assumption, and it would explain a lot if this were not the case...
Maybe I don't understand the code, but shouldn't securing the ball be a result of the pass.
If I look at the distance between the receiver and the ball, (x, y, z), then it seems a pass on the numbers should be secured instantly. When I look at the replays, that doesn't seem to be the case. I would say the knocked loose roll should only occur on a percentage basis, dependent on the distance as a modifier. This distance would slant the reception in favor of the receiver for on target passes, and more towards the defender when the receiver has to stretch out.
i always assumed this is how the code was already set up, but now that you mention it is a dangerous assumption, and it would explain a lot if this were not the case...
PP
offline
offline
Originally posted by TheGreatAus
Does it end up badly in the NFL? HB's often times have to slow down a bit for the giant roadgrader to clear the way. They usually just slow down enough to ride their ass. I think the idea of an east to west speed boost in a pull would probably be benefical. This is the one play where Gs really get to move, they will have adrenaline pumping and be moving quite fast despite their size. Comparably, HB's 40's are generally 4.2-4.4 depending on size. Lineman can vary from 4.8-5.x, they are still pretty fast at the pro level.
IMO, a lot of the issues with pulls is that the QB gets the ball to the HB too fast in GLB. On a lot of plays, hand offs in the NFL often take forever. That's done to give the blocking a chance to setup and still allow the HB a chance to hit it at full speed. Here, if you delay the hand off, the QB gets tkled way too much before they give up the ball (see the HB draw out of the shotgun, as a current example).
Also, in real FB, the exaggerated hand off (both in time and the QB holding his arm out, telegraphing the hand off the entire way) servers another useful purpose...It sets up play action passes. Sure, there are times that the LBs just go shooting through the line on those exaggerated plays, but they end up paying a price for that when the QB goes play action instead. In GLB, there is no price to be paid. Long term, I'd sure like to see play action incorporated, as well as HBs slowing down for their blking, but I suspect we're a ways away from that yet. IMO, there are still too many basic sim issues that still need to be addressed. Personally, I'd still like to see the following, before Bort attempts to really add much more to the sim:
Finish off blocking logic (not get the right D dots every time, but try to blk the right one more often than not)
Readjust pass rush to hit a reasonable lvl with the new logic, if needed
Improve QB targeting
Improve D dot pathing to the ball
fix & add a few more O plays (IMO, we need a handful more run plays, and TE, FB & HB pass routes).
That may not seem like that long of a list, but I still think it will take 2 ssns, maybe more to chew through that. >insert standard disclaimer regarding having no clue if Bort will choose to do those things, in what order he would or how fast<
Does it end up badly in the NFL? HB's often times have to slow down a bit for the giant roadgrader to clear the way. They usually just slow down enough to ride their ass. I think the idea of an east to west speed boost in a pull would probably be benefical. This is the one play where Gs really get to move, they will have adrenaline pumping and be moving quite fast despite their size. Comparably, HB's 40's are generally 4.2-4.4 depending on size. Lineman can vary from 4.8-5.x, they are still pretty fast at the pro level.
IMO, a lot of the issues with pulls is that the QB gets the ball to the HB too fast in GLB. On a lot of plays, hand offs in the NFL often take forever. That's done to give the blocking a chance to setup and still allow the HB a chance to hit it at full speed. Here, if you delay the hand off, the QB gets tkled way too much before they give up the ball (see the HB draw out of the shotgun, as a current example).
Also, in real FB, the exaggerated hand off (both in time and the QB holding his arm out, telegraphing the hand off the entire way) servers another useful purpose...It sets up play action passes. Sure, there are times that the LBs just go shooting through the line on those exaggerated plays, but they end up paying a price for that when the QB goes play action instead. In GLB, there is no price to be paid. Long term, I'd sure like to see play action incorporated, as well as HBs slowing down for their blking, but I suspect we're a ways away from that yet. IMO, there are still too many basic sim issues that still need to be addressed. Personally, I'd still like to see the following, before Bort attempts to really add much more to the sim:
Finish off blocking logic (not get the right D dots every time, but try to blk the right one more often than not)
Readjust pass rush to hit a reasonable lvl with the new logic, if needed
Improve QB targeting
Improve D dot pathing to the ball
fix & add a few more O plays (IMO, we need a handful more run plays, and TE, FB & HB pass routes).
That may not seem like that long of a list, but I still think it will take 2 ssns, maybe more to chew through that. >insert standard disclaimer regarding having no clue if Bort will choose to do those things, in what order he would or how fast<
TheGreatAus
offline
offline
If there is anyone on the outside who has an idea of what to do next, it'd be you P. Sounds like solid advice. I personally think that the QB throwing distance is a bit crappy. Pro QB's (irl) can throw the ball 50+ yards on long streaker plays, and do so a few times a game. I rarely see that in this game, but maybe its because I've never had players in pro leagues (only AAA). Or it could be because the blocking is bad and the QB never gets the time to see downfield after two seconds.
I'd also like to see sideline logic improved, CB's using it knock RB's out of bounds, RB/WR's using it to stop the clock, etc. It seems that red zone and goal line defenders have improved since a few seasons ago, when CB's would go do the Lambeau leap before the WR even caught the ball.
I'd also like to see sideline logic improved, CB's using it knock RB's out of bounds, RB/WR's using it to stop the clock, etc. It seems that red zone and goal line defenders have improved since a few seasons ago, when CB's would go do the Lambeau leap before the WR even caught the ball.
Edited by TheGreatAus on Dec 21, 2009 08:53:41
PP
offline
offline
Originally posted by beenlurken
Thanks for getting Bort to look at this!!
.
actually, I didn't. Hazy did. I just threw my 2 cents in on it in support.
Thanks for getting Bort to look at this!!
.
actually, I didn't. Hazy did. I just threw my 2 cents in on it in support.
VincentJG
offline
offline
Originally posted by beenlurken
Thanks for getting Bort to look at this!!
I dont see a problem with high fumbles (considering the are at the hands of defenders who are built to cause them) initially provided the code is accurate (and there is fair warning in the form of an announcement... im looking at you Bort). There are a lot of wr builds that have neglected strength and carrying because ff's are not a concern (much like there are a lot of dbs who have neglected strength and tackling because there is no ff benefit by having it). If the ff spike then wrs will add more strength and carrying to fix them and it will balance out.
Too many ( and )s also abbreviations like FF has to be in capitals
Thanks for getting Bort to look at this!!
I dont see a problem with high fumbles (considering the are at the hands of defenders who are built to cause them) initially provided the code is accurate (and there is fair warning in the form of an announcement... im looking at you Bort
). There are a lot of wr builds that have neglected strength and carrying because ff's are not a concern (much like there are a lot of dbs who have neglected strength and tackling because there is no ff benefit by having it). If the ff spike then wrs will add more strength and carrying to fix them and it will balance out.Too many ( and )s also abbreviations like FF has to be in capitals
VincentJG
offline
offline
Originally posted by Tigerbait0307
While I agree that the HB should follow the G. In GLB world if the HB can't slowsdown to wait for the G. The LBs, CBs, FS and RDE would kill the play in the back field. The longer the play takes to develop the worse that play is. The more time the D has to read and react. I really think this is the only way to get the G out in front. Like it should be.
What's with the S!
While I agree that the HB should follow the G. In GLB world if the HB can't slowsdown to wait for the G. The LBs, CBs, FS and RDE would kill the play in the back field. The longer the play takes to develop the worse that play is. The more time the D has to read and react. I really think this is the only way to get the G out in front. Like it should be.
What's with the S!
VincentJG
offline
offline
Originally posted by PP
I wish I could put this on the main forum, instead of here, but the thread is locked....The G in the example has 120 speed, iirc. It isn't a boost done by Bort. DB bumped the G speed that high, just to help bort workout the blking logic of the G when he gets out there, because it stunk before he started working on it. So far, all that's been done on the test server is that the pathing of the G and who he blks when is beng fixed...Next would come how the hell we can make it so the G actually gets there, since a 70 speed, 77 agility G can't even come close to serving any kind of a useful purpose on the play with a 99 speed PB running it.
The only talk has been giving a boost during the east/west portion of the pull. The reason the G looks so damn fast the entire play is because he has 120 speed
Just terrible job with Grammar I could not even post every error
I wish I could put this on the main forum, instead of here, but the thread is locked....The G in the example has 120 speed, iirc. It isn't a boost done by Bort. DB bumped the G speed that high, just to help bort workout the blking logic of the G when he gets out there, because it stunk before he started working on it. So far, all that's been done on the test server is that the pathing of the G and who he blks when is beng fixed...Next would come how the hell we can make it so the G actually gets there, since a 70 speed, 77 agility G can't even come close to serving any kind of a useful purpose on the play with a 99 speed PB running it.
The only talk has been giving a boost during the east/west portion of the pull. The reason the G looks so damn fast the entire play is because he has 120 speed
Just terrible job with Grammar I could not even post every error
VincentJG
offline
offline
Originally posted by PP
actually, I didn't. Hazy did. I just threw my 2 cents in on it in support.
Capital
actually, I didn't. Hazy did. I just threw my 2 cents in on it in support.
Capital
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
