This encompasses a great many things people want, all in one thread. To save from making a huge post that people don't read, look at this instead and I'll explain the picture.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/47/passpackage.jpg
This is the play set up in your package screen.
QB Progression allows you to select the order in which your QB selects his targets. The term "Run" in the picture is there to signify that the QB is looking to run. If the run isn't there he moves on to his next progression, he doesn't just run because the plays says so. Basically he looks away from the receivers to see is he has space. If he does he runs, if he doesn't he goes back to the receivers. One could set it up Mike Vick style and look at one receiver, than run, than a receiver, than run again if you have that sort of QB.
The term ditch is basically a throw away, but throw away didn't fit in the box lol. You can do all of this, or you can just leave it default.
Below that you can choose to keep your HB, FB, or TE in to block, run their route, or throw a chip than run the route. If they stay in to block they have their own set of blocking progressions.
In my opinion this is about the closest thing to an OPC we might ever see. It also addresses scrambling, making QB's make better progressions, and pass blocking by RB's.
It's a must happen imo.
Edited Bort discussion into OP:
Originally posted by Bort
Good idea on placement of the options.
You need to expand a bit more on the block progression dynamics. Does the player automatically know who to block based on progression, or does he have to make vision checks down the line? If he fails his vision check, what happens? Does he block that guy even if he's not blitzing? Does he fall back to "block anyone?" Does he stand around and wait to look at the next guy? The block progression there works differently than the current method, that looks at player x/y position, not their position they are playing.
Originally posted by Octowned
Well, I think the blocking options are totally over the top to implement something like this right away, but at the very least..
1) make all plays have a HB/FB/TE route (plz)
2) have the QB progression options
I would assume that is the first step toward this ultimate goal, and let the blocking code take care of itself. Don't launch two systems at once, they always say... and the pass options seem to be a sim priority.
Would be pretty darn sweet, though, that's for sure - and intuitive on the user level.
This does pose one problem - this is designed for a package. How do casual leagues use this (or are they stuck with normal plays?), and how do non-package OCs deal with this? Make the updates in the playbook? Basically you could have the playbook viewable like the packages instead of current format, so you could customize your playbook and then let that be applied everywhere.
Then, when you pull a play from a playbook into your packages, it pre-loads what you had set in the playbook, but also gives the option to make minor adjustments (all run routes on 3rd and long, keep a blocker in 1st down, for the same play, etc..)
Originally posted by Kirghiz
In the example I had "ROLB -> RDE -> MLB -> DT -> Any" I think.
The back would make a vision check at the snap to determine if the first progression is blitzing. If he fails the check and the player is blitzing, he misses the blitz read and moves to the next progression, missing the blitz pick up. He can make another check later to pick it up after he misses it, but at that point it is probably going to be too late to make a block on the blitzer. If the player is not blitzing and he fails the check he would step up to block him for a tick or so, but ultimately would move on to the next progression because eventually he'll figure out that he isn't coming. Basically in that instance he would hesitate in moving to the next blitz read, perhaps taking a step out of position as well. Eventually he should move on to the next progression, but not without some hesitation and maybe moving the wrong way. He could still conceivably make the block after failing the first vision check, but the hesitation from failing that check can make the difference in the QB getting pressured or not.
Regardless though, he should still be able to move along the progression chain even if he fails a check here and there. It is just a matter of how quickly he moves along the blitz read progression, and where he is on the field in relation to that blitzer after he fails some of these checks. Once he makes the read he still has to make an engage block roll and a hold block roll, so hesitation reading the blitz can cost him making these two rolls by being out of position. If he sees him coming, but not in time to get in proper blocking position he can have a penalty applied to the engage block roll, and the blitzer could run right over him.
At the end of the progression chain I think "Any" should be required though so the back isn't just standing around wondering what to do. He knows his assignment is to protect the QB, so he is going to at least try to block someone, though it could end up being someone that isn't the biggest threat to the QB.
There is really a hundred different possibilities that can happen by failing a vision check, and none of them are particularly good. It is why teams in the real world want their every down back to be competent pass blockers, and why backs that aren't competent pass blockers get pulled on 3rd down. Basically what we have here is a coach being able to see a threat on film, say Lawrence Taylor at ROLB, and than being able to tell their back that Lawrence Taylor is the best pass rushing linebacker in the league and they should watch him first because he is likely the biggest threat to the passer on any given pass play.
Originally posted by Bort
That's a pretty good rundown I think, Kirghiz, thanks for that input.
Would you have these options as a per-output option as well, or just on packages? Seems like you'd need them in the output as well, since packages are basically a collection of outputs.
For the QB progression idea, it might also make sense to somehow add that at the playbook level, so that you could set a particular play to have a different progression all the time, as opposed to having to set it every time in your package. Also, with your interface, there's no way to select "use play default." That would need to show up somehow.
Originally posted by Kirghiz
The play default would have to be in there, I agree. I figured it would be in there somehow, by not designating anything in the drop down boxes perhaps. It would probably have to be in playbook and output selections too, but tbh the easiest way for me to explain what I had in mind was to paint a picture, and that was easiest for me to do with the package screen's layout. It does seem like something that you wouldn't really want to do from the output screen, because that would be a lot of tweaking from output to output and game to game. At least from the package screen you could designate pass protection packages and only load that particular protection package as needed.
The Playbook idea would work too, but you would be making an adjustment to that play every time you run it, where from a package you could run several variations of the same play, with different receiver progressions and protection assignments.
As I said, it probably needs to be usable from the playbook and output level, but the best practical application seems to me like would be from a package. That is how I would use it anyway.
Originally posted by Kirghiz
The blocking thing really isn't all that complex. Instead of just leaving the back in to pass block like you do now, you would have the option of designating the first potential blitzer to look at. If you know a team blitzes their ROLB or MLB a lot you can target them instead of just saying "go pass block". I had four examples in the pass block progression in the OP, but you could only designate one guy in the progression and than have him look for the biggest threat after that. You wouldn't have to have him go from progression to progression. You could think of it as tagging a blitzer.
It would obviously need extensive test server time though.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/47/passpackage.jpg
This is the play set up in your package screen.
QB Progression allows you to select the order in which your QB selects his targets. The term "Run" in the picture is there to signify that the QB is looking to run. If the run isn't there he moves on to his next progression, he doesn't just run because the plays says so. Basically he looks away from the receivers to see is he has space. If he does he runs, if he doesn't he goes back to the receivers. One could set it up Mike Vick style and look at one receiver, than run, than a receiver, than run again if you have that sort of QB.
The term ditch is basically a throw away, but throw away didn't fit in the box lol. You can do all of this, or you can just leave it default.
Below that you can choose to keep your HB, FB, or TE in to block, run their route, or throw a chip than run the route. If they stay in to block they have their own set of blocking progressions.
In my opinion this is about the closest thing to an OPC we might ever see. It also addresses scrambling, making QB's make better progressions, and pass blocking by RB's.
It's a must happen imo.
Edited Bort discussion into OP:
Originally posted by Bort
Good idea on placement of the options.
You need to expand a bit more on the block progression dynamics. Does the player automatically know who to block based on progression, or does he have to make vision checks down the line? If he fails his vision check, what happens? Does he block that guy even if he's not blitzing? Does he fall back to "block anyone?" Does he stand around and wait to look at the next guy? The block progression there works differently than the current method, that looks at player x/y position, not their position they are playing.
Originally posted by Octowned
Well, I think the blocking options are totally over the top to implement something like this right away, but at the very least..
1) make all plays have a HB/FB/TE route (plz)
2) have the QB progression options
I would assume that is the first step toward this ultimate goal, and let the blocking code take care of itself. Don't launch two systems at once, they always say... and the pass options seem to be a sim priority.
Would be pretty darn sweet, though, that's for sure - and intuitive on the user level.
This does pose one problem - this is designed for a package. How do casual leagues use this (or are they stuck with normal plays?), and how do non-package OCs deal with this? Make the updates in the playbook? Basically you could have the playbook viewable like the packages instead of current format, so you could customize your playbook and then let that be applied everywhere.
Then, when you pull a play from a playbook into your packages, it pre-loads what you had set in the playbook, but also gives the option to make minor adjustments (all run routes on 3rd and long, keep a blocker in 1st down, for the same play, etc..)
Originally posted by Kirghiz
In the example I had "ROLB -> RDE -> MLB -> DT -> Any" I think.
The back would make a vision check at the snap to determine if the first progression is blitzing. If he fails the check and the player is blitzing, he misses the blitz read and moves to the next progression, missing the blitz pick up. He can make another check later to pick it up after he misses it, but at that point it is probably going to be too late to make a block on the blitzer. If the player is not blitzing and he fails the check he would step up to block him for a tick or so, but ultimately would move on to the next progression because eventually he'll figure out that he isn't coming. Basically in that instance he would hesitate in moving to the next blitz read, perhaps taking a step out of position as well. Eventually he should move on to the next progression, but not without some hesitation and maybe moving the wrong way. He could still conceivably make the block after failing the first vision check, but the hesitation from failing that check can make the difference in the QB getting pressured or not.
Regardless though, he should still be able to move along the progression chain even if he fails a check here and there. It is just a matter of how quickly he moves along the blitz read progression, and where he is on the field in relation to that blitzer after he fails some of these checks. Once he makes the read he still has to make an engage block roll and a hold block roll, so hesitation reading the blitz can cost him making these two rolls by being out of position. If he sees him coming, but not in time to get in proper blocking position he can have a penalty applied to the engage block roll, and the blitzer could run right over him.
At the end of the progression chain I think "Any" should be required though so the back isn't just standing around wondering what to do. He knows his assignment is to protect the QB, so he is going to at least try to block someone, though it could end up being someone that isn't the biggest threat to the QB.
There is really a hundred different possibilities that can happen by failing a vision check, and none of them are particularly good. It is why teams in the real world want their every down back to be competent pass blockers, and why backs that aren't competent pass blockers get pulled on 3rd down. Basically what we have here is a coach being able to see a threat on film, say Lawrence Taylor at ROLB, and than being able to tell their back that Lawrence Taylor is the best pass rushing linebacker in the league and they should watch him first because he is likely the biggest threat to the passer on any given pass play.
Originally posted by Bort
That's a pretty good rundown I think, Kirghiz, thanks for that input.
Would you have these options as a per-output option as well, or just on packages? Seems like you'd need them in the output as well, since packages are basically a collection of outputs.
For the QB progression idea, it might also make sense to somehow add that at the playbook level, so that you could set a particular play to have a different progression all the time, as opposed to having to set it every time in your package. Also, with your interface, there's no way to select "use play default." That would need to show up somehow.
Originally posted by Kirghiz
The play default would have to be in there, I agree. I figured it would be in there somehow, by not designating anything in the drop down boxes perhaps. It would probably have to be in playbook and output selections too, but tbh the easiest way for me to explain what I had in mind was to paint a picture, and that was easiest for me to do with the package screen's layout. It does seem like something that you wouldn't really want to do from the output screen, because that would be a lot of tweaking from output to output and game to game. At least from the package screen you could designate pass protection packages and only load that particular protection package as needed.
The Playbook idea would work too, but you would be making an adjustment to that play every time you run it, where from a package you could run several variations of the same play, with different receiver progressions and protection assignments.
As I said, it probably needs to be usable from the playbook and output level, but the best practical application seems to me like would be from a package. That is how I would use it anyway.
Originally posted by Kirghiz
The blocking thing really isn't all that complex. Instead of just leaving the back in to pass block like you do now, you would have the option of designating the first potential blitzer to look at. If you know a team blitzes their ROLB or MLB a lot you can target them instead of just saying "go pass block". I had four examples in the pass block progression in the OP, but you could only designate one guy in the progression and than have him look for the biggest threat after that. You wouldn't have to have him go from progression to progression. You could think of it as tagging a blitzer.
It would obviously need extensive test server time though.
Edited by Kirghiz on Jan 7, 2010 22:36:18
Edited by Kirghiz on Jan 7, 2010 14:59:57
