Who's seen it in action yet? I'm gonna test it out on the Drunks because we're out of the playoffs...why the hell not? I'm interested to see how this works out.
At least they're doing something about it. Bort, your my Heuro!
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > Experimental Heuristic Module for Man Coverage Assignment Logic
Who's seen it in action yet? I'm gonna test it out on the Drunks because we're out of the playoffs...why the hell not? I'm interested to see how this works out.
At least they're doing something about it. Bort, your my Heuro!
I have been running some tests but didn't seem to make much of a difference but then again I am not comparing play to play, just overall results, but it shouldn't make THAT much difference so in hindsight... wasted post here 
Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
I have it activated.
You'll need it in our rematch
I have it activated.
You'll need it in our rematch
I have it on, too. Seemed to do what it was meant to, with my team. Tried it against Ronin, which was a mistake, as they just ran us into the ground.
doobas™
doobas™
Adderfist
offline
offline
Originally posted by doobas
I have it on, too. Seemed to do what it was meant to, with my team. Tried it against Ronin, which was a mistake, as they just ran us into the ground.
doobas™
So what exactly did it do
I have it on, too. Seemed to do what it was meant to, with my team. Tried it against Ronin, which was a mistake, as they just ran us into the ground.
doobas™
So what exactly did it do
Originally posted by Adderfist
So what exactly did it do
It meant that when I blitzed the 5 WR plays, the safeties covered the open bots, instead of doubling up on the nearest WRs.
I think.
doobas™
So what exactly did it do
It meant that when I blitzed the 5 WR plays, the safeties covered the open bots, instead of doubling up on the nearest WRs.
I think.
doobas™
I ran a sim with it on and the results were generally pretty good until the 4th quarter. That could've been some sort of tactics issue in late-game defense.
Originally posted by doobas
It meant that when I blitzed the 5 WR plays, the safeties covered the open bots, instead of doubling up on the nearest WRs.
I think.
doobas™
Yeah, this is mainly what it's intended for...to fix various plays that are broken against specific formations.
It meant that when I blitzed the 5 WR plays, the safeties covered the open bots, instead of doubling up on the nearest WRs.
I think.
doobas™
Yeah, this is mainly what it's intended for...to fix various plays that are broken against specific formations.
It should look similar, but it should fix plays where players were uncovered because assignments are generated based on a big hash rather than preassigned within every play's definition.
It will also make adding new plays much easier, as I'll just need to set the definition for players to "cover: man" instead of working through the logic for "cover: man, HB_LEFT, FB, TE, !WR1, !WR2, !WR3, !WR4" etc.
The reason I decided to make it an option initially is because it's a pretty large change code-wise to a pretty fundamental part of the game, so figured it was best to let people try it on their own rather than just pushing it out and hoping it isn't horribly broken based on half a dozen test games.
If it ends up working (or I fix the issues with it), I'll probably just end up removing the option and just making it the standard.
It will also make adding new plays much easier, as I'll just need to set the definition for players to "cover: man" instead of working through the logic for "cover: man, HB_LEFT, FB, TE, !WR1, !WR2, !WR3, !WR4" etc.
The reason I decided to make it an option initially is because it's a pretty large change code-wise to a pretty fundamental part of the game, so figured it was best to let people try it on their own rather than just pushing it out and hoping it isn't horribly broken based on half a dozen test games.
If it ends up working (or I fix the issues with it), I'll probably just end up removing the option and just making it the standard.
Edited by Corndog on Feb 20, 2014 14:53:42
-Phaytle-
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
It should look similar, but it should fix plays where players were uncovered because assignments are generated based on a big hash rather than preassigned within every play's definition.
It will also make adding new plays much easier, as I'll just need to set the definition for players to "cover: man" instead of working through the logic for "cover: man, HB_LEFT, FB, TE, !WR1, !WR2, !WR3, !WR4" etc.
The reason I decided to make it an option initially is because it's a pretty large change code-wise to a pretty fundamental part of the game, so figured it was best to let people try it on their own rather than just pushing it out and hoping it isn't horribly broken based on half a dozen test games.
If it ends up working (or I fix the issues with it), I'll probably just end up removing the option and just making it the standard.
Just to clarify, should this result in the FS and SS being able to cover a WR or TE on the other side of the field?
What I have noticed is if everyone is in man coverage, the safety will double a receiver only on their side instead of cover a wide open TE or receiver on the other side of the field. I've even seen triple coverage a few times because of this. Hopefully no more 5 wide sets where there are 3 defenders covering 2 WRs on one side and 2 defenders covering 3 WRs on the other. Wondering if this works for dog plays too, where a LB in a dog blitz would rather pick up a man assignment if nobody else is available t pick him up instead of blitz, irregardless or where they are set at the beginning of the play.
It should look similar, but it should fix plays where players were uncovered because assignments are generated based on a big hash rather than preassigned within every play's definition.
It will also make adding new plays much easier, as I'll just need to set the definition for players to "cover: man" instead of working through the logic for "cover: man, HB_LEFT, FB, TE, !WR1, !WR2, !WR3, !WR4" etc.
The reason I decided to make it an option initially is because it's a pretty large change code-wise to a pretty fundamental part of the game, so figured it was best to let people try it on their own rather than just pushing it out and hoping it isn't horribly broken based on half a dozen test games.
If it ends up working (or I fix the issues with it), I'll probably just end up removing the option and just making it the standard.
Just to clarify, should this result in the FS and SS being able to cover a WR or TE on the other side of the field?
What I have noticed is if everyone is in man coverage, the safety will double a receiver only on their side instead of cover a wide open TE or receiver on the other side of the field. I've even seen triple coverage a few times because of this. Hopefully no more 5 wide sets where there are 3 defenders covering 2 WRs on one side and 2 defenders covering 3 WRs on the other. Wondering if this works for dog plays too, where a LB in a dog blitz would rather pick up a man assignment if nobody else is available t pick him up instead of blitz, irregardless or where they are set at the beginning of the play.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Just to clarify, should this result in the FS and SS being able to cover a WR or TE on the other side of the field?
What I have noticed is if everyone is in man coverage, the safety will double a receiver only on their side instead of cover a wide open TE or receiver on the other side of the field. I've even seen triple coverage a few times because of this. Hopefully no more 5 wide sets where there are 3 defenders covering 2 WRs on one side and 2 defenders covering 3 WRs on the other. Wondering if this works for dog plays too, where a LB in a dog blitz would rather pick up a man assignment if nobody else is available t pick him up instead of blitz, irregardless or where they are set at the beginning of the play.
Link to those plays?
Just to clarify, should this result in the FS and SS being able to cover a WR or TE on the other side of the field?
What I have noticed is if everyone is in man coverage, the safety will double a receiver only on their side instead of cover a wide open TE or receiver on the other side of the field. I've even seen triple coverage a few times because of this. Hopefully no more 5 wide sets where there are 3 defenders covering 2 WRs on one side and 2 defenders covering 3 WRs on the other. Wondering if this works for dog plays too, where a LB in a dog blitz would rather pick up a man assignment if nobody else is available t pick him up instead of blitz, irregardless or where they are set at the beginning of the play.
Link to those plays?
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
