Warrior General Games

Make the advanced coverage on a play by play basis. Put a check box in each play and if it's checked let it use the new coverage. Change WR tag number to the suggested for plays.

This would let DC's use plays as they are written up, and use plays withmore intelligent CB's as well, This way yo udon't end up with the free man stacked over the HB on some plays.

New coverage will likely become the only coverage next season.

I'm trying to hash out kinks, like double coverages stacking and such. But without the new coverage, the workload grows exponentially with every new formation and play added and also very prone to messing up coverage logic on a 5AM play creation bender.

And the "free man" stacking on the HB in DAG spam isn't a free man, everyone else is blitzing so he is the only one covering the HB.

Originally posted by Corndog
And the "free man" stacking on the HB in DAG spam isn't a free man, everyone else is blitzing so he is the only one covering the HB.

Ok, poorly worded. But you understand what I was meaning to say.

Originally posted by Corndog
New coverage will likely become the only coverage next season.

I'm trying to hash out kinks, like double coverages stacking and such. But without the new coverage, the workload grows exponentially with every new formation and play added and also very prone to messing up coverage logic on a 5AM play creation bender.

How is this going to effect plays like Man DE Flats?

Originally posted by Adderfist
How is this going to effect plays like Man DE Flats?

I don't know, is there something wrong with it?

Originally posted by Corndog
I don't know, is there something wrong with it?

Part of the reason the play is strong, is how the safties are positioned. If they're forced over the man they're covering it leaves a pretty large hole on those plays.

Well I can force nomove for plays that need it.

Or I can make safeties never move to cover non-WRs.

But either way, between the choice of making a few plays less effective, or half the plays just not working coupled with extra workload, I'm going to choose the former pretty much every time.

Originally posted by Corndog
Well I can force nomove for plays that need it.

Or I can make safeties never move to cover non-WRs.

But either way, between the choice of making a few plays less effective, or half the plays just not working coupled with extra workload, I'm going to choose the former pretty much every time.

I agree with that. I just personally feel it's almost always better to let the user decide what they want for the plays. I'd love to have this suggestion happen and personally I feel its fairly realistic since you already have the testing done for the actual logic on the plays.

What goes into creating plays?

Originally posted by Adderfist
What goes into creating plays?

With the logic, fumbling around getting the coordinates for all the players right, then fiddling with the zone rectangle to make it look right, then making art.

Without the logic, the same, except also going through every man defender and assigning flow through logic for every possible receiver, while also account for possibility of double teams and leaving a player undefended.

The real work comes if I add a new offensive formation. Like if I add one with a second HB, I'd have to go through every single defensive play and recalculate that plays logic. Whereas with the new system, I just add the new position to the hash in the code and it just works.

Basically, hardcoded coverage logic scales a lot less easily than coverage logic generated on the fly.

I also put in hooks for hard coded coverage just in case it's wanted or needed for some plays. So no move can be forced, or I can manually override the coverage logic for individual players for individual plays.

Also forgot to mention, maintaining two different blocks of code for the same thing (coverage) itself is adding workload.

Originally posted by Corndog
With the logic, fumbling around getting the coordinates for all the players right, then fiddling with the zone rectangle to make it look right, then making art.

Without the logic, the same, except also going through every man defender and assigning flow through logic for every possible receiver, while also account for possibility of double teams and leaving a player undefended.

The real work comes if I add a new offensive formation. Like if I add one with a second HB, I'd have to go through every single defensive play and recalculate that plays logic. Whereas with the new system, I just add the new position to the hash in the code and it just works.

Basically, hardcoded coverage logic scales a lot less easily than coverage logic generated on the fly.

Kind of a shame you don't have a Dev DPC. Seems like it would make creation of plays significantly easier.

Originally posted by Adderfist
Kind of a shame you don't have a Dev DPC. Seems like it would make creation of plays significantly easier.

Well, we do, I just find it easier editing the database directly.

Man coverage assignments admittedly aren't the most time consuming, but are the most easy to mess up without easily being able to test. The big time consumers are art and getting the zone rectangles where I want them because I go all perfectionist.

But, adding new offensive formations requiring me to go back through hundreds of defensive plays to account for the new formation just turns new offensive formations into a NGTH thing.

Originally posted by Corndog
Well, we do, I just find it easier editing the database directly.

Man coverage assignments admittedly aren't the most time consuming, but are the most easy to mess up without easily being able to test. The big time consumers are art and getting the zone rectangles where I want them because I go all perfectionist.

But, adding new offensive formations requiring me to go back through hundreds of defensive plays to account for the new formation just turns new offensive formations into a NGTH thing.

Yeah. I see what you mean. In that regard would it be possible to clone plays right now that have the old coverage and use the new coverage just using the lock position like you were suggesting before?

Originally posted by Corndog
...

Or I can make safeties never move to cover non-WRs.

...

Yes, please.

I also noticed a CB covering a TE today. Good job improving assignments so far, much appreciated.