PDA

View Full Version : The problems with EA’s (Spot Dropping) zone coverage explained



Oneback
09-09-2010, 03:07 PM
I know I have gone over this before in a previous thread but I wanted to explain the issues with spot dropping zone coverages.

While many of us hardcore players have begged for pattern reading coverage in recent years EA has decided to stick with spot dropping zone coverage, so what exactly is spot dropping?

On a pass read, pass defenders drop back to a predefined area or landmarks on the field. Now there are two fundamental problems with EA’s spot dropping zone coverage’s, defenders do not break on the ball and they do not gain enough depth.

In real life when defenders are taught how to spot drop the very first thing they must learn how to do is drop to their area while reading the QB’s eyes. Defenders in the game do not do this as there is nothing for them to read and therefore just drop to their area and wait for the ball to be thrown and then react (I’ll get into this more later).

The number one threat to a zone defense is a pass to the intermediate area, thus drop defenders are taught to gain depth. For example, a hook to curl linebacker could have a landmark of 12-14 yards deep. Next time you are in the game take note on the depth of the linebackers drops…8 yards, maybe 10…there is a big difference in those 2 to 4 yards. Think about where you are completing those intermediate routes.

Now, why does EA use spot dropping zones? First of all it’s easy to program: Cover 2 – corners cover flat, outside linebackers to the hash, middle linebacker to the middle and safeties have deep halves. There is nothing to it and thus it’s simple to have the defenders execute these drops time after time after time. There are more eyes on the ball which equals better pursuit and with EA implementing the programming where a defender must be able to see the ball to swat the ball this style of defense works great. Poor throws can easily be intercepted (I’ll get more into this later as well).

All of those positives sound great, right? Well I think with the outcry for pattern reading coverage’s we all know there are negatives as well. The problems with spot dropping zones are that defenders can be stuck covering grass, your defenders are assigned to guard an area and read the quarterback (there’s that again)…not cover a receiver. There are many throwing windows in the defense, ever tried to cover a slant route with a spot dropping zone defense? This style of defense requires a better than average pass rush (another problem with NCAA). Proficient passing teams can tear apart the zones (I think we’ve all seen this) and this style of defense is VERY susceptible to intermediate routes even when the drop defenders gain sufficient depth (most of us are complaining about this, passes over the middle).

To my key issue with spot dropping in NCAA…in real life spot dropping is centered around reading the quarterback’s eyes/shoulders, but what do are digital defenders have to read? Both the human player and CPU can throw to any receiver on the field without making any movement at all with the quarterback (his eyes and shoulders are always straight down the field).

So how did EA get around this? Early on they programmed zone defenders to react the moment you pressed the button to throw to a receiver (remember the first year of next gen). They have since toned down how quickly defenders react but I am certain this is still how zone defenders react to a thrown ball and why balls thrown further down the field and to the outside have more of a chance to have coverage effect the play than balls thrown over the middle, the defenders simply have a longer time to react. Years ago I believe EA was attempting to get away from this type of reaction from the defense with the passing cone but users hated it saying it made the game difficult to play. A passing cone or some sort of double tap on the receiver’s button I believe would solve some of the problems.

Adding another feature to the game aside how do we fix zone coverage today and going forward?

Zone coverage deep down the field and to the outside isn’t really a problem although it could be tweaked some as well. Why is this though? The first reason is obvious: The ball takes longer to get there and thus the defenders have a longer time to react, the second is corners and safeties have much higher zone coverage ratings than do linebackers.

There are two main issues that hinder our digital linebacker’s ability to play effective zone coverage. There is nothing for them to read and the ball gets to them too fast for them to react. Would higher zone coverage ratings help?

Improving the pass rush would help as well, remember one of the negatives of spot dropping coverage is that it requires better than average pass rush? This is one area were offline and online dynasty players have an advantage at least initially over online players (thinking that EA may use live tuning updates to up the pass rush).

The biggest thing that is needed though with the current construction of the game is pattern reading coverage’s. I say the current construction of the game as I do not see the passing cone making a return and I don’t know that EA would ever add a simple passing cone feature by making the user tap the receiver’s button twice to make a throw.

So what exactly is pattern reading coverage?

Rather than the drop defender taking a drop to a landmark and wait for receivers to arrive, pattern match coverage involves taking coverage to the most dangerous threat a defender recognizes in his zone. In this coverage defenders are taught to key certain receivers when they read pass. Usually the #2 receiver to their side, from this receiver’s action, they can diagnose whom the most likely threat to their zone is. Now after a certain point, pattern-match coverage turns into man coverage (it would take another thread to get into all the specifics).

Man coverage is obviously already programmed for the game so all that needs to be programmed is the diagnosis portion of this style of defense. Not being a programmer myself I am unsure on how difficult this would be to program, although diagnosing which offensive threat to pick up in coverage seems akin to diagnosing which defender to block in a zone blocking scheme so maybe there is hope, for next year.

fsuprime
09-09-2010, 03:46 PM
so would u basically end up with a defensive option route...programming might be a problem when offense runs option route vs defensive zone option route, but other than that it does not seem too complicated (i have no programming xp)

Oneback
09-09-2010, 03:56 PM
One day when I have the time I will devote a thread to pattern-matching coverage, but the simple answer: There is an outside linebacker in pattern-matching zone coverage he see's #2 (TE in this case) run an arrow route (short route to the flat) he would then look outside for a in-breaking route by #1 and play in underneath "man" coverage on him.

baseballplyrmvp
09-09-2010, 07:34 PM
i like the double tapping the button idea.....i think that we should also have to choose a receiver pre snap (or after the playcall) to be our primary read. that would help with zone defense too, as then the defenders would immediately have something to react on since your qb would be making his first read.

gschwendt
09-09-2010, 08:48 PM
While it won't help with what you describe Oneback, I believe that the NCAA10 gameplay camera should come back simply because it's too easy to pass with the NCAA11 camera. Take a look at Rudy's blog where he has screenshots of each: http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/forums/entry.php?4-Camera-Angles

Yeah everyone loves seeing more of the field, but on NCAA11, we're seeing too much and thus it's too easy.

Oneback
09-09-2010, 08:57 PM
There is yet another thing that could be implemented...bring the camera in tighter and as you progress through your reads the camera rotates as well to show your reciever in full veiw. I wouldn't want huge swings of the camera but subtle movements.

JeffHCross
09-09-2010, 11:51 PM
Oneback, four things.

1. I'm surprised, but you didn't seem to address the issue with spot dropping and the hash marks. It does not appear that the spots designated for the defenders to drop to shifts with the ball. So the spots for LB Hook Zones, for example, are the same whether the ball is in the center or on the hash. Personally, I have never seen a defense designed in this manner. Most defenses will have one of the LBs drop further to the field side if the ball is on the hash, but not to the point where they would be if it was in the middle of the field. And, as you said, normally these players will be reacting to threats in their zone. They're not going to shift field side if there's a heavy concentration of receivers on the boundary side.

2. I haven't been able to put my finger quite on this one ... but one observation I've had is that the defenders "spots" seem to be dictated by the zones of the other players around them. This does suggest some semblance of knowledge as to how they fit into the overall defense. However, it is strange, at best. Let's imagine a 3-4 defense with all 4 LBs dropping into coverage. Essentially, what I've observed is that the ILBs zones will be in a different position dependent on whether the OLBs are in hook zones or buzz zones. If the OLBs are in hook zones, the ILBs will remain largely in the center of the field (depending on the hash issue as noted in #1). If the OLBs are in buzz zones, the ILBs will abandon the entire middle of the field. It is almost as if they are playing Cover 2 at hook zone depth, and splitting the entire field between the two of them.

Actually ... damn ... that may be exactly it. I hadn't thought about that before writing it, but that describes practically all of the problems I see.

3. Shift Coverage Left / Right does practically nothing. It does have a limited effect on the safeties in a Cover 2 man defense, but as far as I can tell it has no effect on the underneath coverage in a normal zone defense. If, as a playcaller, I was able to call a Cover 2 defense on the hash mark and tell my defenders to shade to the boundary side, I think this may resolve some of the issues we see.

4. This is probably the most important one. I was watching the Mississippi State - Auburn tonight, and I saw example after example of what you termed "pattern reading coverage". There were numerous plays where the defenders (most notably the LBs) were not reading the QBs eyes or shoulders, but were just reacting to the most obvious threat in their zone. This, going by memory, is what NCAA did in zone defenses for years; however this may be an example of nostalgia clouding my memory. This is the central read that high school level defenders are taught ... if they learn to read eyes, great. If not, at least react to the closest threat.

If nothing else, maybe they could adapt the zone defense logic (or something like it) from NCAA Basketball. Essentially "read your biggest threat" is how zone defense is programmed (and played) in basketball games.

Oneback
09-10-2010, 07:19 AM
Zone drop landmarks do not change in real life when the ball is on the hash...Cover 3 has the hashes and flat covered underneath, Cover 2 has the hashes, flat and the middle covered by the MLB. The entire field still needs to be covered, you cannot bunch your zone drops to one side of the field as you would open up the other side.

Yuo are correct though in saying that defense's change when the ball is located on the hash, this is because teams will call a rotation coverage (Cover 3 Cloud). The problem we have though as playcallers in NCAA 11 is that EA has only given us a limited number of these types of plays (which is a big problem as the ball will typically be on one hash or the other most of the time):

In the 4-3 playbook there are only 6 plays that are designed hash zone defenses.

4-3 Normal: Zip Shoot Gut (Blitz)
4-3 Under: Over 3 Strong
4-3 Under: Zone Blitz (Blitz)
Nickle Normal: Over Strong
Nickle Normal: 3 Weak Roll
Dime Normal: Strong Roll 3 (Blitz) will work but you will need to hot route the boundry slot corner to a buzz zone.

What EA has done with the defenses or at least zone defense isn't funadmentally flawed, the problem is that 1. there is nothing for the defense to read and 2. the offenses in the game have become too complex for the style of defense we are given.

JeffHCross
09-10-2010, 08:34 AM
Hm.

I'm not sure if I'm confusing my memory with what other "Xs and Os gurus" have said elsewhere (I've seen it insisted that zone coverage should be different on the hash), but my basic memory is that the defensive zones will shift, not drastically but still do so, with the placement of the ball. I.e. a MLB is covering hook/curl in the dead middle of the field when the ball is in the center of the field, but he's covering somewhere between hash-and-middle when the ball is on one hash.

Maybe this is just a function of the way LBs drop while they're reading the receivers. Or that they're playing men that go in/out of their zone while they drop, so the drop looks different.

In the game, meanwhile, an MLB bails as soon as the ball is snapped on a drop directly to the center of the field, regardless of ball placement. Last night with a 4-2-5 I saw the two LBs drop straight to the hash, leaving the center of the field completely unguarded.

Maybe you're right that a coverage roll is what I'm thinking of, but that doesn't strike me as covering all of it.

Oneback
09-10-2010, 09:12 AM
Here are Saban's Field Coverage Rules:

A. Field Defense - Front is set to the wide side of the field.
B. Coverage is weak rotated to Boundary.

Stack Coverage Rules:

A. Stack Defense - Front is set to Boundary
B. Coverage is Strong Rotated to Field.

When the offensive strength is to the boundry side the defense will check sky coverage.

JeffHCross
09-11-2010, 08:21 AM
Alright, that does it, I need to completely refresh my defensive knowledge. :D

gschwendt
09-12-2010, 12:34 AM
I just had an idea occur to me... it may be something that every football gamer has thought of before today but it just hit me: why not target based passing? That is, instead of icons over receivers, there would be a target laying flat on the field and you would move that target around using the R-stick. Based upon the QB's awareness would determine how fast the target would move around the field, and based on the QB's Throw Accuracy, the target would be larger or smaller (larger means more possibility for errant passes). Positives I can see from it...

Since you don't have receivers assigned to buttons (L1 would be throw to target, R1 would be fake), you could then find other purposes for the face buttons.
Let's you throw the ball away how you want to, just get out of the pocket and aim to the sideline.
This would allow players to use timing routes much better along.
Finally, this would resolve the problem that Oneback described above since the QBs head/body would turn as the target does.

Obviously this would be a huge change in philosophy for the game... hell button passing has been in since Madden 1. I can hear the non-thumb-jockeys complaining now (which I understand) but let me know any thoughts.

Oneback
09-12-2010, 06:34 AM
I think that would be too passing cone-ish for the masses and it would be exteremly difficult to elude the rush, move a target and properly lead a reciever all in 4 seconds.

JeffHCross
09-12-2010, 02:58 PM
Side note: I don't mind the idea of the passing cone returning, though they should be able to tweak it to be more acceptable to the masses. The more I think about it, the more I think something along those lines is the direction we're going to go in eventually.

Initially, I don't like your idea, G, both because that requires shooter-like stick skills and it just seems ... overly-gimmicky, for lack of better term. That's not quite the term I mean, but I'm imagining how annoying it is to move the camera target around on replay, then imagining that while the replay is actually moving ... yeah, no.

I mean, if you ask the average to above-average guys here, I think we can all agree that while we have moments that we're not paying attention to the rush and we're looking downfield, that's a far cry from putting a target down where we want to throw the ball. I mean, forget thumb-jockeys ... now you have to actually have a level of football knowledge because you need to know your route, know where the break is, know how the coverage will react ...

The other thing to consider is that Backbreaker introduced passing that uses the right stick to flick between the receivers. In my opinion that was an absolute failure, because the controls weren't very responsive.

AustinWolv
09-12-2010, 09:41 PM
I like the concept, G. The problem is I'm not a quick-twitch FPS guy, even though I try. So, seeing the coverage, thinking I know where to go with the ball, trying to find the ball 'reticule' and get it where I want it.....

But I like the concept.

I just think it would need to be very carefully balanced, as it would piss me off to no end to know where I want to go with the ball and constantly fight trying to get some targeting reticule in the right spot or overshooting it trying to move the stick quickly somewhere, etc.

And good grief, give me the option to throw the ball at a RB's feet on covered screens.

morsdraconis
09-12-2010, 10:47 PM
It's an interesting idea G, and definitely one I've thought of.

Personally, I REALLY liked the idea behind the cone for passing, I just didn't like the execution of it with having to hit extra buttons to throw the ball to the receiver like that. The problem was you could use the right analog stick to the move the cone around, but then you had to do that real fast and then hit the button to throw the ball to the receiver, once again, making it far too difficult to actually throw the ball with timing at a receiver (especially while getting rushed and having to make a split second decision).

In the end, the cone is definitely the best way to truly emulate the QB aspect of the game without feeling like you're in a tunnel (ala Backbreaker pre-patch) there just needs to be either a better way to implement it or more responsive in it's implementation (part of the issue with the previous cone setup was it seemed like any amount of lag at all would absolutely kill passing because you had to wait another second to see if the cone changed to the next receiver or not).

Maybe go the route of instead of it switching between receivers (again, ala Backbreaker pre-patch) maybe switch between sections of the field with also the ability to lock onto individual receivers (with the previous cone controls or even something different). That way you could flick the right stick left or right between 3-7 areas of the field (more areas for a lower awareness QB to simulate it being harder for them to progress to their 2nd or 3rd options in the play). You'd still have your cone (size defined by your QB's awareness) that you could use to lock onto individual receivers and such but also have the flicking of the right stick to make split second changes.

gschwendt
09-13-2010, 12:00 AM
I think if they ever brought back the cone, they'd need to make the primary receiver targets the shoulder buttons (L1, R1, L2, & R2). I honestly never used the passing cone (didn't play Madden, wasn't required in NCAA), but I can only see trying to use your thumb on both the R-stick and the face buttons being a pain in the ass.

My idea is that the targeting reticule would move rather quickly so you should have enough time to get from the middle of the field to your intended receiver... that and start going towards your target before you have to.

Oneback
09-13-2010, 07:17 AM
I still believe the best way to do this with the least amount of impact to the user would be by using the already existing passing icons. As your dropping back you tap X to look at yout X reciever if he's open you then hit the X button again as we do now to throw to him. If you don't like it you have the option to turn it off and the game plays much like it does now.

I think this would also help combat the run and chuckers that play online. As when you have a defender bearing down on you because your running around behind the line of scrimmage it'll be tough to hit X so the QB looks then hit X again to throw.

rhombic21
09-13-2010, 08:53 AM
I don't think the target thing is workable. Back in the day you could choose an option to pass that way on some of the old PS1 games, and it was borderline impossible, especially on anything down the field.

Initially I thought that they should just tie drop spots to where the center is, rather than to field landmarks, but that would actually result in HUGE holes to the wide side of the field. Really the biggest problem here is that the short side hook zone defender doesn't look for an in-breaking route, so you get huge gaps in the zone that are right in front of the QB (and are thus easy to spot and hit).

The other thing, which is related to pattern reading, but is really just a much simpler version of it, is that they have some basics incorrect. For instance, in cover 2, the outside CBs have to carry a vertical release by #1 about 10 yards further downfield so that they take away the quick fade. Similarly, the OLBs/NBs in hook zones have to wall off a vertical threat by #2 (the slot) and force him to go wide, thus allowing the safety to be able to stay on top without getting beat to the middle.

Also, with flat zones (particularly in Cover 3), defenders give up too many plays behind them to the corner area, particularly on late developing drags that go all the way across the field and wheel routes. They should come up and guard the flat initially, but then sink back to get under those routes as the play develops, rather than just standing and guarding grass.

Full blown pattern reading would be a big development, but there are some major improvements that could happen simply by expanding the playbooks to include a better variety of hashmark defenses (or giving us some kind of defensive play creator) and by adding some fairly basic changes to the way that players in hook and flat zones behave, particularly with regards to vertical routes.

gschwendt
09-13-2010, 09:31 AM
I don't think the target thing is workable. Back in the day you could choose an option to pass that way on some of the old PS1 games, and it was borderline impossible, especially on anything down the field.
I'd still like to see it done in today's games. I think back to when the PS2 was first released, a buddy of mine had some FPS game and that was the first time I ever used both sticks to control running & aiming. I thought there was no way that would ever catch on... it just seemed awkward at the time. Now, obviously it's become a staple of all FPSes.

It would take some good tuning but I think it could be done, though I doubt we ever see anything like it anytime soon.

rhombic21
09-13-2010, 09:49 AM
I just don't agree. A football field is a HUGE area of land to cover, and you're potentially going to be talking about progressing from a WR on one side near the LOS all the way to another who is across the field and way downfield. You're potentially talking about having to move this target more than 100 yards just to progress from one WR to the next. It works in FPS because depth isn't as big of a factor, so you mostly just have to aim side to side and only make slight adjustments up or down, and because you aren't rapidly progressing through targets that are so far apart.

Oneback
09-13-2010, 10:21 AM
I didn't really get into this in the original post but the single biggest issue with the way EA has programmed zone defense is the defender in the flat coverage assignment. In cover 2 its not really that big of a problem other than the fact the corner typically does not carry #1 far enough upfield, however when linebackers are assigned to the flat they dont just run straight to the flat. They gain depth up to 10 yards then go out towards the sideline. There shold be ZERO coverage defenders within 5 yards of the LOS while in zone.

JeffHCross
09-13-2010, 08:44 PM
I agree with rhombic that while it's an idea, G, it wouldn't work that well with the pace of the game. There are some weapons in shooters that require putting a target on the ground while you're moving, and those take a lot of effort. They're among the most seldom used weapons for a reason.

Ideas like that are worth putting out though, simply because they may inspire someone else's idea.

Escobar
09-13-2010, 09:31 PM
I don't think they should bring back the cone, because it can also make the game easier. Back when I used to play in Madden tournaments on the PS2 when they first introduced the cone I was one of the only players who didn't lose a step. I played with Aaron Brooks and the saints. He had one of the smallest cones on the game. But since I already knew who I was going to throw to I could look at :ps3sq: the whole time to draw the safeties to the left, then quickly hit R2+:ps3cir:, then :ps3cir: again to throw. It just added an extra button press which took almost no time off of my passes. I think EA should re-map the zones to respond to where the ball is on the field instead of spot drops. Sometimes I have to hot route one defender in a Hook Zone to QB-Spy just so they will play zone in front of the ball instead of drifting towards the middle of the field.

ram29jackson
09-17-2010, 12:40 AM
the cone took away from enjoying a football game as a football game. It became more a shooter game worrying about where the cone was facing

mundo
09-25-2010, 01:17 PM
The thought that occurred to me from work experiences is the ol KISS. if you could do a simple solution that would solve the issue at 75% to 80%, you fix enough of it to be effective. Based on that:

1) For offense, what if you widened the old cone to a quarter (third?) of the field and make the triggers (or the stick, if prefered) "look left" and "look right". The harder you pull it, the faster you look, etc. The defenders in the zone should be able to react accordingly in their zones pretty effectively and I don't think you would feel you are trying to hit a gnat's ass as you might feel with some of the other concepts. There probably would be issues at times with multiple routes being within the broader cone area (making it somewhat ambiguous to defenders in the area), however I don't think it would happen so much that zones wouldn't work at all.

2) For Defense, adjust the pass defense assist concept to lead the defenders to react to certain routes within their zone based on a preference you give. Though a lot of zones have built in ideas like "always be the deepest man" or "cover the flats", there are times that generic of a designation may not work or be what you want. Therefore, make it so that before the play you pick "cover the short routes" or "cover the deep routes" and the defender will jump the routes in their zone that most fits the zone concept you chose. While I do think that it is similar to the "bump n run" or "back off" already in the game, it is slightly different. Also I wouldn't want to show the offensive guy that I am going to have my zone defenders cover the short routes by having my CB tighten up in the WR. I would like the idea that you could do it on the fly like BnR as opposed to going into the "gameplan" concept.

Hopefully that makes sense

JeffHCross
09-25-2010, 07:05 PM
Good ideas mundo.

AustinWolv
09-25-2010, 09:52 PM
Good ideas worth discussing for sure!

morsdraconis
09-25-2010, 10:19 PM
The problem with that cone idea is there's no way to differentiate between QBs with high awareness and QBs with low awareness (which was the entire reason for the cone to begin with).

mundo
09-27-2010, 08:09 AM
The problem with that cone idea is there's no way to differentiate between QBs with high awareness and QBs with low awareness (which was the entire reason for the cone to begin with).

I thought about this after I posted as well and I definitely agree there needs to be a reward of some kind for better QBs.. Also, I am going to change the concept to "field of vision" I think and make it how much of the field you can see. Ultimately this makes more sense in my opinion because part of what makes it easy to pass in this game at times is how much of the field you are able to see - as many have said in this thread.

Maybe you could still do the same reward concept for better QBs. A sam bradford type may have a very wide field of vision allowing them to see more throw more accurate throws for routes that are further apart. On the other hand, a young erratic type would still have a smaller fov and would be less accurate on the peripheries of the vision. Maybe the reward could include the quickness to which you can make the cone move so that you can be better at looking off defenders when you are a better QB.

All of these should have a slider and on/off. Like the NHL guys have been saying, sliders could/should be on about everything.

xGRIDIRONxGURUx
10-02-2010, 11:57 AM
the double tap idea is the best answer... period... this way the QB's head could be animated to respond... and they could program the defense to react to the eyes... this way if you want to attack the wide side of the field... you can tap the icon (for example - :ps3cir:) to look at your inside slot to say the left side... and this way the FS freezes as he would in real life... then you can tap the route you want to hit... and tap again to throw...

this is the best way to mimic the real life battle between a QB and the secondary... and honestly still allows us mobility that we have to avoid the rush... and allows us to focus down field... still use our same buttons we are used to... and gives us the ability to use a "read and drop" on BOTH SIDES of the ball... not only can our defense use it to read the eyes of the QB, but allows us to occasionally use it on offense...

say you are going to run the slant/bubble concept... you can snap the ball with :ps3x: then look at your bubble... if its open... tap it again to throw... if not double tap to throw the slant... one tap to look... one tap to throw...

and as stated before... this would really help with anyone who just runs around and throws deep... because they would have to double tap... and the programming could be done to where it delays the QB to set... look... throw... just as real life...

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the double tap idea... and have thought and thought... and dont see a down side to this on either side of the ball... at all...

"E"

ram29jackson
10-02-2010, 03:09 PM
hell no, I dont want to have to think about double tapping anything to PLAY A GAME.

its a game, you want it as uncomplicated and chore like as possible.

That being said, unless you make your own game/games, odds are these ideas will never come to pass........ I said,come to pass haha:P

xGRIDIRONxGURUx
10-02-2010, 04:25 PM
if you have to think to do that... then you have problems... but yes ive been around long enough to know 90% of these discussions arent going to amount to anything... but the double tap to pass is the BEST and EASIEST implementation for what everyone wants... on BOTH sides of the ball...

"E"

Oneback
10-02-2010, 04:34 PM
hell no, I dont want to have to think about double tapping anything to PLAY A GAME.

its a game, you want it as uncomplicated and chore like as possible.

That being said, unless you make your own game/games, odds are these ideas will never come to pass........ I said,come to pass haha:P

Just as before with the passing cone it should have a toggle, those that like it can use it, those that don't won't. Then have rooms setup online for each. It would take maybe a day to adjust to it and once you get the hang of it there is a possiblity you may like it even more as it could have a huge impact on how the game is played.

Since it was brought up before I think the best way to implement AWR for the double tap is that the greater the AWR the faster the QB would be able to throw to the WR. This would simulate real life as well in that young quarterbacks tend to stare down recievers giving the defense a greater amount of time to react.

JeffHCross
10-02-2010, 04:46 PM
hell no, I dont want to have to think about double tapping anything to PLAY A GAME.... practically every genre has something where you have to double-tap. That's a video game staple.

I can understand not wanting to do the mechanic, and preferring it wasn't in. I haven't decided whether or not I like it yet. But to object to it because it's a double tab is a little much ...

Guru, the one downside to calling it a "double tap" is that the implication is that the ball would be thrown on the second tap ... but you'd want to keep the current mechanic for tap=lob, hold=bullet. So it's really 'tap to lock on' or something like that.

Oneback
10-02-2010, 04:52 PM
Right, it's tap to lock on to target, then tap/hold just as it is now to throw. If you want to throw without looking/locking onto the target you just hold the button and its all based upon the AWR rating at that point both for what type of throw and accuracy as throwing without looking would be all about knowning the routes of your recievers.

xGRIDIRONxGURUx
10-02-2010, 06:14 PM
yeah i meant tap to lock on... then the second tap/hold for the throw you want... sorry for calling it double tap...

i dont think there should be a way to throw without locking on to a WR... default for the start of the play the QB's eyes should be straight ahead... then we move them according to our planned attack... programming it would be easy... wouldnt bog things down... and it would really help with our LB depth issues we face sometimes...

this (in my opinion) would be the best addition... although i havent really read through too much lately but im really drawn to this addition... for sure

"E"

JeffHCross
10-02-2010, 11:57 PM
i dont think there should be a way to throw without locking on to a WRSure there should. Gotta allow for the desperate throw that doesn't have a realistic chance and often ends up in a pick. You see throws like that all the time, especially from freshmen.

Oneback
10-03-2010, 08:25 AM
Someone from EA please visit this thread, think its a great idea and add it to the game ASAP. I am okay with making it an option that people can turn off but please just get it in the game.

morsdraconis
10-03-2010, 09:13 AM
A suggestion to give it even more life would be to make it where the lock on feature is only happening while in the pocket or not sprinting around outside of the pocket. A QB (9 times out of 10) isn't going to stop scrambling and then throw the ball (at least, not in college). When a QB starts scrambling, they are going to throw it on the run most of the time. So, you have it setup to where if you move out of the pocket and continue to move, you throw the ball just by hitting the button (and it goes like if you didn't lock onto the WR to begin with) thus resulting in it going purely by how talented your QB is at throwing the ball on the run and such (which Madden has attributes for and NCAA SORELY needs to add as well) or you can scramble, set your feet (like if you move out of the pocket against a three man rush and the DE gets knocked to the ground or something) use the lock-on feature, and throw a more accurate ball.

It would be one of those things where the game recognizes that you're using sprint and thus don't have to use the lock-on feature to throw the ball (but great sacrifice accuracy unless it's a QB that specializes in throwing the ball on the run) but if you aren't using the sprint button/not moving the lock-on feature is available to you and you'll set your feet and throw the ball properly (and it should most definitely FORCE the QB to set their feet and throw the ball in those instances).

mundo
10-03-2010, 02:05 PM
I can see the double push method as an good option. I like the idea that it would generate a look to the side of the field based on an actual route as opposed having to find the right part of the field on your own. A couple thoughts/questions based on examples I can think of:

1) You would have to have some method to 'register' the first button mash, like the view of the field changes. Otherwise how would you know it you are good for the second push that would need specific pressure and time. As stupid as it sounds, buttons get inadvertently missed from time to time and it would be very helpful it was clearly registered.

2) A couple of examples:
a) you have 2 streaks against cover 1 man and want to look a safety off. You push the far right button, wait, then you push the left button to look and then again to pass. I am guessing your view of the change would match the buttons. No real issues there, not that big of an adjustment other than timing. How long does it take? How long before you are able to change from one to another? I would guess this would depend on the QB awr and the effectiveness is based on the safety AWR?
b) You run a quick slants play (multiple slants and arrows) against any number of defenses. You have to make the choice and throw the ball generally within a second and just using one button you have a small window. In the double push method, you have to pick a reciever, make sure the first button takes, then hit it again hard. I think you are fine as long as you picked the right guy presnap. Unless you have a complete badass with high AWR that could change targets quickly, you would not have much time to read the defense once the ball is snapped.Could be fair depending on how smooth it worked.
c) On screens you would need to look down the field first and then come back to the rb/wr. Depending on the screens, sometimes you don't have much time as it is. I would think they would need to work on the timing a bit.
d) Would it affect draws? Would you want the same affect (QB looking down field) when playing someone online so that it actually works like a draw? Maybe they can build in a look to a random WR automatically?

3) What about a bonus for targets that are close? If you are looking at the arrow under the curl to draw up the cover 2 the change over to the curl/stop 10 yards up the field would be a pretty quick change for any qb I am thinking? Furthermore would it be worth it to consider not needing the double touch for WR close enough together (ie the slants play)? Ultimately the footwork wouldn't have to change drastically.

3a) Alternatively, if you see they roll the coverage to the wide side and the arrow/stop you are looking at, I assume it takes longer for the QB to turn all the way around and the short flat or wherever else you may look. Ultimately, it should take too long as that is really a 3step kind of play that the blocking shouldn't hold up for.

4) Agree with the player above that there should be consideration for players on the run or rushed. However, there has to be some severe penalties for throwing across the body, otherwise it would be complete cheesefest. Maybe if the WR isn't in the general direction of the front of the QB, the throw floats and is likely picked (ala brett favre screwing up the plans for minnessota in suberbowl special). If there is no penalty, then all you have to do is sprint out to save the need to hit 2 buttons


Ultimately I think it is a good potential solution and would achieve the desired affects. What if you tweaked it a bit that 2 buttons had to be only in every situation. IE if you want to throw to the hook, you have to hit the hook button twice. However, if you want to throw to the hook after looking at the arrow, you hit the arrow button and then the hook button. The amount of lookoff and and the accuracy of the throw would depend on the QB sklllset.

Oneback
10-03-2010, 08:30 PM
As for the button registering I am sure there could be something like the passing icon over the reciever starts flashing or something along those lines.

Looking off recievers would all be based upon QB awareness...I imagine that it would work much like the passing cone did in that the higher the awareness the greater field of vision the quarterback would have (although this wouldn't be visually represented on the field). This would also mean the greater the awareness the faster the quarterback could scan the field. Obviously looking from one side of the field to the other would take the longest.

To use your example of the curl/flat combo, lets say the quarterback has good awareness so as he drops back you see the coverage rotating to the field side to you look to the boundry side wide reciever running the curl, the linebacker in curl/flat coverage gains depth to cover the curl, now because of the good awareness the flat would still be in his field of vision so you hold down the button for the flat, the ball is thrown and completed to the flat to a wide open reciever.

In the UNC playbook there in Ace-Slot there is a play called Shakes where both recievers release in a stack concept running straight down the field at the safety, as the quarterback drops back you focus on the lead reciever that is running a post, as the reciever breaks inside on the post the safety follows to the inside, the trail reciever is running a corner route so once the safety cheats to the inside you see it and throw to the trail reciever on the corner route.

I could go on for awhile in how well this would help make passing more realistic, however with that being said to not make it over powered for those of us that know how to manipulate coverage EA would need to expand the defensive playbooks to balance it out.

mundo
10-06-2010, 12:47 PM
I think it is a fun solution that could add quite a bit to the game. I definitely agree that the defense needs adjustment as well - maybe the cover short/med/deep concept as i mentioned above. In that case, the user on offense could turn off the double hit concept and there would still be some sort of matchup route and combo effect to the zone. I am guessing the idea that it can be turned off will be key for EA to accept it, because they obviously believe the offense needs to be kept simple for the non-sim players (and i can understand that).

mundo
10-06-2010, 12:54 PM
On another note, has anyone noticed that CPU defenders matchup better in zone on the heisman level? Its not perfect, but the play is far better than any user defenders. Obviously the ideas are in there somewhere