i think it'd bring a lot of depth and added strategy to be able to set a gameplan for individual players. the gameplan would have to be expanded, obviously, and probably be updated for the individual positions.
either that, or have your players' ai recognize their certain talents: like if you have a d-end who has an 90 rating for power move and only a 60 rating for finesse move; every snap, that d-end should primarily be using power moves in his line battles.
I believe it's been written that those types of differences (i.e. a DE that is a better power rusher) is recognized by the engine. But I agree we have no control over it.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I have not blocked a punt/field goal attempt since NCAA 07 on PS2!!! Also, I have never had a punt blocked against me in the history of the series. Special teams needs a major overhaul IMO.Originally Posted by Keontez
I can't remember which version it was, but there was one year when you'd actually get bad snaps as well. With all of the improved and expanding individual ratings this should be able to easily be accomplished.
More than one year ... that was practically 2003 - 07.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I would love to see a punt / FG kick block slider. Give the control to the user.
I also posted this in the Animations Forum as well. Mods feel free to move it if you'd like.
WIN/LOSS ANIMATIONS & GAMEPLAY
It seems to me that at the core of a lot of NCAA's gameplay issues is the fact that interactions are so black and white. Either a CB jams the WR and stops them dead at the line for awhile or the WR completely burns the CB and beats him deep. Either the Dlineman throws the blocker completely out of his way, or the Olineman stops him cold. There don't seem to be many animations in this game where one player gets a slight advantage over the other in an interaction. I don't know if that's due to the way the math decides who "wins or looses" an interaction or if it's because the animations don't exist.
I would like to see more "partial win" situations occur and I think it will make a huge impact in gameplay. Football is a game of inches. How much would it impact the game if instead of a DE coming clean after your QB, the Tackle was able to keep just one hand on him and allow your QB to step up slightly and avoid the pressure? How much would Special Teams plays benefit from players fighting all the way down the field against one another. Those types of battles are the things that win or lose football games and I feel that they are undervalued in this series to this point.
* I would also like to see a physics system implemented to interactions. Last year locomotion was introduced to add physics to "anything that isn't considered an interaction". It is now time to introduce these physical laws to blocks, tackles, jump balls, etc... Just as an example, in blocking this would result in better development of running lanes, a better pocket formation, and more "blow up" blocks (just to name a few).
Last edited by Kwizzy; 12-17-2010 at 11:37 AM.
That's a great idea. I do think the lack of animations is a big thing holding this game back. We need more variety in styles.
Based on evidence at hand, and my conclusions about what their code is like, I'd say your partially right on both aspects. The animations don't exist and haven't been implemented, but that's because the math doesn't allow for non-win/loss sequences to occur. It's pretty clear there are no real "stalemates" in this game, and there's a reason for that. That's been the basis of AI design for a long, long time. You do the math, you get the value for which each side "wins", and you roll. Let's say the WR and CB each have a 50% chance. So you do a roll (random number generator, usually) from 0-99. Anything 0-49, the WR wins. 50-99, the CB wins. Rinse and repeat.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
YES! there's too many times where i've noticed that either there's heavy pressure or a perfect pocket is formed. how awesome would it be to see a dominant d-lineman(s) collapse the pocket no matter where he lines up?
just adding a player's size and weight into the "shoving match" equation would be huge.
Along the same lines, but the reverse ... how often do you actually see an offensive line move the line of scrimmage during a running play? In real life ... all the time. In the game? Never. Either the two lines stay even, or the offense gets pancake blocks. There's no movement while engaged in running plays.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
You are right about the lack of movement Jeff. And the DL are too dominant in this game compared to the LBs imo. DL get an insane of amount of tackles behind the line while LBs don't break blocks nearly as well from what I've seen. I play a 3-4 and when I stuff the run it's usually because a DL made a really good play - not a LB.
And they really need to at least tie weight into the recruit's ratings. Right now weight is 100% random by position and meaningless.
Love the partial win concept. Going with the 80% rule, I don't think you need to overwhelm the engine with degrees of partial wins. ie, for every pct point closer to 99 on the random generator, the better the db wins (or whoever). If you started with 4 potential outcomes (WR clear win, WR partial win, CB partial win, CB clear win), you would go a long way towards seeing more realistic results.
other things i have thought about
1. Matchup/gameplanning concepts: What if you had a simplistic "heat map" concept for the pregame or during the week on dynasty. Essentially I am thinking a graphically simple screen that has your offense by formation versus the opponents defense by formation and vice versa. You toggle between "run" and "pass" to see where your matchups are favored by an area highlighted in green. I also say "heat map" because it is more than a one on one concept. Its not just about your center vs their MLB in the 4-3, it is how your guards and center matchup to their DTs and and MLB. Obviously this could get really complicated to calculate matchups along the OL if you let it (given different blocking for diff plays), but I don't think you need to get to that level and hit a gnats ass to make it useful, serviceable and fun. It would ultimately be better than going position by position through the depth chart and matchups are a huge part of CFB.
2. Defensive overhaul: You guys have said it well about zone/covering grass AND expanded hot routes. I really think work is needed on general design, alignment/disguising and styles. For example, there are some run fits that i think are missing in the 3-4 - especially involving slants and whatnot with the DL. Also, why are some of the plays in the over/odd,etc not in the "even". Short of a 46 alignment (which hasn't been there for the 3-4), you should probably be able to make a play call and an alignment separate. Obviously some plays don't work as well in some formations as other at times but ultimately it should be there.
As to alignment, it is too difficult at times to get your guys aligned up in time and hide your coverage. And CPU is HORRENDOUS at alignment and disguising, namely with the Nickleback lining up on the short side of the field in zone every time and blitzers going in odd places. It is important that the CPU does it right because you shouldn't have to adjust your entire defense every play.
Furthermore, offense isn't the only side of the ball in CFB with personality. Some DCs prefer man to man (Pellini) and some DCs prefer zone (Deruyter). It would be cool if that was part of calling defense and defining your defense. However, this serves no purpose until things like zones, shading, etc is worked out
3. CPU difficulty: The challenge from the CPU should come from 2 sources: (a) How "good" their players play against you and (b) how smart they play against you and attack your weaknesses. Currently it is all "a" on heisman for me and many on here... and at times it leads to some "slight" anger... for me anyway. I think their is great potential for the CPU to integrate both the "heat map" concept above and your personal playcalling style and history into a fun challenge. After all, I would guess most of us FORCE ourselves to call more than 5 to maybe 10 plays. Even then, a lot of those times those plays may look different, but they are ultimately attacking the same thing (deep middle, flat, MTM on the slot/TE/RB etc). To achieve smarter play, my thoughts were the CPU could do 2 things:
(a) Have an adjustable level of complexity in the AI separate from skill level. For those that want it, the CPU should be all over our 3rd down money play we go to over and over if that is what we do. If we keep getting to third and long, destroy that freshman right tackle and keep us from throwing deep. If we do nothing but pass, change things up and make us work all parts of the field. How they get to that AI....? My first thought is involving more history or more variables as you increase difficulty. I think if you were to involve a play call summary (run/pass) and down tendencies, a chart showing pass results by region, and the heat map above, I think you could come up with a pretty good idea of what someone were trying to do. After all, we are limited in formations, packages and plays in this game even if they had custom playbooks
(b) As said above, effective defenses in technique, alignment, style, etc must happen to have this work. Them running the routes for the WR even when they are not matched up well is not really a challenge, it is the CPU saying "no". Bracket the good receivers, take a way the outs but put some LBs in there to kill the slants, etc etc.
My dos cientos
Last edited by mundo; 12-22-2010 at 12:57 PM.
mundo, do you play any company's baseball games? I ask because every baseball game inundates the player with a ridiculous amount of analysis ... hot zones, cold zones, how every batter performs against certain pitches, pitch tracking over multiple at-bats, etc. Hell, MLB 2k10 even gave an entire interface of statistics to Sabermetrics themselves.
Anyway, I saw your idea about a heat map, and it made me think about the various things baseball titles have in them. And here's where my question comes in ... does anybody actually use those? It's a solid idea, don't get me wrong, and I always support having options for every type of player. I'm just curious, because I normally consider myself a fairly deep game player, but in the heat of a game I'm rarely looking at any of that information.
Just curious if you played those titles and could give any thoughts.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I have not played a single one of those games... That said, you bring up a good point so I will still give you the thoughts behind why I think it is a good idea. One thing I will say, as it pertains involving statistic results specifically, is that Baseball has such a great focus on so many season stats I can see why so many games would make this effort. In the case of college football and this game, I am more thinking player rating and matchup for purposes of developing a gameplan. And more generally, as this game gets "more realistic" and better at simulating authentic football, game planning (even if very simple) will take more importance. To keep it from rambling I will kinda do why/why not
Why I like it:
-Easier way to do what a lot of people already do. I would be willing to bet a far majority of players take at least a cursory look at the depth charts to see who the opposing good players are and how they compare to yours. Why not put it on one screen in a method easier to digest. Furthermore think about how much fun and easier it could be to see their team for those who enjoy building up the dynasty and try to develop personality with their team
-Gives a start to gameplanning - especially for non cheeseball games with friends online or vs CPU. For those that enjoy getting as much authentic as you can out of the game, this would show "I am strong guard to guard so i am going to pound it inside to suck him inside and catch him with the option"
-Would, theoretically, help the Cpu AI attack you - that is assuming the logic inherent isn't already in there. I mean if you have all these ratings in there, the CPU should be using them on every play. If they do, then surely there is an easy way to show on a screen.
potential problems:
-Has the potential to be a ton of work for something that may not be used at all. If you started to dig deep you could come up with all kinds of ways to put it together and different factors that basically make it some sort of twisted, Chinese Algebra. I still contend there is a fairly concise method that the CPU uses every play, just show the building blocks for this on a screen
-What about during games. Should it update for hot streaks, injuries, etc... no. It is like a gameplanning concept: you look at it before the game, maybe can reference back to it from a pregame perspective, but you have to be able to make the changes on the fly
-What about outside factors like rain, snow, wind... sounds like a can of shit worms to include stuff like this. Just use the basic stuff and adjust on the fly
Last edited by mundo; 12-29-2010 at 12:41 PM. Reason: Hit the return too fast
Good thoughts, mundo. Thanks.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I do like the idea of the game sharing information on the top players on both sides of the ball for both teams. It would add more personality. I bet the casual game never checks the depth chart of his opponent.
wrong thread
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I know I already chimed in, sorry. I am sitting here watching the TCU and Wisc"ahn"son game and thinking "I want this"...This game is a great representative of what is fun about college football: 2 very good teams that are about 10 times further apart in styles than you could ever possibly get in the NFL. Of all the things that would be cool, the Key things I think that would get the gameplay closer to emulating this game are (1) More locomotion and weight effect (1a) Partial wins involving this concept (RBs falling forward, surges by the OL) (2) Improved defense techniques in coverage and rush angles (3) Improved schemes on both defense (especially the 4-2-5/3-3-5 and run blitzes/slants) and offense (OL blocking schemes and more balanced playbooks)
If they did those three things, this game would go a HUGE way toward that next step to a game alot of people would play well past the football season.
Mundo, good thoughts. I'm watching the game and thinking the same.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks