Gameplay - First Rd: Proper Def. Alignment/Assignment vs. Additional/Custom Cameras

As always, vote for the item you prefer. However, also state how you would like both features implemented into the game and indicate any specific elements you would (or would not) like to see added for each item.


Proper Defensive Alignment & Assignment

The alignment portion primarily relates to DBs lining up on receivers to where defenders would recognize threats and align on top of them properly. The biggest culprit of this is when using man defense in a 3-3-5 or 4-2-5 formations and the safeties not aligning properly against receivers. However, beginning with NCAA 12, we’ve also seen issues with a 4-3 man defense against a Twins set, one CB won’t come across the formation resulting in a LB covering WR. Additionally, this would incorporate the WR/DB Match-Up feature that Madden currently has, allowing you to assign specific defenders to cover specific receivers all over the field. At the end of the day, this would help ensure that the best defenders are matched up against the best offensive players.

For Assignments, it relates to both gap assignment for defensive players in the box to contain and control their gaps, but also relates to players making reads and adjustments on the fly as a play happens. Currently in NCAA Football, players have no hesitancy... a play happens, they react almost instantly whether the right reaction or not. With these changes, players would at times have a hesitancy to adjust as the play develops, choosing which hole to attack, reading Playaction or not, choosing which pursuit angle to take, etc. This would largely help in the option offense game where even if you read the DE correctly, other players still easily come in to clean up the play.


Additional/Custom Camera Angles

An item available on Last Gen as well as other sports titles, Camera Angle options allow the user to change up how the game is presented to them. Not only would there be various gameplay camera angles available, but as well a custom camera option allowing you to adjust the height and distance as well as the pan of the camera. This option would also ensure that the broadcast/coach cam camera angle would be playable by the user.

Defense Wins Championships

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Defense Wins Championships

---

Cameras take pictures of that defense that wins Championships. We need more cameras. I know this will lose but how hard s it to add new cameras? Every sports game under the sun has camera optioins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdoughty

how hard s it to add new cameras?

---

Adding cameras: Not hard. Making sure everything renders properly at full frame-rate from every camera angle: Can be much more difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Adding cameras: Not hard. Making sure everything renders properly at full frame-rate from every camera angle: Can be much more difficult.

---

Having virtually the same game Madden, with different camera options kinda reduces the difficulty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdoughty

Having virtually the same game Madden, with different camera options kinda reduces the difficulty.

---

It can, not always. While the two games share a lot of gameplay code, I'm not sure how much of the art/presentation is shared. Different shaders, textures, etc, can all change the complexity of different viewing angles.

Take the NHL series for example. The camera moves with the player, and even though it's smooth 99% of the game, I've run into instances where the frame rate will just utterly drop at certain places on the ice. And repeatedly.

I am voting for defensive alignment because this is a huge problem with the game (does man alignment ever work in this game on next gen???). However, I would love to see more camera options and it's really stunning that this series lacks any camera options. Camera options is a staple of pretty much all sports games and is desperately needed in NCAA football.

Def Alignment

defensive improvements. i dont care at all about the angle that i'm viewing the game from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

Adding cameras: Not hard. Making sure everything renders properly at full frame-rate from every camera angle: Can be much more difficult.

---

I voted cameras because I love camera options although I probably should have voted defensive alignment since it drives me nuts to not see defensive backs line up improperly or have the wrong assignment (ie cover a guy on the other side of the field).

I think the NCAA default camera is really good (Madden one not so much). But I would love to see a defensive camera where the camera is flipped 180 degrees. Not like the player lock which is completely zoomed in on your player and rotates around. I hate the camera rotating around. I'd rather have a zoomed out look and a camera locked on a swivel even if it means the ball carrier is an arrow off the screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

But I would love to see a defensive camera where the camera is flipped 180 degrees.

---

Personal opinion, 'cause I've thought of this before, but I think you'd actually hate it. The view works on offense because it can always be behind the QB, or whoever has the ball. Road to Glory "works" (if we can call it that) because you're locked onto a player. That camera view gets a lot uglier when it has to worry about all 22, especially with DBs dropping back.

I'm all for the option ... I just don't think that specific option is as valuable as it sounds.

I voted for Proper Defensive Alignment & Assignment. If players are out of place from the get-go, certain formations/plays are rendered all but useless. Increased roles in assignment would aid in realism and help rectify some of the existing issues in-game.


I would like to see more camera angles as well. Many want a playable broadcast camera and being able to adjust height/pan of existing angles would be beneficial for all IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdj

I would like to see more camera angles as well. Many want a playable broadcast camera and being able to adjust height/pan of existing angles would be beneficial for all IMO.

---

Just a simple custom camera option to let people play the way they want. If there is a bit of slowdown in a tweaked setting so be it. One custom camera for offense one for defense. I seem to recall one of the first dev teams to do this was the NFL Quarterback Club 2000 on the N64 way back in the 20th century.

You can also choose from 16 camera angles (including a Create-a-Cam view)


Seriously if the NCAA team needs some motivation stick that little tidbit on the refrigerator door. This is the company that brought us BMX XXX...

I don't understand why the Defensive Alignments are not fixed anyway. It's a shame.

Proper Def. ALignments win my vote, although it isn't nothing more than a glorified programming flaw. I actually have no problem with the cameras in this game.

Lol, and it's not even close...

personally these two things should never had to be voted against each other because correct alignment should have been part of the game out of the box..A custom camera is needed and has been begged for, for 5 YEARS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdj

However, beginning with NCAA 12, we’ve also seen issues with a 4-3 man defense against a Twins set, one CB won’t come across the formation resulting in a LB covering WR.

---

This has actually been a complaint for years, depending on the offensive formation (some formations has the CB come across, some don't). But it hasn't been as vocal of a complaint as the 4-2-5/3-3-5 because there's been little agreement on what the "fix" is. In real football, there's no hard and fast rule about bringing your CB over to man-up on a Twins receiver. Some teams do it, some teams don't. Part of it involves disguising zone vs man coverage, I believe. Another aspect is that if you bring both CBs over to one side of the formation, the potential for a big play on the other side, with a TE vs LB/S and a lot of open field, exists. Some teams don't move their CB to hedge their bet against a corner route, imo.

I believe the typical adjustment for Twins formations is to switch to zone coverage. Since that's what teams normally do ... nobody seems to agree on what should happen if you don't :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

This has actually been a complaint for years, depending on the offensive formation (some formations has the CB come across, some don't). But it hasn't been as vocal of a complaint as the 4-2-5/3-3-5 because there's been little agreement on what the "fix" is. In real football, there's no hard and fast rule about bringing your CB over to man-up on a Twins receiver. Some teams do it, some teams don't. Part of it involves disguising zone vs man coverage, I believe. Another aspect is that if you bring both CBs over to one side of the formation, the potential for a big play on the other side, with a TE vs LB/S and a lot of open field, exists. Some teams don't move their CB to hedge their bet against a corner route, imo.

I believe the typical adjustment for Twins formations is to switch to zone coverage. Since that's what teams normally do ... nobody seems to agree on what should happen if you don't :)

---

Well, for the teams that I watch (WVU and the Washington Redskins) it's different because of different defensive styles.

In the 3-3-5, WVU brings one of the safeties up into the box to cover the inside receiver, but, usually, plays zone anyway so I'm not sure it's much different against Twins looks.

In the 3-4 (Redskins' defensive front), they rotate LBs and safeties over to shade toward that side if it's motioned into that look, but the CB will line up across from them if they come out in that look.

But I definitely think you're correct on the assumption that a typical adjustment to that formation is some type of zone coverage, especially if it's a motion into that formation.

we need to vote on something that needs to be done no matter what ?

why is eye candy being pitted against better gameplay?

of course alignment.

For a lot of people that don't like the current camera, it's not "eye candy", it affects gameplay and how they want to play/see their game.

And, contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe there are any game companies that allow their consumers to have the influence of "done no matter what". The government is the only "customer" I know with that power.