Printable View
I don't necessarily disagree with the basis of this discussion, however, do you not remember EA's viseo last year about Locomotion? The one that showed the LB in coverage? The point was that a drastic change of direction would require a stop and re-acceleration. Now, I'm not saying EA nailed it with 11, but I'd hardly say they were bragging to the other extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymo76
Glad to see you back in the mix. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher 8
Last year was a small step in the right direction but quite a few of us want it to go a lot further. I did a poll on OS. Many liked it the way it was but many also wanted more. I wish more people voted but you can see the results from an October poll with only 31 votes. 4 wanted LESS momentum. 14 liked it the way it was and 13 wanted more. I would love it if you community guys could ask them about providing an option or slider in this area. Being able to select PS2/old school momentum would be awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
http://www.operationsports.com/forum...-momentum.html
There's no doubt they're trying, and getting really close imo. Locomotion slowed the game down a ton from '10, which I think was the year where offense was really touted. I think the only major problems in this gen are simply the cap at which a player can stride (based on the virtual environment he is surrounded in), and then the "weight" of the player not being fully acknowledged by the engine (IRL terms anyway). We'll really have to break it down when the game drops, cause I don't think that players will cover as much ground as it looks like once all this is finalized together with any momentum tweaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
The concept itself is simple, but it is most likely a difficult maneuver with the current player models. I suppose in theory the easiest thing to do would be decrease the size of all player models, but I don't know how realistic that is. With the current models, basically it makes sense that if you bring the yardage gap at which a faster player can stride down, his legs will have to move faster to maintain the same speed in a 40 yard dash (since the game has clawed and scratched to get players to a realistic time with the current stride lengths).
But 2 questions burn in my mind for this issue. First, can they do this for just certain players? Mid speed TE's and bigger players don't have the problem, as their strides are considerably shorter and actually are not in need of a change imo. And second, would the momentum of this engine allow them to do it realistically without having to redo the entire running and movement system, based on all the work they've put into getting the times to a realistic level?
Therefore, with the game the way it is, I would think if you change the cap of yards per stride, you're going to affect every player in the game because it seems that their stride lengths are directly tied in some fashion to their spd rating, so you're going to lower everybody's stride length and that would be bad the other way. I don't know if they can untie a group of ratings (whatever it would be, example being everybody rated 88 or above in speed depending on what players stride too far) and then mo-cap a fast group and tie it back in to the current system or maybe reinvent the wheel, mo-cap all types of players and take your longest strides and cap it on the virtual field, but it seems like a difficult thing to do.
Maybe I am way off base and it's simpler, but it's late and my brain can't comprehend what technical codes and numbers are involved in such a process. I don't know much about video game programming, so this is my uneducated guess as to what would have to happen.
So, next year in the TGT Wishlist Tournament, would this be listed as
1) Smaller player models
or
2) More realistic stride lengths?
Also, Coaching Carousel is going to win again so it's all about what's going to finish second (special teams overhaul maybe?)
Look at this example of zone coverage in the G4 video. The defender in coverage at the 1:55 mark bounced back and forth twice with little penalty at all for change of direction. The fact this video was showcased as a positive is not a good thing imo. You could never do something like that in the PS2 version. #ClassicMomentumOption
That FS on the pick really moved each way without getting penalized at all. Interesting posts coming up here right now regarding this. I'd like to see this look more fluid in the future. I think EA has something here with their locomotion but we can tell that it needs to go more in depth to really "look and feel" better.
Yeah, immediately when the trailer came out, this stuck out to me like a sore thumb. what i think happened is that the devs mocapped a bunch of subtle locomotion movements for 11, not just straight on 40 yd dashes, but lateral movements, backpedaling etc. its been the case where the ai is not competent enough to have cb's defend wr's using their backpedaling skills and then accelerating to where the receiver is cutting. im sure the ai in ncaa 12 has definitely received some upgrades, but it also seems like these little movements (backpedaling, sidetracking, etc) have been sped up to an unrealistic speed in order to compensate for the poor a.i. i dont wanna sound like im bashing the game at all, but this simply destroys the believability of the locomotion system. weve already discussed how on last gen, players abided by the locomotion system put in that game. even if it wasn't completely realistic, (even though i thought it was pretty close) the fact is that last gen had players abide by their system, and it was believable. i hope that the new defenses in 12 aren't improved mainly due to the sped up "lateral movements/backpedaling animations" but because of good ai.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
also, in response to a bunch of your guys thoughts, i think smaller player models are the way to go. however, this would be quite a massive undertaking. animations would need to be completely reworked, and the football would then look really massive lol, and need to be changed. but i think in the long run, this is def. the way to go even if it means sacrificing other things that they had planned for next year.
with that said, smaller player models, while it would seem to be a purely aesthetic "feature," would actually have a lot really good inherent qualities that would really help gameplay. i've already gone over a bunch of these things, and im sure there are more. ultimately though, small player models would actually make the game play more realistically without any "core gameplay" needing to be changed. it would make the game so much more wide open (important; wide open gameplay doesn't mean NO DEFENSE) and improve the game a TON.
Has EA updated Rutgers Stadium at all?
Their first attempt at the new stadium was a pretty poor effort in recreating the real thing.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...er/Stadium.png
the key words would be BALANCE. The game would become much more balanced spacially, allowing the offense to make decisions in space, but also allowing the defense to be a major factor in the current form of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverines05
I know there's not a lot of people that plays RTG mode but I really hope they did some work to it I would love to actually player in an under armour game and be able to announce the school you decide during the game
Just keep in mind that any video you see is from a WIP. I'm not saying that the retail version is going to miraculously cure all ills, but a WIP is a WIP. There is still work to be done.
yeah thats ideally what im hoping for, but im not sure if the devs are aware of the stride length issue. do you guys keep in touch with them when youre not at tiburon directly helping out? if so, considering you guys are like the intermediaries, could you ask them about it and see if anything can be done before release. i figure the sooner they know, the better chance they have to fix it before launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
We do, but I'm not sold on why it occurs. It seems to me that the longer strides are the easiest/only way they've got to simulate faster players. In turn, having fast players cover the same distance, in the same time frame, with more (but shorter) strides could actually make them more elusive. If a guy takes 3 steps to cover X yards instead os 2 steps you've increased his opportunities to change direction by 50%. That could, IMO, have a drastic negative effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverines05
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
That's what I think too, stride length is a direct tie in to speed.
However I have a completely different opinion on the effect, but it wouldn't be 3 strides for every 2 currently, it'd be more like 2 1/2 for 2. I have 3 variances that does/would make this a positive over a negative.
1. Tighter Animations: Because of the shortened strides, all ball carrier moves naturally just a become little tighter and a little more up-field rather than lateral, making moves seem more realistic. We've all heard the phrase "get north and south" for a ball carrier, and this would essentially do that to the game. It might be subtle but would make a huge difference.
The other variance here will be making sure that weight is properly carried with the faster/shiftier ball carriers when slowing down, stopping and moving laterally.
2. New Defender "slip/juke" animations: IRL if a defender gets juked, he rarely actually slips sideways (like they do on the game), unless he is on a slick field. Instead more often than not a defender gets "stuck" for just a split second planting in the ground, leaning or half stepping the wrong way, and either reaches out or lunges at the ball carrier. Only a single 1/2 step is the difference between solid and weak contact on a ball carrier most of the time, but only the shiftiest backs can make a guy miss completely.
The other variance here is making sure that weight is properly carried to defenders in pursuit. If a ball carrier suddenly slows down in the open field after the defender has the angle, that angle should change and allow for a ball carrier to move laterally and cut back across his face, IF the ball carrier has the lateral and acceleration skills to do it. *In this case the defender should stay on his path for no less than 2 to 3 steps depending on his pursuit ratings. I personally would love to see a "Change of Direction" rating added to the game with a direct tie in to the weight of the player, giving the game an added and natural "weight", and making the plays I am describing possible.
3. New Collision Engine: In the current build of the game, a juke animation results in a defender "sliding" past the ball carrier, no matter when or where the juke happens in relation to the defender. Maybe the guys that played the game can say if the new collision system removing suction from tackling alleviated this issue? If so all we'd need are a few new animations and BOOM!
I'd say for an issue like player momentum that what we see is what we'll get 99.9% of the time. The reason I say this is because it isn't an error. It's a conscious decision to have the game play this way. The devs want super control over the players and the game has played like this for the last 5 years. The only way we'll see more player momentum is if they offer us an option in the game because the default settings won't be different from the videos we've seen in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
Isn't this what the agility rating is suppose to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrah
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
Just thought of a question after listening to the podcast (great job btw). When it comes to 2nd hits on the ball carriers has there been any logic added for fumbles? If you're in the grasp does it matter if you 'protect the ball'?