Are D-Fronts reversed?

[Ushikawa]

Not sure if this is cosmetic in the gamelogs but it seems like the LDE is lining up over the LT and RDE over the RT (the reverse of the philsoophy pdfs and common sense). The weight issue for the 1 and 3 techs seem to also suggest that perhaps the entire DL is reversed? Anyone else have insight into this? Are the LBs also reversed?

This is not the subject of 1 or 2 instances but I looked at 40 or so pass pressures and in most cases by comparing the guy who got the pressure and the OL with the negative mark or sack allowed noted confirmed this reversal.

Anyone else seen this? We know it won't be fixed but perhaps we should make it more widely-known for competitiveness' sake is it is a strong suspicion.

[Ushikawa]

Just to clarify I see this with a 43 under front but not with a True 34.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

I'll look for this in my test league.

[Ushikawa]

I am far from convinced 100% JJ but found the most compelling evidence by just searching for "hurr" in the game logs.

There is obviously a group dynamic to pass pressure and protection so the negative mark and pressure credit could just be poorly randomized.

But again the fact that the weights on the 1 and 3 techs are reversed seems to give it a bit more credence.

[Ushikawa]

I also feel like some sort of structural error in the engine like this could lead to Jim's perceived abandonment of patching the game but that is purely speculative.

[MIJB#19]

Did you also look at the relative strength of the pass rusher and pass protector?
If your 'LDE' is the best pass rusher and the opposing LT is a pass blocking weakness on the line, then it's more likely that the LDE will be assigned the hurry and the opposing LT will be assigned as the one on the OL making the bad play.

[Ushikawa]

There is some of that but the LDE shouldn't be bearing the LT on any passing play

[MalcPow]

I just took a quick look at some game logs and I don't see anything conclusive. There are plenty of plays where a sack by the RDE is allowed by the LT for example, including in 43 Under schemes. The +/- system is an interesting new layer that I won't pretend to fully understand, but I can't really see anything that would lead me to believe there's an obvious reversal of the fronts. I won't pretend I did anything too rigorous, but I saw mostly what I've come to expect, which is a kind of muddled complexity that doesn't assign blame/outcomes in the most superficially intuitive way that "alignment matchups" might imply.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

I've found something else while looking for this issue..

The SLB and WLB are switched or playing on the same side.

In the help file;

I'm using the TRUE34

Weak -Side Linebacker (O): Lines up in the 60-technique
inside the tight end’s position on the weak side and is responsible for containment. The TE lines up on the strong side unless in a 122.

Strong-Side Linebacker (O): Lines up in the 9
-technique outside the tight end, and is responsible for containment on the strong side.

Are they both lining up on the TE side? When I test this I find that, you need to put your best pass rusher at SLB not WLB.

I feel the Defensive side of the game is broken and I really hope Jim will patch it. All we need is the ability to choose who can blitz and when they blitz, like in all his other versions.

[tzach]

I don't think they are lining up on the same side -- it's just the wording of the manual that could be clarified a bit.

I think what is meant is that the WLB lines up on the weak side, inside the virtual position where a TE *would be lined up* were he actually lined up on the weak side (c.f. in all formations he will be lined up in the strong side -- for 122 you will also have a TE on the weak side). I.e., for a right-handed offense like in FOF8, the SLB lines up on the defensive left side in the 9 tech, and the WLB lines up on the right side of the defense in the 6-tech. this is exactly what is depicted in the True 34 charts in the defensive manual.

IMHO, I don't think the defensive side is as broken as some people have depicted in other posts. I game plan defense in almost every MP game, and I find it complex enough the way it is. Yep, I understand that people want to design their own defensive scheme and that it would be fun, but in most cases these plays would fail miserably, especially if the AI is calling the plays. selecting the player that blitzes only makes a difference in SP if the user calls the plays live -- but it is already too easy to call the plays in SP against the AI. I feel that the way the blitzing scheme works now encompasses a lot of different scenarios, which can be investigated in SP with relative ease by looking at the game logs, and then implemented in MP game plans.

the one thing that I would like to see improved, and that in my opinion makes the game slightly unbalanced towards the offense, is more game situations in the defensive game plan. i.e., while the offense can select different plays for 3-4 and 3-13, I am forced to have the same defensive play call when game planning on D. but as jim mentions in the manual, this would make the game plan process a lot longer.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by tzach

I don't think they are lining up on the same side -- it's just the wording of the manual that could be clarified a bit.

I think what is meant is that the WLB lines up on the weak side, inside the virtual position where a TE *would be lined up* were he actually lined up on the weak side (c.f. in all formations he will be lined up in the strong side -- for 122 you will also have a TE on the weak side). I.e., for a right-handed offense like in FOF8, the SLB lines up on the defensive left side in the 9 tech, and the WLB lines up on the right side of the defense in the 6-tech. this is exactly what is depicted in the True 34 charts in the defensive manual.

IMHO, I don't think the defensive side is as broken as some people have depicted in other posts. I game plan defense in almost every MP game, and I find it complex enough the way it is. Yep, I understand that people want to design their own defensive scheme and that it would be fun, but in most cases these plays would fail miserably, especially if the AI is calling the plays. selecting the player that blitzes only makes a difference in SP if the user calls the plays live -- but it is already too easy to call the plays in SP against the AI. I feel that the way the blitzing scheme works now encompasses a lot of different scenarios, which can be investigated in SP with relative ease by looking at the game logs, and then implemented in MP game plans.

the one thing that I would like to see improved, and that in my opinion makes the game slightly unbalanced towards the offense, is more game situations in the defensive game plan. i.e., while the offense can select different plays for 3-4 and 3-13, I am forced to have the same defensive play call when game planning on D. but as jim mentions in the manual, this would make the game plan process a lot longer.

Adding to that in defense you can just call 72 plays while in offense you can call more than the double of 72.

[tzach]

Originally Posted by Sharkn20

Adding to that in defense you can just call 72 plays while in offense you can call more than the double of 72.

well said Shark, but I still think it's mostly ok. at least I have enough fun game planning on D! I mean, with the current game plan my team will respond in the way I want if the offense shows up in 122 or 221 in third and long.

I meant what I said above in the best possible way, JJ -- I wasn't being critic of your post. I acknowledge that others would like to see a defensive overhaul.

[Sharkn20]

Originally Posted by tzach

well said Shark, but I still think it's mostly ok. at least I have enough fun game planning on D! I mean, with the current game plan my team will respond in the way I want if the offense shows up in 122 or 221 in third and long.

I meant what I said above in the best possible way, JJ -- I wasn't being critic of your post. I acknowledge that others would like to see a defensive overhaul.

Definitely I am enjoy GP in defense too! But always constructively, the game could go to even a higer level with some of the suggestions above.

[A-Husker-4-Life]

No prob Tzach, I think we are all trying to figure out what Jim is doing on Defense because it's such a difference from the old version.